CZ:Proposals/Involving authors in approvals
This proposal has not yet been assigned to any decisionmaking group or decisionmaker(s).
The Proposals Manager will do so soon if and when the proposal or issue is "well formed" (including having a driver).
For now, the proposal record can be found in the new proposals queue.
Complete explanation
1) Anyone should be able to nominate any article for approval (even their own article).
2) To approve articles requires the support of relevant editors. But authors should also be able (and indeed be encouraged) to express their support or otherwise for approval.
Reasoning
1) I see every reason why all contributors to Citizendium should feel encouraged to read articles with potential approval in mind.
2) As Citizendium values fluency and style, then the opinions of (non-expert) readers are very important in an Approval process that properly matches the ambitions of Citizendium.
Citizendium rightly values expert knowledge and understanding. But these things alone do not a great article make. Style, presentation and readability are at least as important, and on these things the opinions of technical experts are no more relevant and often less useful than those of non-experts. We want people to read our articles for goodness sake so let us hear and value those opinions. Obviously how much weight they carry will vary by article - a highly technical article on a specialised topic needs to be clear concise and accurate, not accessible. Other articles are the reverse - they need to be engaging, accurate and interesting but need not be exhaustive and academic.
Implementation
This will need the following changes to the Approval Processes.
Existing text An editor in the article's workgroup will be needed to nominate the article for approval. If the editor has worked on it herself as an author, she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work as authors on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it. (These rules are to prevent a single person from approving his or her own work without involving review by experts who were not authors.)
Replace with:
Any member of Citizendium, including any of the authors, may nominate an article for approval. The nominator should briefly justify their nomination in a mssage on the article Talk page, referring to the criteria for Approved articles.
Existing text:(proposed replacements in bold)
So then (one of) the nominating editor(s) (nominator) places a [] template on the article's talk (discussion) page.
If another editor (any editor) in the article's workgroup finds that the article is so objectionable that approval, in his considered opinion, should not be granted,
If the nominating editor (nominator) notes that the discussion on the talk page that has occurred since the nomination for approval template was originally placed brings up important objections, then the editor (nominator) may delay the date for approval on the "to approve" template,to allow for work to continue before the stable version is generated. The nominating editor(s) (nominator(s)')may also change the version nominated for approval on the "to approve" template to an updated draft that is considered superior to the one first nominated.
Addendum: after approval, copyediting may be performed by a nominating editor (...the nominator or by any editor of the relevant workgroup) with the help of the approvals editor. This may occur at any time.
Present text
Who may approve For any given topic, only editors who may be considered experts on that topic may approve an article on that topic, at a minimum, these experts must be editors in the article's workgroup.
Replace with:
Nominators may select either to seek Community approval or expert approval, depending on the nature of the article. If the article is technical in nature, then expert approval will be the only option. However if the article is broadly based, or of general interest, or intended for a very general readership, then Community approval will generally be more appropriate.
Add
Community approval.
Community approval will need the support of at least four members of the community other than the nominator, who should declare and briefly explain their support on the Talk page. If any editor in the relevant workgroup opposes approval then he or she should explain why and may delay or block approval. Opposition to approval from other readers should be expressed clearly (politely and constructively) on the Talk page and the points raised should be addressed. However some dissent will not prevent approval if there is, in the view of the Approvals Manager, a general balance of opinion favouring approval
The approval template will need some adjustments, and placing a template should trigger an alert to workgroups and for community approval, to the whole community - perhaps a call on the Main page?
Discussion
This needs some implementation details, but I think it is rather a good idea, especially given the paucity of active editors in some workgroups. Right now, someone may create really good articles about engineering, but unless the (other) editors are paying attention, or are notified by the authors, they may languish. If the author notifies a few of the editors listed in the workgroup, but chooses only inactive editors, the article will still languish, unchecked, and unapproved.
I see two things which may need technical implementation. First, I think that there should be some way to distinguish non-editor nominations and self-nominations by editors from outside nominations by editors (which currently lead to semi-automatic approval). Second, in the case of author nominations and self-nominations by editors, it might be nice to notify all the editors in the appropriate workgroups of the nomination, so they can weigh in on it. Anthony Argyriou 14:58, 14 February 2008 (CST)
I'm inclined to support both points. It desperately needs a driver and to be spelled out in considerably more detail, however. --Larry Sanger 19:13, 14 February 2008 (CST)
Its a great idea. Denis Cavanagh 08:55, 15 February 2008 (CST)
Now that some details are added, I see that it's a far more significant change than I thought. Especially the community approval, where articles can be approved without any input from experts, worries me. Can we get some more information or examples on what articles are eligible for community approval? Who decides? I'm also awaiting details for how to notify the community / editors. -- Jitse Niesen 09:27, 15 February 2008 (CST)
- I must share this concern (as an author) with Jitse. To have a system of "community approval" would undermine the core idea that this wiki is founded upon, that we have "approved articles" reviewed by "experts". I think we would receive a lot of criticism for choosing to go down this road and I believe in the long run it will do us more harm than good. However, I think that it's reasonable that an author should be able to nominate an article for approval and that nomination should be vetted by editors.
- I think the core problem is that there's no system to programautomatically notify editors that articles need reviewing. --Robert W King 09:41, 15 February 2008 (CST)
The mechanism puts editors in pole position in that they and only they can block approval. It doesn't give editors any less power (if they wish to use it), but it does give non-editors a bigger involvement. The proposal is really to address the many articles that are written to be of general interest, and which accordingly draw on many areas of fact and knowledge. One obvious example is Edinburgh, another is Tony Blair, which I mention because both have been recognised (one as Article of the week, one as New Draft of the Week). These both are written for the general reader. Who has the expertise to vet Edinburgh exactly? Should we ask someone to check the geography and the history - do we wait for an academic expert on Edinburgh history and geography - actually the facts as there are verifiable readily by anyone through the links. It doesn't take an expert to verify, just a conscientious reader.
So if the article is written with a general readership in mind, yes it must be accurate but more importantly it should be interesting and readable. It's for these reasons that the article needs to have the opinions of a general readership.
Now any editor is free to say - no this is in such and such a workgroup and really needs expert review. That's fine. But actually, often, articles don't. They just need intelligent review. Gareth Leng 10:13, 15 February 2008 (CST)
- On alerting the workgroup, yes I think this should happen automatically with the template regardless of whether its Community approval that's sought.
Who chooses? I think the nominator proposes which path he thinks is appropriate. Obviously if any editor in the relevant workgroup thinks it needs an expert review, then that option will be denied. But of course, obviously an expert can support approval if the Community route is chosen - and in that event the bar to approval will in effect be higher than for expert approval. Indeed, in general, I suspect that expert approval will be very much the softer option for most articles, and community approval will only be sought for articles that really aspire to be readable and accessible as well as good.
So - for Edinburgh especially I would rather put this to the potentially painful test of how my target readers see it than to get expert endorsement merely that it is accurate, when it is based on publicly freely available information.Gareth Leng 10:58, 15 February 2008 (CST)
Gareth Leng 10:31, 15 February 2008 (CST)
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|