CZ Talk:Professionalism

Redacted

what on earth does redacted mean!. why not removed? David Tribe 20:25, 9 March 2007 (CST) that is diversion laddie, you say A mean B and have done it before someone figures out what. laderon chum, Robert Tito | Talk

"Redacted" redacted. --Larry Sanger 10:42, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

Professionalism--what is it?

This section was drafted by Nancy Sculerati--thanks! --Larry Sanger 10:42, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

This is a very exciting policy direction, over "civility". "Professionalism" is a much richer concept in which to capture the ethos to which we strive. Stephen Ewen 19:57, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I'd still like to see the template worded something like "Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of unprofessional conduct.' - Stephen Ewen 20:03, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm just imagining how that's going to be received by people. It's one thing to be accused of "uncivil" conduct; that's something that everyone understands. It means, basically, acting rudely or impolitely. When people act that way, it's often hard to deny that they've acted that way. But to be accused of "unprofessional conduct" is much more vague, and not only accuses a person of being rude (maybe!), but of not being up to the standards of a profession, which basically adds insult to injury. It is a good idea to encourage people to act professionally. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to use "unprofessional" as a blanket description of objectionable conduct. That's how I see it anyway. --Larry Sanger 21:39, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

...and not only accuses a person of being rude (maybe!), but of not being up to the standards of a profession. Yes, that seems very clear now. I can see how the two could be muddled. I therefore concede the matter. Stephen Ewen 03:50, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Comments about the section on reversion

To "revert" a page is simply to undo all the edits that someone else has made, without warning or explanation.

On Wikipedia, a revert is a revert regardless of whether a warning or explanation was given. This section implies that Citizendium defines the term differently. It seems like it will result in confusion if CZ is using the same term of art to mean something similar but different from its use on another prominent wiki.

Also, it's not clear what the standards are for an "explanation". The text that follows implies that this means a discussion on the article's talk page. However, a brief explanation can be given in the edit summary instead. Is that considered acceptable. Actually, I would say that any rollback or deletion of text—even vandalism—should have an explanation of some kind; it's just a matter of how detailed it needs to be.

If you find yourself the "victim" of an unexplained reversion, the best way forward is not to revert back, but to e-mail constables@citizendium.org--and let the constables do it.

Is this really necessary? On a wiki, if something needs to be fixed, is it really necessary for people to contact the administration to do it? Certainly, the constabulary should be involved in any kind of acrimonious or persistent conflict, but, as a first measure, it seems a lot simpler for any user to undo a bad revert.

Wikipedians note: needless to say, the Wikipedia "three revert rule" is not in effect here.

It's not clear to me why this is "needless to say". The idea is that Citizendium has a "zero revert rule"? But Citizendium seems to be using a different definition of "revert", which confounds comparisons. Wikipedia's three revert rules cover cases where edits are undone even after warnings and discussions—even when there is voluminous discussion. How will Citizendium treat cases like those?

Similarly, deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban.

Given the caveat that this covers only deletions without explanation, this passage seems basically reasonable. However, I wonder if "a warning, followed by a ban" will end up being too strong a response in some cases (the wording here makes it unclear whether the ban will follow only after multiple infractions—two?). What if someone adds more than 50 words that detract from the article without being vandalism—including, perhaps, a combination of stylistic errors, dubious factual claims, tendentious POV, etc.—and then somebody else removes it without giving much of an explanation. Does one editor deserve a warning or a block more than the other? I don't like to see rules in place which make easier to add bad material than to remove it. However, if the constabulary exercises some general common sense, this probably won't become a problem?—Nat Krause 18:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)