Sunday morning is a dangerous time to answer email...
I actually think this idea, suggested by Andy and then supported by Larry
- I think it's a bit of an awful idea. :) Sorry. Maybe not an awful idea,
but one in need of fairly strong refinement. I cite as an example a
currently newsworthy execution of a similar idea which has turned into a
humourous mess. I'm an astronomer, and the current handling by the IAU
(International Astronomical Union) of planet designation has hit the news.
At the end of the recent IAU get together there was a vote on planet
definition. Some very small fraction of attendees voted (~300) and the
assumption is by attending you must have interest/expertise (not a
fantastic assumption) but they fit the criteria below ("self-identify as
possessing relevant expertise, lack of bias, etc."). The weird selection
effects of the method have brought the result into question (although I
think many of us who were not in Prague are quite happy with the result).
The dissenters are loud and thrilled with the sloppy process. Sure, we can
fall back on the democratic defense (those who care enough to show up
decide, and that's enough.). I think we can do better.
Larry, I don' t think that "strong collaboration" is excluded by a more
thoughtful back and forth between editors and authors. There isn't a
requirement that there be singular authors conversing with singular
editors.
Flipping through some conversations about editting (specifically the
mention of a special section on the talk page for editorial comment) -
this seems like a prime corner to tuck away "reviewer comments". IE -
"This page would flow more coherently to the novice if a section were
entered explaining X in this location." or "I think a clarification might
be helpful here." I realize Larry might call this top down, except that
the dialogue has to happen somewhere, and if it doesn't I'm not sure what
the point of "editors" is. Since they are just suggestions, and not
requirements, they would be available to be ignored at will. To speak to
the referenced model - sometimes our mentors ask of us things we wouldn't
think to do and don't understand at the time, but it makes it better. It
is my understanding that part of introducing editors is to introduce some
"led-collaboration". Every one understands this concept intuitively - we
get better working on something with people who are better at it than we
are. The highest common denominator allows us to meet our potential. For
this to succeed, experts must be used. If you invite experts, and then
ask them to stand at the edge and watch, you won't have them for very
long.
This hits the very core of the problem, I think. Let's talk for the moment
of professionals and amateurs (using it in a very complimentary way, as
amateurs enhance all of our professions). Amateurs bring time to a topic
that professionals rarely can afford. Experts bring the ability to move
the conversation to a "higher"/more accurate/more complete/closer to the
truth place (at least much of the time). Through what mechanisim can this
pressure be applied without alienating the amateurs? (ie, those who do
much of the work, and bring the energy, as any comparison between say WP &
nupedia has demonstrated.) In the current airy definition, it seems to me
like there is still a high likelihood of experts wandering off quickly.
There are a limited number of experts, and a relatively unlimited number
of enthusiasts, many who are exhausting. And many who contribute
brilliantly. If what the experts must do is constantly sort these piles
while not alienating the exhausting ones? ha. It will be over.
Assuming that "experts" will tend towards editting rather than authoring
(an unstated? although raised in the forums issue), I think there should
be a clear place for editors to apply some pressure without feeling like
they are over stepping their bounds.
As for editorial dispute - I stick with my earlier suggestion. I think a
small panel (3-5) of randomly selected editors as mediators/decision
makers is this most efficient and effective way to address these disputes
(be they editor-author or editor-editor). I think that the salient points
get brought up in a small group and don't get lost in the random noise of
a large group. I also think it allows more people, in the long run, to be
part of the decision making process (as opposed to throwing everything
open and then deciding those with the most free time have the most
influence, in the end).
Sarah
> Andy Carpenter (a philosopher, I worked with him on Nupedia five-six
years
> ago!) suggested: "An discussion of reasonable but self-directed length
followed by a decision determined by majority vote, with those who
self-identify as possessing relevant expertise, lack of bias, etc.
choosing
> to participate in the dicussion and vote."
>
> I don't mean to sound disrespectful of anyone, but this is actually the
only
> proposal that might solve the problem! I mean, without actually
dismantling
> the fundamental proposal for CZ and replacing a wiki system with
something
> closer to the old Nupedia system--which I don't want to do.
>
> Simply taking a majority vote of editors "who self-identify as
possessing
> relevant expertise, lack of bias, etc." does on first glance seem to
satisfy
> the constraints (i.e., (1)-(8) listed on
> https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-October/000520.html).
>
> I'll save a more in-depth review for later, but anyway, thanks, Andy!
>
> I would underscore something he also says: "I think that, for our
endeavor
> to work, we need to develop a strong desgree of respect for each other
and
> trust of each other's judgment." I actually think we did a pretty good job
> of developing that sort of respect when working on Nupedia, but working
in
> a
> strongly collaborative way, on a wiki, is a different kettle of fish.
Still, I do remember the early days of Wikipedia itself, particularly
the
> first six months or so; I remember being amazed at how collegial we
were,
> and for a while I was thinking that perhaps we had found a way to work
together online that somehow was troll-proof. I was completely wrong,
of
> course. But, well, CZ could be different, and there's reasons to think
it
> might.
>
> Hasan Murtaza actually says something very similar: "I would furthur
add,
> that the creation of a community of editors who agree with each other
enough
> to cooperate, should be the primary goal of the citizendium project." I
agree, of course (who could disagree?). But how do we *do* that?
Having
> a
> robust neutrality policy, which all contributors are committed to, will
go
> a
> long way (as it has on Wikipedia, despite its problems). But editors,
working on the same article, *will* have disputes that can't be resolved
by
> reference to that or any policy. How *should* they be resolved? I know
that Andy and Hasan *aren't* saying this, but I'd just remind people:
saying
> "everybody love each other" isn't a feasible way to achieve world peace.
>
> Jon Awbrey wrote: "We should not have to make up new rules for resolving
disputes, as the norms that seasoned researchers and responsible
scholars
> already observe in practice will serve us as well as any maxims." Well,
I'm
> wondering what norms, in particular, you're referring to. We do have a
practical problem to solve, namely, what to do when two or more editors
(I
> mean people with Editor privileges, as opposed to Author privileges)
disagree and can't be reconciled. It doesn't help to say "follow the
old
> norms." Well, what are the old norms, and what process would those
norms
> have us follow? And notice that it's not a matter of making up new *rules*
> but instead making up a *procedure*. The *rules or norms* might be in
various ways the same as old ones; but we still need a clear
> decisionmaking
> *process* in any case. So what's the procedure (new *or* old)?
>
> Jon later suggested that perhaps we're trying to be "somehow exempt from
the
> norms of the outside world," which is just completely wrong (at least,
about
> *my* views). The problem is there is no pre-established way to apply
"the
> norms of the outside world" to something that has never been tried
before,
> at least on the scale we envision: to have experts collectively manage a
large body of encyclopedia articles written in "the wiki way."
>
> David Goodman had a couple of intriguing suggestions. First, we should
avoid "over-defining process" and "not making the process a formal part
of
> CZ." That sounds similar to Jon's suggestion, and I have the same
reaction.
> *If* we are to allow editors to make decisions about articles in their
areas
> of specialization, *and* no editors are assigned to particular articles, so
> that collaborating editors will inevitably have to arrive at decisions
about
> the same articles *jointly*, then it seems we can't not have *some* sort of
> process for settling disputes. If we leave the process undefined, then
it
> seems we end up with Wikipedia's faux solution: we insist that people
come
> to a mutually agreeable decision (even when they can't), so that the
decision will be whatever the most *stubborn* editor wants it to be.
The
> result is that disputes tend to drive away people, leaving the most
persistent and bull-headed. Sound familiar, ex-Wikipedians?
>
> Second, David says: "I have the feeling that many WP disputes arose because
> there was no way to claim authorship for a particular view except to
fight
> for it. If we sign our work, this will be less necessary." I'm not sure
what signing work would entail, so I won't comment further. If you're
not
> suggesting that we assign articles to particular authors, who then sign
them, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.
>
> Next, a hearty welcome to Susan Awbrey from Oakland University! Some
comments on her suggestions:
>
> "1. Have three 'areas' on the site....an open archive of approved articles,
> a place for working papers, and a talk page for the articles"
>
> That's precisely the plan, in fact! So hopefully you'll be happy on
that
> score.
>
> "2. Allow authors to post an article in the working papers section but
don't
> allow anyone else to change it...others would make suggestions for
improvements of the article on the talk page...the author would decide
if
> the changes were warranted."
>
> Well, then we're not talking about a wiki at all anymore, or strong
collaboration. I would simply try to persuade you of the enormous
benefits
> of strong collaboration. I won't do that here, because for most people
on
> the list, I'd be preaching to the choir. I've tried to explain this in
a
> few places, however:
>
> http://www.citizendium.org/how_openness_works.html (I still haven't revised
> this essay using comments from this very list, by the way...I intend to
though...)
>
> http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#PartI (just the first
part
> of "Text and Collaboration")
>
> Finally, several people (including the people behind the Encyclopedia of
Earth) have told me that my memoir of the early days of Wikipedia sort
of
> opened their eyes to the power of the wiki model:
>
> http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss
>
> For those of you inclined to suggest assigned authorship, I would have
you
> read the latter in particular.
>
> Anyway: granted, if we *don't* collaborate on work so much, then there
won't
> be the same editorial dispute resolution problem(s) to solve!
>
> "3. I have also been frustrated by not being able to find articles on
the
> web that were presented at conferences in the past. They don't get
published many times and the conference sites only keep them up for a
short
> period of time. If you invited people to enter conference papers that
are
> no longer on the web into the open access archieve of approved articles,
then having their articles available on the web might give them
incentive
> to
> use and particpate in the site."
>
> Well, what you have in mind here sounds exactly like what David Marshall
(David91) has proposed on the Citizendium forums
> (http://smf.citizendium.org/ sorry I can't find the exact place). I
have
> little doubt that as we get a bunch of paper-publishing types (i.e.,
academics and scientists) together, some of them might very well want to
create an open access paper repository. That's a different project from
an
> encyclopedia project, but I have no objection whatsoever in principle to
the
> Citizendium Foundation getting behind such a thing. I simply think it
should be something that fits into a needed niche. There are many open
access paper repositories, pre-print services, etc., already online. I
wouldn't want to create another one just for the fun of it; there needs
to
> be a specific purpose served, and off the top of my head I can't think
of
> one for CZ (not yet anyway).
>
> Sarah Tuttle (welcome, too!) makes a suggestion similar to Susan's: "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." And my response is similar,
too: of course, if we eliminate strongly collaborative authority a la
the
> wiki process, then we eliminate the problem of editorial dispute resolution
> explained in my original post.
>
> But, frankly, I do not take the elimination of strong collaboration as
worth
> considering at great length. I mean, I would have to see a good
argument
> that we should reconsider strong collaboration, and especially an answer to
> the objection that top-down and/or assigned work is simply not as efficient
> as strongly collaborative work. This is why Wikipedia had 20,000
articles
> after a year, and Nupedia had about two dozen (even if it had a few hundred
> "in the hopper"). Anyway, this is why I have "The Citizendium will be a
wiki" as item I.4. in the "Statement of Fundamental Policies." I don't
mean
> to say an encyclopedia can't or shouldn't be done in another way, but
it's
> the way I propose to start CZ.
>
> Any other solutions? The problem again:
>
> https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-October/000520.html
>
> --Larry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Citizendium-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
