[Cz-editcouncil] Resignation

Tue Nov 4 14:00:37 CST 2008

Dear Martin,

I don't know if it is too late to discuss this, I apologize for being tardy,
but I was working on grant proposals with time constraints. I am sure that
many editors are still in the dark as to the substance of the article in
question, or the dispute that ensued over content and editorial input. 

Would it be helpful at this point to bring the article and specific issues
to the attention of the full council for a resolution of the matter?

Best,

John Moffett
USUHS

  _____  

From: cz-editcouncil-bounces at voltaire.citizendium.org
[mailto:cz-editcouncil-bounces at voltaire.citizendium.org] On Behalf Of M.
BALDWIN-EDWARDS
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:25 PM
To: The Citizendium Editorial Council
Subject: Re: [Cz-editcouncil] Resignation

Dear 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  <mailto:sanger at citizendium.org> Sanger 
To: 'The Citizendium Editorial  <mailto:cz-editcouncil at mail.citizendium.org>
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/20081104/6c88c1f7/attachment.html 