I like the idea of editors approving the work of authors. Also the idea of
constables to provide some discipline when there are conflicts between author
and editors, which is a good idea too. But there is something missing. I think
there should be a mentor category. This role should provide new author with
assistant and guidelines for creating there work.
Mentor can help keep authors from being discouraged because there work may be
rejected on some technical grounds. Maybe the editors in a certain field
require that all articles on a certain subject be similar. A new author may
attempt to add an article and the editor may reject it because it is not like
the others. A separate role to assist the new author can be very helpful. The
authors are not paid employees but volunteers and we should consider that there
time is very valuable and we dont want to insist they spend long hour just
trying to figure out how to contribute to CZ. Likewise the editors are people
that should spend most of there time thinking about the content that was
produced. If something is not up to standard let the mentor go help the author.
This way the editor can spend more time developing the area of expertise they
are responsible for.
Marek Zyskowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.marek.qc.ca
Zach Wrote:
I'm not Larry, but here's my take (whether you want it or not).
The idea is that the editors lead the authors in a sense. Editors have the
power to "approve" pages, and editors have the final word in content disputes.
Authors still are pretty essential (because they still do a lot of the
researching and copy-editing and also will outnumber editors). Authors will
likely have more time (since they will also outnumber editors), and it is after
all a "citizen's compendium". There are plenty of things that authors can do,
and just because someone doesn't have a Ph.D. or a Masters doesn't mean that
they aren't smart people who can help the project a great deal.
The way this differs from Wikipedia is that on Wikipedia, experts have exactly
zero advantages over non-experts. If you and your worst student both worked on
a Wikipedia article, he could argue with you to Hell and back over some point
of content (on which he's clearly wrong), and be allowed to get away with it.
In fact, he'd probably win by virtue of having the most free time. On
Citizendium, you would have the say on the content (especially with sources
you'd find), and if he was too much of a pain in the butt, you could call a
constable and he'd "drop the banhammer".
The other way we differ is in separation of powers and definition of roles. On
Wikipedia, the administrators handle both the content aspects and the
discipline aspects. They ruled the roost and some of them wound up abusing
that*. On Citizendium, we have a separation of powers between the editors and
the constables. This should reduce abuse.
Lastly, by using real names, we're helping to foster a different environment.
Now that I know you as Professor Truncellito, and you know me as Zachary
Pruckowski, it changes the relationship in a positive way. It's a different
atmosphere than one where you're Truncster and I'm AlpineBovine**. It's an
atmosphere that encourages cooperation and discourages vandalism.
I hope some of this helps.
Zach Pruckowski
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at marek.qc.ca
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
