[Cz-editcouncil] Article deletion question

Fri Apr 27 00:22:47 CDT 2007

MessageDear Larry and colleagues,

As the unfortunate Editor who reviewed the article, I am strongly in favour of an entirely different version being constructed. This cannot be done without removing the current article. In order to move forward, I suggest that sometimes pragmatic decisions have to be taken, which may not be the most scholarly approach possible.

You might also care to note that many US-based social science journals are quite happy to reject articles on the basis of one shoddy referee's report, presumably with the same logic.

Martin

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Sanger 
  To: 'The Citizendium Editorial Council' 
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Article deletion question

  Rob, I think you may not have read my message all the way through.  In substance, I was agreeing with your earlier suggestion, that we move the text of the present article to a subpage of "Binary economics" and just blank the page.

  When it comes to an actual controversies, we'll be taking votes, in which, of course, I--or you--might be overruled.

  --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: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:51 AM
    To: The Citizendium Editorial Council
    Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Article deletion question

    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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/c36feddc/attachment.html 