[Cz-editcouncil] Resignation

Tue Nov 4 13:24:43 CST 2008

MessageDear Council member, 

Since I have received Larry's reply, I feel obliged to comment on it. 

I am also sad that the exchange on the economics article did not proceed differently, although I find it difficult to say that I regret any of my decisions or reactions. Perhaps, I would wish a little more patience for myself in tolerating amateur interference with expert knowledge; on the other hand, perhaps not.

With regard to Larry's role on the Talk page, I can state quite clearly that it was ambiguous, overbearing, insistent and lacking in respect for others' expertise. If I understood the rationale for his interference, it was that he is the founder of CZ and can run it as he sees fit. The other editor and I reject the notion that there is an expert view of the matter that is not adequately represented in the article, and at no point has Larry or anyone else refuted this position. The emailed opinions of the third (inactive) editor, I personally found to be ridiculous and not worthy of comment; furthermore, I would not accept his publications on the topic as scientific publications.

I think it is very clear, just from this current exchange on the Council mailing list, that there is a serious problem of a lack of respect of expert knowledge by the Editor in Chief. It confirms my belief that it was a correct decision to resign from CZ.

I will not participate further in discussion on this or any other matters.

With best wishes

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Larry Sanger 
  To: 'The Citizendium Editorial Council' 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Resignation

  All,

  If Martin insists, then for my part, I must accept his resignation with sadness and regret, directed both to him and to all of you, that the exchange did not proceed differently.  Since his pointed remarks to this list might have the tendency to undermine trust in my own leadership, however, I feel I must clarify a few points.

  First, I must strongly protest as not just incorrect, but as deeply unfair, any notion that at any point I made an "abuse of power."  I stated several times that I was not acting in my capacity as Editor-in-Chief, and the one time in which I did--albeit only temporarily--state that I was resting on my authority as EIC, Martin in fact agreed with me, and the other involved editor duly revised the article asked.  I then asked that it be expanded even further, but this suggestion was rejected by the editors, with my agreement.  I must also reject any suggestion that there is anything whatsoever improper with the Editor-in-Chief seeking out a third expert opinion, particularly from within the CZ editorship.  I should have wished that all editors would, far from condemning the addition of further expert editors and different viewpoints, actually welcome them.  Moreover, I submit that if the Editor-in-Chief believes, in good faith and with what he regards as good evidence, that there is an opinion common among some experts that is not adequately represented in an article, then he is well within his rights to attempt to have the situation rectified--short of actually overruling the editors, which I very rarely do and which I did not do in this case.  I believed I had excellent evidence that there is another equally expert view of the matter in dispute, and a CZ editor who did reply--who has actually published articles explaining (what we are calling) the Crash of 2008--definitely and strongly confirmed my suspicion.  This, far from being in any way untoward, in fact supported my original line of questioning.  This third editor opted not to participate in the dispute, however, citing heavy time burdens, and I did not quote his remarks on the talk page.  Finally, I merely observe that there is another dimension of this whole dispute, which involves Martin's own behavior, but I have no wish to bring that up or discuss it here.

  You might be interested to know that, as for the content matter that was under dispute, the other, still-active editor, who is mostly responsible for the "Crash of 2008" article, has very reasonably stated that the burden is on me and others to establish that there is a significant expert view that needs to be included in the article.  I haven't had time to follow up on this, and I have decided to leave the matter to others and to the judgment of the editor who is still working on the article.

  Best wishes to all,
  Larry

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20081104/d63147ce/attachment.html 