[Cz-editcouncil] Compendium of private comments on Res 0011

[M. BALDWIN-EDWARDS]

Dear EC member

Below are the privately communicated comments on Res, 0011 in reverse order of receipt.

Best wishes

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Secretary
CZ Editorial Council

Larry Sanger:
I  have only two comment about this, but both are rather big.  The first is the resolution establishes a role of Lead Editor for each workgroup.  This is far more important and consequential than any position we might take on the issue of a consistent style and format of articles.  In order to implement this, we need to know more about many questions this raises: how Lead Editors will be chosen, and how they may be replaced, or dismissed when necessary; whether there will be term limits; what their (other) roles might be (dispute resolution?), and how their roles will be specifically limited (as I think we must carefully specify); and so forth.   Moreover, the rules at present speculate about some such role as a "Chief Area Editor."  Does Lead Editor correspond to that?  If so or if not, how does the current proposal affect what the rules currently state about such a role?  Should we, for example, delete all mention of such a role from the rules?  (Maybe!)   My second comment is that the resolution does not address a question it must be absolutely explicit about, and that is to what extent style and format are to be established "federally," as it were.  We do already have style and format guidelines.  May workgroups set aside those rules?  In many cases, I think the answer must be "no."  But then what "wiggle room" do workgroups have to set up their own style guides?


Andrew Fleisher:
I noticed you 'adopted' most of my recommended changes to EC Resolution 011.
    There was one small difference, which doesn't matter too much: I recommended adding the word "might" to one of the lines.You added the word "may", which is more ambiguous than "might".
    I work in an engineering environment, where we must guard against ambiguity more than most other occupations. So I notice the difference in meanings where others do not.


Simon Overduin:
Regarding Resolution 0011, the idea to develop workgroup-specific
stylesheets appears generally sound. My one concern is that these
stylesheets should be developed in unison with other workgroups'
stylesheets. This would be beneficial both to maintain some basic visual
identity across Citizendium articles, and to guide authors whose articles
may span multiple workgroups. I would suggest that a senior editor be
appointed to coordinate the development of stylesheets by different
workgroups. Perhaps this involvement could be as simple as creating a
meta-stylesheet that lays out Citizendium's own formatting style, with
subsections highlighting those aspects of the formatting in which
different workgroups may vary. This document could serve not only as a
reference but as a template for each workgroup's own stylesheet
development.


K. Kay Shearin:
On the one hand, this proposal strikes me as the antithesis of what CZ
purports to be (= a forum for non-experts to explain topics to other
non-experts with experts keeping them from making factual mistakes) and
the quintessence of what it probably is (= a rôle-playing platform where
wannabes can pretend to exercise the power/status their current level of
expertise hasn't yet achieved in the professional hierarchies where
they are in real life).
    On the other hand, having been in the profession of technical
writing/editing for more than three decades, I know that it is
impossible to enforce ANY guidelines about writing "style" even when
you have both legal and economic power over a writer working in your
physical presence.  (Shucks, you can't even get them to use standard
grammar!)
    So my bottom line is that we should let whoever wants to police writing
style on CZ do whatever they please about it as long as -- but ONLY as
long as -- it doesn't interfere with the endeavors of ANYONE who
hasn't opted into that particular exercise in futility.  This proposal
is based on false premises and is, therefore, an invalid conclusion as
well as impossible to implement.


Gary Giamboi:
The example given in Resolution 11 works fine and I have no problem with it. My concern is that in subjects where the facts and principles are not as clear cut as in Chemistry, the imposing of such rigid guidelines may inhibit very worthwhile articles from being written by legitimate authors. 
    So perhaps each group can decide for itself whether or not to impose rigid guidelines, just propose suggested guidelines, or skip the whole concept.
    As for Martin's legitimate concern of cross-group articles, I suggest that however the editorial process is determined maybe used to determine which set of guidelines apply; or, if two editors from different groups are involved, it will be up to them to decide.


Andrew Fleisher:
Amend the second "Whereas" to read:
Whereas, different disciplines might require different approaches, thus ruling out a common standard for all articles, even within the same workgroup;
    Amend the "Method of Execution" to read:
The Council will call for a lead editor in each workgroup, to oversee and develop the stylesheet or stylesheets for that workgroup.
    (changes have been bolded)








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.citizendium.org/pipermail/cz-editcouncil/attachments/20080616/c5b2e082/attachment.html