CZ:Proposals/Driverless: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Chris Day |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "CZ:Proposals/Policy" to "Archive:Proposals/Policy") |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{driverless proposals archive box}} | |||
'''Initial proposal records that lost, or never gained, an active driver will be moved here.''' | '''Initial proposal records that lost, or never gained, an active driver will be moved here.''' | ||
Every active proposal must have a driver, somebody who drives it along. Proposals without drivers end up here. These proposals can at any time be resurrected if somebody volunteers to adopt it and become its driver. Simply put your name in the ''driver'' field of the proposal record, review [[ | Every active proposal must have a driver, somebody who drives it along. Proposals without drivers end up here (older proposals are archived; see the box to the right). These proposals can at any time be resurrected if somebody volunteers to adopt it and become its driver. Simply put your name in the ''driver'' field of the proposal record, review [[Archive:Proposals/Policy|the rules for drivers]], and you're ready to go. | ||
== Separate Author registration from Editor registration == | |||
{{proposal | {{proposal | ||
|Brief descriptive title = | |Brief descriptive title = Separate Author registration from Editor registration | ||
|Summary of proposal = | |Summary of proposal = To make it easier for new people to register for Citizendium: | ||
|Name and date of original proposer = [[User: | After this proposal is implement, there is a separate page for the registration of authors than there is for the registration of editors. | ||
|Username of driver = | |Name and date of original proposer = [[User:Christian Kleineidam|Christian Kleineidam]] 19:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
|Username of driver = | |||
|Next step = | |Next step = | ||
|Target date for next step = | |Target date for next step = | ||
|Notes = | |Notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 20: | Line 23: | ||
|Name and date of original proposer = [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 15:57, 7 May 2008 (CDT) | |Name and date of original proposer = [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 15:57, 7 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
|Username of driver = | |Username of driver = | ||
|Next step = | |Next step = | ||
|Target date for next step = | |Target date for next step = | ||
| Line 170: | Line 162: | ||
|Target date for next step = | |Target date for next step = | ||
|Notes = | |Notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Proposals navigation}} | {{Proposals navigation}} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:01, 8 March 2024
Initial proposal records that lost, or never gained, an active driver will be moved here.
Every active proposal must have a driver, somebody who drives it along. Proposals without drivers end up here (older proposals are archived; see the box to the right). These proposals can at any time be resurrected if somebody volunteers to adopt it and become its driver. Simply put your name in the driver field of the proposal record, review the rules for drivers, and you're ready to go.
Separate Author registration from Editor registration
| Summary: To make it easier for new people to register for Citizendium:
After this proposal is implement, there is a separate page for the registration of authors than there is for the registration of editors.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Removal of educational requirements for the Constabulary
Summary: This proposal argues that the educational minimum requirement (A College degree) should be dropped for those being considered for the constabulary. The rationale is two-fold; First, an attempt of increasing our pool of potential constables (Something which will become more important as we grow) and second, on moral grounds there is little distinction maturity wise (Which essentially is all it takes to make a good constable) between those who have underwent a college degree and those who haven't.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Simplify Core Articles Initiative
Summary: The Core Articles initiative has not exactly been a screaming success; it is not achieving its primary aim of getting articles started about the most important 4,000 topics in our ~40 workgroup areas. Therefore, I propose that it be greatly simplified--even "stripped down"--in a way designed to motivate people to contribute to the effort.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Unified Feature-Rich Workgroup page design template
Summary: Many workgroups are highly developed; some are marginally developed, and others are not developed. It could be beneficial to have a single flexible template that would be easy to implement for all workgroup home pages.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Self-Correction Policy
Summary: The Citizendium should adopt a policy that requires that we list all factual errors in previous versions of our articles--including unapproved articles--at the bottom of an article. This is the same standard that newspapers and other legitimate periodicals use. We are clearly obligated to adopt the same policy. Doing so will earn us good will from the public and increase our credibility considerably.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Citing CZ article by authors
Summary: An author X, who wants to cite a Citizendium article he contributed to, should do so in a form like "Authors and X (2008) Life ..." (summary written by Proposals Manager)
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
A new subpage for translations of approved articles
Summary: Adopt and encourage translations of approved English CZ articles to other languages. This could be done with a new article subpage called "Other languages". The pagename would be Biology/Translations/German for instance.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Non-comprehensive fair use policy
Summary: This is a proposal to allow six categories of media to be used under U.S. fair use on Citizendium. The six categories of materials encompass the most commonly used materials under fair use and are widely considered fair use without controversy. Allowing these now will free contributors in a needed way related to current articles. This is not a comprehensive fair use policy, which can be accomplished later.
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Internationalisation sandbox
Summary: There have been many requests for CZ pilots to begin in other languages, but so far nothing has gotten off the ground. Inasmuch as 1) we are losing competent authors whose first language is not English but 2) we do not have the time, personnel or expertise to begin complete CZs in other languages, I propose a sandbox type setup in which those who will can go ahead and begin articles in other languages, but these will be hidden from public view until a bona fide project can be set up in that language. Note that unlike the "sandbox" we have now, these drafts would not be discarded when the user signs off.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Naming Conventions for Biographies
Summary: to adopt conventions for the naming of articles about people, living and dead. The basic principle proposed is: In general, an article about a person ought to live at the name at which the person is best-known to educated English-speaking people, with redirects from all common alternates. Significant levels of detail are offered.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Involving authors in approvals
| Summary: There are two aspects: 1) I see no reason why anyone should not feel able to nominate an article for approval (even their own article). Indeed I see every reason why all contributors to Citizendium should feel encouraged to read articles with potential approval in mind.
2) To approve articles requires the support of relevant editors. But I see no reason why authors should not also be able (and indeed be encouraged) to express their support or otherwise for approval, and indeed as Citizendium values fluency and style then the opinions of non-expert readers are very important too.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Change to reversion policy
Summary: CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors says deletion of others' work without explanation is clearly unprofessional, and deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban., and similary discourages reverting of edits without explanation. The proposal is to rewrite the section to emphasize that it is the lack of explanation which is the offence, not the mere act of reverting or deleting others' work.
| ||||||
| Complete proposal | ||||||
Enable external feedback
Summary: Each article should have a link for non-citizens to submit feedback. Feedback can be read and acted upon by any Citizen. Feedback can be read both in an additional tab for each cluster, as well as in a global queue similar to "recent changes".
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
Pilot to allow Citizens to take credit for pages
Summary: By popular demand, we would, to a limited extent, allow Citizens to take authorship credit of articles. This would (for now) take the form of a template placed at the bottom of the page, which would, in small and unobtrusive print, list the contributors to an article in alphabetical order. Contributors would add themselves. To avoid issues about what counts as an "important" edit, a person could take co-authorship credit for adding at least two sentences, and five people who have to be on the list before any names were displayed. We would try this out in just four workgroups (the template would be removed from articles in any other workgroup).
| ||||
| Complete proposal | ||||
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|