[Cz-editcouncil] Set up new inactive editor categories?

[Larry Sanger]

This is fine, but all I'm asking is whether the Editorial Council can agree
to any such policy without making a resolution out of it.

A precisely appropriate place to discuss the details of the policy, *if* the
Editorial Council can approve it "by acclamation," would be
Citizendium-Editors
(https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-editors), which
agreed last year to become a discussion list as well as an announcement
list.

--Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org 
> [mailto:cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On 
> Behalf Of Volk, David E.
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 2:09 PM
> To: The Citizendium Editorial Council
> Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Set up new inactive editor categories?
> 
> 
> In general I agree, but perhaps there should be a 
> contribution benchmark and once an editor has reached that 
> level, the editor would not be put on the "Inactive" list.  
> For example, say someone wrote 400 articles and 10,000 edits, 
> and goes on a six month African safari, or has an illness, or 
> some such thing, it seems unfair to mark him/her as Inactive. 
>  Writing that many articles ought to be good a year or more.  
> The problem may be more of dividing them into very active, 
> somewhat active and never been active.  I think the last 
> category is what you are really describing.
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org 
> [cz-editcouncil-bounces at mail.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of 
> Larry Sanger [sanger at citizendium.org]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:44 PM
> To: cz-editcouncil at citizendium.org
> Subject: [Cz-editcouncil] Set up new inactive editor categories?
> 
> All,
> 
> It has always bothered me that we list as "editors" people 
> who might not ever have touched the wiki.  This is not "truth 
> in advertising."  It also makes the honor of CZ editorship, 
> which ought to count for something, rather too easy.  On the 
> one hand, we want the *rights* to editorship to be as easy as 
> possible, for qualified people.  On the other hand, we want 
> the *honor* of editorship something that has to be earned.  
> Well, we can make good on this distinction: we simply make a 
> new category of editor: Inactive XYZ Editors, like Inactive 
> Philosophy Editors.  Then we add the word "Inactive" to the 
> editor tags of people who have (according to some measure) 
> been inactive.  We can also add a link from the XYZ Editors 
> category page to the Inactive XYZ Editors category page.
> 
> I suspect that, because academics and professionals generally 
> are motivated by honors, to a great extent, actually 
> requiring some activity of editors in order to be prominently 
> listed would help *somewhat* to motivate editors to get 
> involved.  To this end, I propose not only that we create the 
> above "Inactive" categories, but that we tell editors that we 
> are going to do so, and that we specifically request that 
> they not list CZ editorship on their CVs unless they are 
> active.  Simply saying that should impress two important 
> facts on editors: first, CZ editorship is an honor (that is 
> appropriate to put on a CV); second, you are going to have to 
> contribute your labor to the project if you want the honor of 
> editorship.
> 
> Therefore, I propose the following language:
> 
> ============
> 
> You may count yourself an active Citizendium Editor if you 
> have edited CZ in the previous three months.  If you have not 
> edited the wiki in that time, then any Citizen may change 
> your various "CZ Editor" categories to "Inactive CZ Editor" 
> categories.  For instance, the category on your user page 
> might be changed from [[Category:Chemistry Editors]] to 
> [[Category:Inactive Chemistry Editors]].
> 
> You may delete the word "Inactive" yourself, once you have 
> edited the wiki. (For simplicity, editing the wiki once will suffice.)
> 
> ============
> 
> I've run this by the Executive Committee and they are all 
> agreed that this is a good idea.  So I am thinking that we 
> could pass it "by acclamation." In other words--are there any 
> objections to this policy?  If there are, let me know, and 
> I'll make a proper resolution out of it.
> 
> --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
>