[Cz-editcouncil] Article deletion question

[Robert P. Tito]

Larry

do not bypass the economics workgroup - deleting the article now will  
mean every article that somehow fails to meet some in-descriptive  
criteria will be deleted - independent upon any workgroup. Not very  
scholarly.
If there is no such group yet we - as CZ - will have to conserve the  
article and let the editors of economics decide upon its fate. If  
that means withdraw the article to attention - so be it, if it means  
moving without redirect to some/article so be it. It cannot be the  
academic encyclopedia we seek will be made impossible by these sheer  
speed requirements.
Democracy and science means - you don't always get it your way.

Rob
On 27-Apr, 2007, 6:29, at 6:29:27 , Larry Sanger wrote:

> The trouble, Matt, is that after I called for input from our  
> economics editors, only Martin responded.  So on your proposal,  
> either we wait for another economics editor to speak up, or we  
> tolerate plainly bad content for an indefinite amount of time.
>
> There is one precedent for a single active editor deleting an  
> appalling article: Peter J. King (who was a philosophy editor)  
> authorized that I delete an article titled "Ethics," which both of  
> us agreed was, indeed, appalling.
>
> The question here is not whether we should have an article on the  
> subject, but whether this particular article should be deleted, or  
> entirely replaced--it doesn't matter which.
>
> It's a separate question whether we save a copy elsewhere, except  
> insofar as you think that mitigates the gravity of deletion; but I  
> don't really think it does.  Few people will know to look for, or  
> be able to find, the archived article.
>
> On that, though, there is a proposal on the table and someone who  
> wants to get behind it--a repository for deleted articles: http:// 
> forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,785.0.html
>
> This is the second instance in a week where we might want to make  
> use of such a repository.  Probably, we should move forward with  
> that.  If you want to comment on the proposal, will you please do  
> so not here, on this list, but instead at the above URL on the  
> forums?  I ask only because I want to keep this list relatively low- 
> traffic or, at least, relatively focused.
>
> --Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org [mailto:cz- 
> editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of Robert P. Tito
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:02 PM
> To: The Citizendium Editorial Council
> Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Article deletion question
>
> All,
>
> To ensure that possibility I suggested the move to Binary_economics/ 
> Archive.
> Only a healthy and populated (and active) economics group may  
> decide over deletion, not some editorial board with people (excuse  
> the pun) without economic knowledge.
> Deletions are for the workgroups only, they decide not us we may  
> advice and no more.
>
> cheers
>
> Rob
>
> On 27-Apr, 2007, 4:33, at 4:33:45 , DAVID INNIS wrote:
>
>> As a point of *process*, I think we should have more than one  
>> editor agree to the deletion. The article can be written more  
>> neutrally by reviewing other sources for binary economics and  
>> involving more authors and editors. It certainly won't get  
>> approved as it is, but that doesn't mean it can't be one day. I  
>> assume we are talking about setting precedents here. I'm not sure  
>> that we want a controversial article to be easily deleted by one  
>> editor, lest we lose a lot of articles. I do think, however, that  
>> the Editorial Chief's input should count for something, perhaps  
>> not as much as an editor for content on the subject, but certainly  
>> as a voice for content of Citizendium as a whole.
>> Matt Innis
>>
>> Larry Sanger <sanger at citizendium.org> wrote:
>> Dear Editorial Council members,
>>
>> I'm going to try to have something like a kick-off mail in your  
>> box this
>> evening, but I wanted to get your input on something in the meantime.
>>
>> We have a shortage of active Economics editors. I asked several  
>> who are
>> involved to comment on this article, which struck me as being  
>> quite biased:
>>
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Binary_economics
>>
>> And we got a comment back, here:
>>
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ 
>> Talk:Binary_economics#Editorial_Opinion
>>
>> The opinion seems to me to entail that we should delete the  
>> article. In
>> particular, two items:
>>
>> (1) This comment is most important: "I do not think the current  
>> entry can be
>> revised to make a suitable entry for Citizendium."
>>
>> (2) The article "reads as promotional literature."
>>
>> Our rules at present state (see
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Article_Deletion_Policy) that  
>> the first
>> two comments in particular are grounds for an *editor* to make a  
>> decision to
>> delete an article outright.
>>
>> So I would like to ask your opinion about a question of *process*  
>> here:
>> should we, in the absence of any other active economics editor  
>> weighing in
>> on the matter, rely on the opinion of a single editor to delete an  
>> article
>> on the above grounds?
>>
>> --Larry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cz-editcouncil mailing list
>> Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
>> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cz-editcouncil mailing list
>> Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
>> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cz-editcouncil mailing list
> Cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org
> http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-editcouncil

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-editcouncil/attachments/20070427/f7592218/attachment.html