CZ:Proposals/Self-Correction Policy: Difference between revisions
imported>David E. Volk (horrible proposal in current form) |
imported>Richard Jensen (→Discussion: bad idea) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
I am totally against this policy. First, we shouldn't have to do the extra work this would entail, particularly for first drafts. Second, I have never picked up a newspaper and found errors displayed for the public from their first draft of a news story. They may keep internal records, but no public ones at the bottom of the actual newspaper article. | I am totally against this policy. First, we shouldn't have to do the extra work this would entail, particularly for first drafts. Second, I have never picked up a newspaper and found errors displayed for the public from their first draft of a news story. They may keep internal records, but no public ones at the bottom of the actual newspaper article. | ||
Also, it should be taken as a given that draft articles will have a few mistakes. If you want to keep a record of errors, it should be on a separate page that only CZ people can read. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:04, 28 March 2008 (CDT) | Also, it should be taken as a given that draft articles will have a few mistakes. If you want to keep a record of errors, it should be on a separate page that only CZ people can read. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:04, 28 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
::David Volk is exactly right. We of course already do have a complete file that contains all back versions and all their mistakes. We are not at all like newspapers in this regard (they are telling about their errors in original research, which we do not engage in.) [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 09:17, 28 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
{{Proposals navigation}} | {{Proposals navigation}} | ||
Revision as of 08:17, 28 March 2008
This proposal has been assigned to the Editorial Council, and is now in the Editorial Council proposals queue.
Driver: Larry Sanger
Complete explanation
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.
Reasoning
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.
Implementation
A practical "to do list" type explanation of how the proposal will be implemented, and who will implement it. If there is no one to implement the proposal (as, for example, with many technical or recruitment proposals), then it is automatically declined.
Discussion
Details forthcoming!
I am totally against this policy. First, we shouldn't have to do the extra work this would entail, particularly for first drafts. Second, I have never picked up a newspaper and found errors displayed for the public from their first draft of a news story. They may keep internal records, but no public ones at the bottom of the actual newspaper article. Also, it should be taken as a given that draft articles will have a few mistakes. If you want to keep a record of errors, it should be on a separate page that only CZ people can read. David E. Volk 09:04, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
- David Volk is exactly right. We of course already do have a complete file that contains all back versions and all their mistakes. We are not at all like newspapers in this regard (they are telling about their errors in original research, which we do not engage in.) Richard Jensen 09:17, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|