I'm a bit new to this conversation, so excuse me if I'm treading where I shouldn't.
It seems like by mashing together two (fairly) servicable models, we might come up with something quite fair, documented, reversable and solid. If editors edit in a process similar to the academic review process, ie, by submiting documented challenges/inquiries/clarifications to the author, then the process of editing is well documented. If there is an appeal then send it to the appelate court - let's say three editors, one of whom has some expertise in the area in question. Majority rule is documented, as is the dissenting opinion if there is one. That way, if at some point the issue is revisited, the meat of the discussion and decision is easily referenced. Three is enough to give fair consideration while not overly burdening the editorial staff, and by randomly choosing all the editors (from the whole pool in the case of two, and from a smaller pool for the third) any personal/political issues that have surfaced should be easy to spot and move past. Curious to see how it all turns out. Sarah Tutle _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
