CZ:Proposals/Involving authors in approvals
1) I see no reason why anyone should not feel able to nominate an article for approval (even their own article).
2) To approve articles requires the support of relevant editors. But I see no reason why authors should not also be able (and indeed be encouraged) to express their support or otherwise for approval.
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
A complete, clear, feasible, and (as applicable) step-by-step explanation of the proposal. Or, if an issue: a complete and fair explanation of the competing positions that the decisionmakers are being asked to consider.
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
Discussion
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|