User:D. Matt Innis/CurrentDraft/RevisedStructure

My CUrrent Draft

This draft document shall serve as the basis for public discussion. It represents a compromise amongst the drafters, who may have different individual opinions on some aspects of this Charter.

Preamble

Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally Preamble revise [e] remove "update" [e] revise [e] as per Russell, agree to 'this' and okay with removing update [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] "agree to a social" ==> "agree to this social" [e] revise [e] other word for "update"? / "a covenant" to "this covenent" [e] Preamble Revise (4) [e] Discussion and comments: From the comments, it looks like the problem with the preamble was with "update" and "a social". Let's just change that first. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, in the interest of getting this part of the process started, let's begin the discussion here and then move it to the proper place above as soon as we have a good mechanism for placing it in the collapsible table. What about for the preamble: Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. and then leave the definition of "Citizen" for article 1, which could read something like: Registered contributors are called "Citizens" --Joe Quick 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC) So, for now, we all should be able to add our votes throughout the process until we have a majority. Just demarcate your vote with a (*). If you want to suggest further chagnes, feel free and everyone can vote again. D. Matt Innis 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Joe's above formulations for preamble and article 1. D. Matt Innis 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) As a definition of what CZ is, the preamble should state our role in the production of knowledge (e.g., "update"). I would suggest "create," "write," or "author" knowledge or something else along those lines. To say that we just "collect and structure knowledge" makes us sounds like dry indexers. I am willing to go along with moving the definition of citizen to Article I. Shouldn't we also say that the Citizendium is an online community? We don't even identify it as a website. We could be writing a free paperback for what this says. Note that by article 4 the charter is calling it a "site." I propose the following: Jones 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. I like 'create knowledge'. It certainly is a different persective than WP. However, does the 'create knowledge' tends to open us up to 'original research' which I am not totally against, especially when we are talking about 'original synthesis of knowledge', but what if this opens us up to cranks? D. Matt Innis 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Sure, but our saving grace is our approval process. We disavow everything on this site that is not approved. See this. But CZ is different, we will claim that our approved content is reliable. Cranks will need to get their articles through the approval process. I doubt that is very likely. If the EC is wary of having crank articles gathering cobwebs, they can come up with a recycling policy. Jones 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That sounds good to me. I'll agree to Russell Jones' version. D. Matt Innis 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with moving the definition of "Citizens" downwards. Two points on Russell's version: (1) we now have "create(d)" twice, and (2) still no mention of it taking place online. So I would go for the following change in the second sentence: The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. --Daniel Mietchen 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree Russell D. Jones 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [outdent] I have the same icky feeling (that's a technical term, people) about "create" that I had about "update". I'm certainly not going to stand in the way if you all agree, but how about "foster" instead? That's the last complaint I'll make about it, if you all disagree.. oh yea, foster is better.. or cultivate. agree to Daniel's addition, i.e. "built online" -Joe Quick 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. -Joe Quick 00:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Russell D. Jones 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Part I: Citizenship and Editorship

Article 1

Participation at the Citizendium shall be restricted to Citizens.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 1 accept [e] [e] revise [e] another word than restricted [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] restrict? how about "participants shall be called citizens" [e] revise [e] is this necessary? The definition of "Citizens" is already in the preamble; real restrictions are in article 2 [e] 1 Not Accepted (3 revise; 3 accept) [e] Discussion and comments: Registered participants shall be called "Citizens." I agree with this ("Joe's revision from above section") D. Matt Innis 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That was totally off the top of my head, so I'm not wedded to it if there is a better way to word it. I was thinking maybe: 'Registered contributors shall be called "Citizens".' I would agree to either formulation, but I'm also open to other suggestions. -Joe Quick 17:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Maybe even: "Registered users shall be called "Citizens" -Joe Quick 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) What's the point of the qualifier "Registered?" Will we have participants who are not registered? Try this: Jones 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Collaborators in the Citizendium shall be called "Citizens." I have no problem with that and remain open. D. Matt Innis 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Ooh, I like "collaborators". I inserted "registered" to draw a clear distinction between people who actually join the project and those who partner with us or use our work or whatever; Howard had mentioned something about making such a distinction. If the requirement to be eligible to vote in community referenda and elections is to be a Citizen, it should be very clear where the line is between Citizen and non-Citizen. -Joe Quick 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see, as in "registered users", duh. I like "collaborators" too, but since so much of our content ends up on WP "collaborators" would mean them too. I'll revert to Joe's formulation. Russell D. Jones 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Registered users shall be called "Citizens". -Joe Quick 17:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Russell D. Jones 15:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. D. Matt Innis 21:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Not convinced that "called" is the best word here. What about "Registered users shall be referred to as Citizens"? --Daniel Mietchen 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Good, too. Agree with either D. Matt Innis 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Okay. agree. Russell D. Jones 01:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Daniel's is better. Agree to that. Joe Quick 04:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC) By the way, Citizendian has some merit too. --Daniel Mietchen 10:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Daniel's "shall be referred to..." Howard C. Berkowitz 16:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 2

Citizenship shall be open to anyone who

1. meets a few basic conditions as defined by the Management Council,
2. registers and contributes under his or her real name, and
3. agrees to the Citizendium's fundamental principles as defined by the Charter.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 2 accept [e] [e] revise [e] 1 too easily abused [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] possibly delete "registers" [e] 2 accept (4) [e] Discussion and comments: I'm thinking that if we give the Management Council the right to decide who a Citizen is (without limiting that power), it may be too easy for them to vote out people like Scientologists without having to change the charter. Then the next thing you know it will be homeopaths, then chiropractors :). I'm suggesting that we only have numbers 2 and 3 as requirements for citizenship. D. Matt Innis 19:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) At this point we should delineate the rights of citizens. No citizen shall have their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, age (but see the saving clause wherein we should state that except where barred or limited by local law, the terms of this charter shall be enforced to the greatest degree possible), etc. But I do think it important that we assign responsibility to the MC for enrolling new members. Of course, real names and agreement to the charter are perfectly acceptable. Jones 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I think that works for me. I can agree to that. D. Matt Innis 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Jones (No Citizen shall...). That's what Article 3 should be doing but doesn't do. Just fix the agreement between the singular noun and the plural pronoun. ;-) --Joe Quick 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Citizenship shall be open to anyone who meets a few basic conditions as defined by the Management Council, registers and contributes under his or her real name and agrees to the Citizendium's fundamental principles as defined by this Charter. Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated, nor shall any dispute be resolved, nor shall any official or council of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise) on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL. Are there any others? What about CZ status? Aside from deferring to expertise, shall we permit bodies to discriminate against authors in favor of editors? Having bars against discrimination on the basis of profession and education may interfere with the promotion of expertise. Russell D. Jones 15:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Politics or political affiliation. I like this formulation. -Joe Quick 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC) To me, the second sentence in Russell's suggestion is too ambiguous (for instance, it could be read as "Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated.") and should be broken up in to smaller pieces. --Daniel Mietchen 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Please make a suggestion. Russell D. Jones 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Also I want the real-names' clause back in. Russell D. Jones 11:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I agree to Jones' version with the real names in it as well. I think Jones' version is pretty unambiguous really. It says a lot and it says exactly what we want. I don't need it broken up, but I'll listen to alternatives. D. Matt Innis 12:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC) The real names are in the preamble, so I am not sure we need them here again. But if you think so, I will go along. Also not sure whether we can consider the "fundamental principles" (a phrasing from very early on in the drafting process) to be defined in the Charter now. Furthermore, legal limits like minimal age for participation in online platforms are now covered by Article 41. As for simplifying, here is a try: Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions as defined by the Management Council and agrees to the policy principles defined by this Charter. Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL. Nor shall any official or governing body of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise), or any dispute resolved, on the basis of any of these criteria. Probably needs further brushing but should be easier to parse than the previous version. --Daniel Mietchen 19:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. D. Matt Innis 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC) After another look, I would prefer to keep Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions as defined by the Management Council and agrees to the policy principles defined by this Charter. for article 2 and to move Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, residence, age, name, or URL. Nor shall any official or governing body of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise), or any dispute resolved, on the basis of any of these criteria. to article 3. --Daniel Mietchen 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, Do it. D. Matt Innis 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) <undent> Here's a revision with the real names back in. There was a long debate in U.S. legal history about whether or not the Preamble to the Constitution was part of the Constitution or not. I'd rather not have that debate at CZ. Better to be clear and redundant. Russell D. Jones 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions for participation as defined by the Management Council—including registering according to the real names policy—and agrees to the policy principles defined abide by this Charter. Agree. --Russell D. Jones 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'll think about it if you come up with a better word than 'opening'. We've already used register. D. Matt Innis 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC) How's that? Russell D. Jones 02:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) too easy D. Matt Innis 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. D. Matt Innis 02:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Joe Quick 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC) If there is ambiguity as to whether the preamble is part of the Charter or not, we can resolve the matter easily by making it explicit. Do we need a preamble if it is not binding? What about simply renaming the current preamble into article 1 (or even 0) of the Charter? Otherwise, I agree to the text (have inserted mdashes). --Daniel Mietchen 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm okay with either suggestion (except "article 0"). We can assign a number during re-numbering. Russell D. Jones 11:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. I'd rather not have a non-charter Preamble -- let's make it Article 1. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (undent) I like our preamble as a preamble. It doesn't have to be enforceable because all of the points are mentioned elsewhere (including here). I can see journalists using it as a new tag line for us: "The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust." If we make it Article 1, it doesn't seem right. D. Matt Innis 00:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Matt. I think of the preamble as a mission statement, which is expanded and given life by the charter that follows. -Joe Quick 15:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 3

Citizens shall contribute freely within the limits of the project's mission.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 3 accept [e] but is it necessary? [e] revise [e] what mission? [e] accept [e] Could be combined with 11; see also 1 [e] revise [e] role of editors needs to be defined in the charter, but this is not ideal [e] accept [e] but it's meaningless [e] reject [e] superfluous [e] 3 not accepted (3 accept, 2 revise, 1 reject) [e] Discussion and comments: Nobody seems to think this is necessary. I would be willing to change my vote to reject and get rid of it unless some rewording was presented. D. Matt Innis 19:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC) See my comment on Article 2. This article should make a statement protecting Citizens' rights, but it doesn't. Not really. I suggest this, a slight modification of Jones' statement regarding Article 2: No citizen's use of the site shall be blocked or terminated on the basis of nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, or age. Exceptions may be made only in very limited circumstances when required under local law. How's that? -Joe Quick 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC) No citizen's use of the site shall be blocked or terminated on the basis of nationality, race, religion, creed, gender, profession, education, residence, or age. Exceptions may be made only in very limited circumstances and only when legally required. D. Matt Innis 00:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. D. Matt Innis 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Yep, that's better. Agree to Matt's version. -Joe Quick 00:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Oh, I did a lot of work on Article 2 towards the same end. I'll have to reconcile. Russell D. Jones 15:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Do they need to be separate articles? -Joe Quick 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Russell, I'm looking for any reconciling. D. Matt Innis 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Whoops! Sorry--I got side tracked with the judiciary. Russell D. Jones 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Overlap with art. 2 and 41. --Daniel Mietchen 19:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC) After another look, I would prefer to keep Citizenship shall be open to anyone who fulfills the basic conditions as defined by the Management Council and agrees to the policy principles defined by this Charter. in article 2 and to move Citizens shall not have their application to join or their use of the site blocked or terminated on the basis of their nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, creed, gender, sexuality, profession, education, politics, residence, age, name, or URL. Nor shall any official or governing body of the Citizendium discriminate in favor or against Citizens (except to the degree that such discrimination promotes editorial expertise), or any dispute be resolved, on the basis of any of these criteria. from there to here, replacing the current art. 3 text entirely. --Daniel Mietchen 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Good idea. Agree. D. Matt Innis 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Added Joe's suggestion to add politics. Russell D. Jones 12:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with that, too. D. Matt Innis 12:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree as well. --Daniel Mietchen 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Joe Quick 15:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 4

The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play

1. in defining content standards in their relevant fields and
2. in assuring that the site's content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 4 accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] "approved content" [e] revise [e] mention approval; move "in" before enumeration [e] 4 Accept (5) [e] Discussion and comments: Clause 2 needs a qualifier. If editors are empowered to "assure" the site's "reliability" and "quality" at all times, then editors are empowered to swoop down on any unsuspecting writer at any time and badger them about "inaccurate" and "unreliable" content. Writing is a process of figuring out knowledge, working out what's right and what's not. Let the authors author. Editors should be responsible for the reliability and quality of only the APPROVED CONTENT. If it's not approved by our experts, then it's just as good as WP. I propose the following: Jones 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC) 2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards. I'll agree to that. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest "quality-reviewed content", or some equivalent. We have, I think, Developing and Developed for good reason. If Editors only become involved in Approval, we limit too much. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Expert's are also expected to guide content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -Joe Quick 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Make your suggestion and I'll vote. D. Matt Innis 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) What about 2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards. 3. in guiding content development towards approval and reapproval. or simply 2. in guiding content development towards reliability and quality. instead of the two above? --Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Also, there is overlap with article 7. --Daniel Mietchen 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC) (undent) #2 alone deals nicely with avoiding making Approved the only place where there can be oversight. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) If Article 7 retains a point about approval and high quality, we can drop it from here. I think the two articles should be kept separate, because "expert" and "editor" mean slightly different things, "editor" being an official position given to experts. Thus, we can distinguish between things that experts do simply as experts and things that editors do as a result of their official powers. Assuring high quality in approved articles is an editor job. So, for this article, I think Daniel and Howard are right: The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play in defining content standards in their relevant fields and in guiding content development towards reliability and quality. -Joe Quick 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Okay Agreed. D. Matt Innis 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting distinction between expert and editor, but do you think it is obvious to others? This is functionally meaningless. So I'm an expert but not an editor. How, exactly, will I "Define content standards" or "guide content development" in the face of a prejudiced editor? Is this intended to mean just that "experts are free to write at CZ?" Are the botanists going to rebel against the biologists? What if the biology editors (who happen [e.g.] to be all mamologists) define botany in ways that botanists' find offensive? Or is this just intended to be a statement that CZ appreciates experts? (If so, can't it go in the preamble?) I'm voting in favor of it, but with the recognition that this article does not grant any citizen special rights, status, or powers. Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated. Suppose the EC adopts a rule that content disputes should be resolved in favor of the author who has the greatest number of edits. And in a particular dispute on the Ann Arbor Railroad for instance, say Howard and I (who, for the sake of this example, are not editors) get into a dispute over some fact. The dispute would be resolved in favor of Howard who has the greater number of edits instead of me who has the more expert knowledge about the AARR [I'm making an educated guess here, Howard]. If banning that sort of EC behavior is intended here, this article needs to be A LOT clearer. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC) It really should be in the preamble. D. Matt Innis 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) This is getting into detailed EC procedure; "Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated." is more at the Charter level. Further, take Russell's example. I am totally untrained in the Ann Arbor Railroad, but I am an Engineering Editor, the workgroup that has been getting transportation topics. While I do know a good deal about aviation and marine transport, I really know very little about trains. If I ruled against Russell and I were the only Engineering editor, what would be his appeal? For that matter, if there were additional Editors, where do they come in? What is the role of the ME here? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "Railroads," Howard, not "Trains." :) Russell D. Jones 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) "Railroads," Howard, not "Trains." :) Doesn't allow puns on training. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I envision, let the editors fight it out (and include other experts as well) as long as they remain professional. They may ask the OMB to help decide on a compromise. If they reach an impasse, they should ask the ME to intervene and make a decision. The MEs decision goes into the article. If someone is not satisfied, the OMB can instruct them how to bring it to the EC (which should have a dispute resolution system in place that can call in as many experts as they like - the information collected should be as complete as possible). The EC announces it's decision and that is what goes into the article. If someone (it may be the other party) disagrees with the decision, they appeal on the grounds that something new came up or there was a technical error. The Appeal board either agrees or disagree and sends them back or the decision is final. eventually, there will be nothing to appeal. Also, if five years later, it turns out that the railroad was made of glass, then it can be appealed (if necessary). D. Matt Innis 17:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC) To help me understand your position, let me take this a step further. The choo-choo expert author decides the group of Editors, none of whom are especially knowledgeable about trains, is deliberately obstructing him. Correct me if I'm wrong, or it's not in the charter, but I understand the default position is that editor(s) rulings can keep something out of an article. The Editors are perfectly courteous but the Author isn't getting what he wants. Since the ME role was justified on quick decisions, I'm not sure the ME has a role here, since broad policy is unquestionably involved and it's going to wind up in the EC -- if the ME ruled for the Author, I think it would be safe to assume the Editors would bring in the EC. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Absolutely, not. Editors obstructing an Author in such a way needs to be prohibited. (Let the authors author.) So, how do we protect the expertise of the author? Is that what this clause is getting at? Russell D. Jones 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC) In this example, I see it going to the EC, which has both non-Editor and Editor citizens. The ME, remember, must be an Editor. While I hope such events are very rare, however, the integrity of the Editor mechanism must remain or we become WP. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with the above scenerio. I think our system (including any example where the ME makes a content decision that is in favor of the expert author or the generalist editor or any form of compromise solution) will allow the good content to prevail regardless because that ME decision is expected to be the temporary solution while the EC gets to hear the details in a dispute resolution process (if necessary). D. Matt Innis 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Summary: Four committee members (Berkowitz, Innis, Jones, and Quick) so far have agreed to this formulation: Russell D. Jones 01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play in defining content standards in their relevant fields and in guiding content development towards reliability and quality. This still seems like something for the EC interim guidance. But, I am still listening. D. Matt Innis 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with "The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play in defining content standards in their relevant fields and in guiding content development towards reliability and quality." and think it should be in the Charter rather than interim guidance. --Daniel Mietchen 15:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Would you go with Preamble? D. Matt Innis 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, if need be, but my preference would be to have it right here. --Daniel Mietchen 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Ok, let's see what everyone else thinks and I'll go with the flow on this one. D. Matt Innis 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I can support preamble in terms of importance as a fundamental characteristic of CZ, but remember that a preamble is not part of the normative document. I think it goes here but I'd accept preamble. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) See my comment in art. 2 on the need for a preamble if it is not (or not clearly) "part of the normative document". --Daniel Mietchen 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (undent) I'm willing to leave it here if that is what Daniel needs. D. Matt Innis 12:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'd like to leave it here. -Joe Quick 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 5

Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive commentary will not be tolerated.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 5 accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] [e] [e] revise [e] probably better to exchange 4 and 5 [e] 5 Accept (5) [e] Discussion and comments: Agree with Daniel's initial comment. -Joe Quick 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. 4 and 5 could be switched. D. Matt Innis 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Articles 4 and 5 be switched. Russell D. Jones 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) "Commentary?" Really? Jones 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive commentary comments will not be tolerated. Agree. D. Matt Innis 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC) "Language?" Jones 03:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Better, Agree. D. Matt Innis 11:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Language and behavior. This might be the place to deal with the issue raised by Larry in his email. I found a definition for "nuisance" in a legal dictionary (see also the second definition at dictionary.com) that might be helpful: people do not have the right to interfere with another person's enjoyment of personal property or public space. If we're careful, we can use that here. Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language and behavior will not be tolerated. No Citizen shall have the right to interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter. Oops, forgot to sign the above. -Joe Quick 14:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC) You may be on to something here, Joe. Part of the legal remedy for a nuisance is injunction, an order to desist. I brought this up before, so now seems like a good time to do it again. See below: Russell D. Jones 15:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Managerial or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action [prosecution?] upon complaint of the aggrieved citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Managerial Council. Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions in the Main, Talk, User, or Image namespaces and in other namespaces as identified by the Management Council. This does not mean that Citizens are barred from collaborating in other namespaces, but it does mean that their contributions in these namespaces deserve the courtesy of respect. All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editor and officers. Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages. All citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium. In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors. Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves in any dispute resolution process. Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character or point of view of the citizen. Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say. This is looking good, but could you elaborate on what you have in mind by other namespaces? Are you thinking of policy pages, Cold Storage, and partner or relationships such as a separate Eduzendium space? (as an aside, if there were a separate Eduzendium space, there could be a specific pseudonym rule that applies to it, or other spaces where pseudonyms may be required. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not clear on why some namespaces are different than others when it comes to respect from other Citizens. Also, "the right to request the help of other citizens or editors," sounds like ganging up on an opponent in sanctioned; what about "the right to request the help of editors or the Ombudsman"? -Joe Quick 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I like this list, Russell, great work. We finally have a Bill of Rights. I'll have to take some time to think them all through, but overall my impression is good. Joe, I think I like "other citizens or editors" better. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking a friend to help convince someone else. They may know someone that is more knowledgable than they are on a particular problem - or maybe at communicating it. Our purpose should be to get to the best formulation of the problem - no matter who makes it - and then the editors can decide from the information presented to them by the collaborating author/s. I'm just thinking that we should not restrict it to cases of dispute. But, I am still listening. Joe, the ideas behind "other citizens or editors" are (1) the right to counsel and (2) the right to have people speak in your defense. you're right, the language is garbeled. We don't have "counsel" at CZ, so it's kinda pointless to put in the right to counsel in the charter. But neither should you be expected or forced to defend yourself solely on your own. Russell D. Jones 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors D. Matt Innis 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I like much of this list too but think it is too exhaustive for one article at the level of detail that we now have in the Charter. --Daniel Mietchen 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Agree to striking "in cases of dispute." Still confused about the namespace issue and even if that is too detailed. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The idea behind identifying the namespaces was that it would identify certain areas where authors are presumed to be competent authorities. The CZ and Template namespaces are not listed as we don't want novices mucking around in the templates and so we should be able to discipline someone who does muck something up there, but on the other hand, they might actually know what they're doing so if they want to risk it, I'd let them. On the other hand, an author should feel secure that what he or she is doing in the Main Namespace is not going to be scrutinized or harrassed just for writing. Whereas if they were doing similar things in the Template space or the CZ (policy) spaces, their work should be scrutinized immediately. That was the idea. It might be a distinction without a difference, but I was trying here really to define in real terms protections for authors. Russell D. Jones 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Should it be shortened? Russell D. Jones 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions. Agree to the shorter version. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) This point: Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process. My concern is that a biased editor/constable/ME should be able to make their case to a court just as the author can. But, they should not be allowed to officiate in the dispute resolution... is a workgroup discussion part of dispute resolution? - an editor would be officiating there (and we want them to). Other than that, I agree with all of the rest. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions. All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editor and officers. Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages. All citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium. In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors. Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process. Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the citizen. Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say. Agree. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Added Or politics after Matt signed. Russell D. Jones 01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Except this leaves out the whole reason we had the article in the first place which was that you break the rules, CZ has the right to clobber you. Russell D. Jones 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Managerial or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action [prosecution?] upon complaint of the aggrieved citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Managerial Council. Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions. All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editor and officers. Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages. All itizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium. In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors. Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process. Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the citizen. Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say. Clerical error :) Agree.D. Matt Innis 01:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree, with the caveat "*Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages, as long as content does not violate general rules on inflammatory or derogatory posting. Agree. Joe Quick 04:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) One more time (I've altered Howard's suggested slightly but means the same thing I think) Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Managerial or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action [prosecution?] upon complaint of the aggrieved citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Managerial Council. Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions. All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editors and officers. Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages as long as content is not inflammatory or derogatory. All citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium. In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors. Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process. Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the citizen. Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say. Agree. D. Matt Innis 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC) (fixed a typo) I can agree to this whole list of statements, but think in the current design of the Charter, it is too much for a single article. There is also considerable overlap with other articles currently under discussion. --Daniel Mietchen 20:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, I agree. How should it be broken? And for redundancy, that's okay with me as long as it is consistent throughout. Russell D. Jones 21:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) One option to break them up would simply be to give each of these points its own article (provisionally labeled 5.1-5.9, to be relabeled when the final draft is being renumbered). Along with a few minor tweaks, this gives the following: Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Management or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action upon complaint of the aggrieved Citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time, or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Management Council. Citizens shall mutually respect their competency regarding any of their contributions. All Citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to Editors and Officers. Citizens shall be considered Editors of their own user pages and subpages thereof, as long as content is not inflammatory or derogatory. All Citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other Citizens, Editors, and Officers of the Citizendium. In cases of dispute, Citizens have the right to request the help of other Citizens or Editors. Citizens should expect Officers and Editors to be fair and impartial. Biased Officers and Editors shall recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process. Dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the Citizen. Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say. If the proposal to split these up into separate articles finds support, we can set up the voting machinery for these new articles, and vote on each of them separately. --Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know that we'll need to vote on all of them individually as we all seem to have given assent through this thread. The only confusion I have is whether Joe's agreement was only for article 5.5 or for the whole thing with his changed 5.5. --Russell D. Jones 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with article and with splitting into nine articles. Russell D. Jones 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Wow, really. If we're going to number them 5.1, 5.2 etc., why don't we just add a '5.' in front of all of them? Or is that what you're talking about? D. Matt Innis 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) It's just for the time being. Once we've okayed everything, Martin will do another re-numbering, and then .... viola! Jones 02:04, July 21, 2010 Fine with me if we can agree on them en group (I do). And yes, the numbering is provisional. By the way, I just turned "officer" to upper case here, so as to fit with "Editor" and "Citizen". I think we should do that for the whole document. --Daniel Mietchen 10:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'll Agree with whichever you guys want form here. If the text changes, I'll reconsider. D. Matt Innis 11:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with the most recent wording. I'm okay with splitting it into separate articles or not, whatever you all feel most comfortable with. -Joe Quick 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [changed two instances of "Managerial Council" to "Management Council" -Joe Quick 16:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)] OK, I'll green art. 5 and split it up into 5.1 to 5.9 then. --Daniel Mietchen 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 6

Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 6 accept [e] but needs a subheading above it [e] accept [e] needs to be moved to editor section [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] but merge content of 8 into this [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] 6 Accept (6) [e] Discussion and comments: Given the comments above and for Article 8, I propose merging the two: Jones 23:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community. Official recognition of expertise — obtained through either education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council. AND DELETE ARTICLE 8 I agree to combine with and delete 8 D. Matt Innis 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC) remove "either"? Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community. Official recognition of expertise — obtained through education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council. Agree. D. Matt Innis 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Matt. -Joe Quick 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Russell D. Jones 15:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

Article 7

The group ofEditors shall have to assure the quality of the Citizendium's content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right

1. to approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately,
2. to decide in disputes over specific content matters, and
3. to remove incorrect(ly) or poorly presented content.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 7 revise [e] change point two to read: "to make decisions regarding content matters, and" and no "ly" on "incorrectly" [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 7 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 8

Official recognition of expertise — obtained through either education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 8 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 8 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 9

WithdrawalRemoval of Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Editorial Council and shall enjoy the full rights of appeal.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 9 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 9 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part II: Content and style

Article 10

An Editorial Council shall be empowered to develop policy on content and style, including but not limited to original content.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 10 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 10 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 11

The Citizendium shall welcome contributions to all fields of knowledge.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 11 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 11 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 12

All articles shall treat their subjects comprehensively, neutrally, and objectively to the greatest degree possible in a well-written narrative, complementing text with other suitable material and media.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 12 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 12 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 13

All basic material shall be intended for the general public. It shall be presented as clearly as possible, without unnecessary complications, and advanced topics shall be made as accessible as possible.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 13 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 13 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 14

Specialist material — including (within the limits set by the Editorial Council) original research — shall be welcome, too. It shall be put into context with background information and non-specialist material.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 14 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 14 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 15

High-quality articles shall be distinguished as approved articles and be protected and kept available permanently as citable references.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 15 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 15 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 16

The Citizendium shall remain free of advocacy, advertisement and sensationalism.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 16 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 16 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part III: Organization and offices

Article 17

The Citizendium shall be devoted to transparent and fair governance with a minimum of bureaucracy.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 17 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 17 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 18

It shall be governed by two Councils:

1. an Editorial Council; and
2. a Management Council,

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 18 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 18 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 19

The councils will be assisted by the following:

1. a Managing Editor,
2. a Constabulary, and
3. an Ombudsman.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 19 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 19 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 20 (old 3637)

• Each year, half the members of the two Councils shall be elected.
• For newly elected members, the term of office shall begin on first of January for the Editorial Council, and on first of July for the Management Council.
• Any Citizen may nominate and support one or more candidates for a Council.
• A Citizen who is supported by another Citizen becomes a candidate by declaring the intention to serve for the whole term.
• Any Citizen accepting a nomination shall retreat immediately from any involvement in the election's organization.
• The candidates collecting the most votes shall be elected.
• Citizens who received votes may serve as reserve members.
• A Council member who becomes inactive or unavailable for a period of 90 days, shall be replaced by a the reserve member receiving the next highest votes.
• In the absence of reserve members, interim replacements may be appointed by the Council concerned.
• Any Council may propose a change of its size by an even number of members; this proposal shall be subject to a referendum held together with the next election.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 20 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 20 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 21 (old 3738)

The Managing Editor shall be elected by simple majority. For this election, up to four candidates shall be selected by the Management Council, taken from a list of Editors nominated by the community.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 21 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 21 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 22 (old3839)

Constables shall be appointed by the Management Council

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 22 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 22 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 23 (old3940)

The Ombudsman shall be nominated by the Combined Councils and appointed by majority Citizen vote.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 23 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 23 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 24 (old 22)

All official posts shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. All Citizens shall be elegible.
2. The term of office shall be two years, renewable. The term of any replacement shall end when the original term ends.
3. No Citizen may serve in two offices at the same time.
4. All officials shall continue to contribute as Citizens throughout their terms.
5. Each Council or official may appoint delegates to perform specific tasks for a specific period of time.
6. The responsibility for the actions of a delegate shall always remain with the appointing Council or official.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 24 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 24 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 25 (old 35)

Elections and referenda shall be organized by the Managing Council and carried out by the Constabulary, qith the following conditions:

1. Sufficient time Two weeks shall be provided for nominations and for discussions of the issues brought about during the nomination period.
2. All Citizens in good standing — as defined by the Management Council —, regardless of status, shall be entitled to vote.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 25 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 25 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 26 (old 20)

All decision processes shall take place in a way that allows every interested Citizen to follow it and support it with feedback.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 26 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 26 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 27 (old 4041)

An official who seriously neglects the office may be recalled by two thirds vote of the Combined Councils. with exception of

1. the Managing Editor, who shall be recalled if both Councils demand it (separately), and
2. the Ombudsman, whose recall shall require a qualified majority of two thirds in a referendum.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 27 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 27 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part IV: Community policy

Article 28 (old 23)

The Editorial Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall

1. vet, coordinate, and supervise the Editors and their activities activities of Editors, and
2. encourage and supervise cooperation of Citizens in their effort to create, development and organization of the Citizendium's content.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 28 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 28 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 29 (old 24)

The Management Council is responsible for the community's environment and its technical and economic resources. In particular, it shall:

1. nominate and supervise the activities of Constables,
2. manage technical matters (software and hardware), and
3. advise on matters of administration of financial and legal obligations of the Citizendium.
4. It shall also establish and maintain public awareness, and
5. invite and establish collaboration with external partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 29 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 29 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 30 (old 25)

Each Council shall

1. have a quorum corresponding to the simple majority of its members, and
2. develop written guidelines to define and explain methods of communicating with that particular Council,
3. consider any issue properly brought in front of it by any of its members or by a number of Citizens that meets its quorum.
4. In the Editorial Council, a number of members corresponding to the quorum shall be Editors while the rest of the members shall be Citizens who are not Editors.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 30 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 30 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 31 (old 26)

The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure — by means of executive decisions — that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed;such decisions shall be based on established policy unless required in the case of a policy deficit. They may be overruled by the appropriate Council.
2. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 31 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 31 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 32 (old 36)

Citizens may demand that contested rules or guidelines are submitted to a referendum.

• A referendum may be initiated by a group of Citizens corresponding in size to the sum of the quorums of the two Councils.
• A referendum shall be decided by simple majority of the votes validly cast.
• Any amendment to and any change of this Charter shall require a referendum and shall be ratified if accepted by a qualified majority of two thirds of the votes validly cast.
• Creating any further office or special rôle shall require an excellent reason and a referendum.
• Any change of the license shall require a referendum.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 32 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 32 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part V: Behavior and dispute resolution

Article 33 (old 27)

The Constabulary shall enforce the Citizendium's rules of behavior as determined and centrally documented by community policy, covering equally all Citizens including those with official positions. In particular, Constables

1. shall only intervene in matters of behavior but not in matters of content.
2. shall act with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, and only in those situations where this is clearly covered by existing rules.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 33 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 33 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 34 (old 28)

An Ombudsman shall assist in dispute resolution.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 34 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 34 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 35 (Old 29)

Whenever possible, disputes shall be settled informally at the lowest possible level. Specifically, the following shall apply:

1. Any party involved in a dispute may contact the Ombudsman for assistance in dispute resolution.
2. When a formal decision is necessary or demanded, the Ombudsman shall facilitate the presentation of the issue to the appropriate body.
3. The Management Council shall provide a formal mechanism of resolution that allows each disputant to fully and thoroughly present their relevant positions.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 35 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 35 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 36 (old 30)

Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 36 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 36 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 37 (old 31)

Formal decisions will only be reviewed when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either:

1. New information is available; or
2. A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 37 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 37 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 38 (old 32)

An Appeals Board shall consist of previously not directly involved Citizens, as follows:

1. one member nominated by the Editorial Council,
2. one member nominated by the Management Council, and
3. one member nominated by the Ombudsman.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 38 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 38 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 39 (old 33)

Successful Appeals will be allowed to re-enter the Management Council dispute resolution process, limiting the discourse to the new information or addressing the impact of the technical error in the previous procedure.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 39 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 39 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 40 (old 34)

Normally, dispute resolutions should be heard in public. However,

1. Participants may request that disputes be heard privately.
2. Privately heard disputes forfeit their right to appeal on technical grounds.
3. in exceptional cases, part of a dispute resolution process may be restricted to a smaller audience. Such an exception shall require public justification by the Ombudsman.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 40 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 40 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part VI: Administrative matters

Article 41 (old 21)

All Citizens, including officials, shall be bound by the Charter, and no decision reached shall contravene it.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 41 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 41 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 41 42

• As far as possible, special requirements of visually or otherwise impaired users and for responsibly exercised automated access shall be taken into account.
• The Managing Editor shall intervene against article content that is inappropriate, in particular, if content
  • violates criminal or civil law or
  • is discriminatory or slanderous against persons or groups of persons, on the basis of religion, religious belief, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.
• Violations of the Charter shall only be tolerated when forced by external laws.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 42 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 42 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 42 43

The Citizendium adopts CC-by-sa 3.0 Unported (original source) as the license for its own original collaborative content.The Citizendium Foundation reserves the right to upgrade the license version number (not the license) on behalf of contributors. The licensing of content incorporated from elsewhere shall follow the conditions of the respective originators.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 43 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 43 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 43 44

The Citizendium shall be owned and controlled by the Citizendium Foundation, a non-profit organization.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 44 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 44 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 44 45

The official language of the Citizendium shall be English. Branches of the Citizendium in other languages shall share the same mission as defined by this Charter. All language versions shall require approval by the Management Council.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 45 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 45 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Part VII: Transitional Measures

Article 45 46

The community shall informally agree on a Citizen who is charged with organizing the ratification process and the initial elections until the Councils are installed.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 46 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 46 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 45 47

For the purpose of the ratification of this Charter and the initial elections to the Councils, all Citizens with an account that is not blocked shall have the right to vote.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 47 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 47 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 46 48

This Charter shall be ratified if accepted by two thirds or more of the votes validly cast in a referendum for this purpose. The Charter shall enter into force on the day following its ratification.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 48 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 48 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 46 49

The Editor-in-Chief shall officially certify the ratified Charter within a week after the closing of the referendum. This act ends his term of office.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 49 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 49 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 47 50

The former Editor-in-Chief Larry Sanger shall be awarded with the title Founding Editor-in-Chief in acknowledgement of his achievements for the Citizendium. (suggested in [1])

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 50 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 50 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 48 51

The first elections to the Councils shall take place as soon as possible after the Charter has been ratified.

1. The initial size of the Editorial Council shall be 7 members, that of the Management Council 5 members.
2. A number of members corresponding to the quorum shall be selected, by lot or personal agreement, to serve shortened terms until the next regular election that is at least half a year after the initial election.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 51 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 51 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

Article 50 52

• Within a month after the entry into force of this Charter, all existing pseudonym accounts shall be closed by the Constabulary, and the respective user pages protected; the Citizens concerned may renew registration under their real names.

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 52 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 52 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

MATERIAL THAT SEEMS MERELY TO BE LISTED AT THE END (!!)

Addendum: Interim guidance for the transition period

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 53 [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 53 [e] Discussion and comments: [Click here to add your comments]

• As long as the administrative prerequisites for implementing the Charter are not entirely fulfilled, the rules listed in this section shall provide interim guidance to the Editorial Council, Management Council, and other bodies.
• Such material may be modified by those bodies by their normal procedures, without a full Charter amendment.

Review of previous policies

• The Councils shall review all existing policies and vote on each of them which falls under their realm, in view of complementing the general guidelines in this Charter with an evolving set of specific policy guidelines.
• The Editorial Council shall review the current list of Editors.
• The Management Council shall review
  • privacy policies, including access by search engines, and
  • policy on licensing and republication of user and talk pages.

Constabulary

• Constabulary tools include: advice and instruction on wiki or through Citizen email, removal of offensive text, and warning and banning of users.

Languages

• The Management Council shall elaborate a strategy and policy on handling the establishment of branches in languages other than English.

Administration

• The Management Council shall elaborate a strategy and policy on handling the legal, financial, and technical operations necessary for the project to fulfill its mission.

External partnerships

The Management Council shall develop and implement at its earliest convenience a policy for

• interested external observers to provide feedback on Citizendium content in a manner convenient for them and the project.
• collaboration with external partners, paying particular attention to fostering the collaboration with instructors by way of Eduzendium, and with external experts or professional organizations for the purposes of providing or reviewing content at Citizendium.

Research and teaching

• The Editorial Council shall elaborate a strategy and policy on incorporation of teaching and research into Citizendium.
• Research results that have not been formally published should be clearly labeled as such. So should articles that have been part of student coursework.

Registration of new Editors

To streamline the CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure, applications for Editorship shall be processed in two consecutive steps:

• All verified Editor applicants shall initially be registered as Citizens, enabling them to start contributing while the application is being reviewed.
• The application for Editorship shall be reviewed by the Editorial Personnel Administrators (to be appointed by the Editorial Council) who shall strive to make a decision within one week.

Open questions

In this section, expanding on a suggestion by Daniel, I propose to look at issues that cross several articles and might allow compaction and greater clarity.

In the beginning

It appears there is overlap and lack of clarity among the Preamble, Article 1, and Article 3. Article 1 was not accepted, and I think we can do without it if we simply make sure the Preamble adequately defines Citizen. Article 1's reference to "participation" is troublesome, as it might suggest that non-Citizens are excluded from using the Wiki. Our intent, I believe, is that only Citizens add or change content.

Does Article 3 actually add information? My thought, at this point, is to strengthen the Preamble, get rid of 1 and 3 (but not renumber). Next, we'll deal with expertise and Editor matters. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From the comments, it looks like the problem with the preamble was with "update" and "a social". Let's just change that first.

• Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust.

• Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust.

D. Matt Innis 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in the interest of getting this part of the process started, let's begin the discussion here and then move it to the proper place above as soon as we have a good mechanism for placing it in the collapsible table.

What about for the preamble:

• Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust.

and then leave the definition of "Citizen" for article 1, which could read something like:

• Registered contributors are called "Citizens"

--Joe Quick 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So, for now, we all should be able to add our votes throughout the process until we have a majority. Just demarcate your vote with a (*). If you want to suggest further chagnes, feel free and everyone can vote again. D. Matt Innis 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe's above formulations for preamble and article 1. D. Matt Innis 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't write here, but I'll delete this as soon as I've finished. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't edit your votes in any way until I've updated the templates. --Chris Key 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The original votes should never be modified. We will have a new round of voting when we need to, but each new round should be preserved separately. --Joe Quick 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) carefully not changing anything above unless I am very very very clear on the procedure,

I accept Joe's rewording of the Preamble. If we keep #1, I'd add "; one need not to be a Citizen to use Citizendium content." #3 seems superfluous to me, although it doesn't do any harm. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the idea your addition expresses pretty clear from the preamble: "render it conveniently accessible to the public for free"? Let's get the preamble and Article 1 nailed down before talking about other articles. --Joe Quick 15:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)