CZ:Proposals/Self-Correction Policy
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, or (perhaps) on a subpage.
A correction should be made only if:
- The claim is truly a matter of fact. We will not announce correction of bias.
- The claim can be proven to have been in error. A source should be linked to (or quoted) in most cases.
- The claim is reasonably significant, not trivial. Trivial errors include typographical errors that do not affect the meaning of the text, grammar and spelling changes that do not affect meaning, and so forth. Any matter with the slightest tendency to affect a person or other company's reputation is significant. Moreover, matters on which students might be tested, and that people might use as the basis for action, are to be considered significant.
Correction notices are especially encouraged when a person who is/was involved with the matter discussed (i.e., a person who might become a [[CZ:Policy on Topic Informants|topic informant) asks for the article to be corrected for factual error, especially egregious or multiple factual errors.
No person will be made to take responsibility for a particular error, even if he wishes to do so.
The Editor-in-Chief or, when installed, Chief Area Editors have the final word on whether a correct must be made, and what form it must take.
Reasoning
In brief, this is the same standard that newspapers and other legitimate periodicals use. We are obligated to adopt the same policy. Doing so will earn us good will from the public and increase our credibility considerably.
Argument 1. Increases our credibility. The Citizendium has already hoisted a flag over new territory: we say we stand for credibility and expert knowledge, as well as openness and dynamic collaboration. If we own up to our errors, we are in effect declaring: we care so much about our own reputation for accuracy that we will take responsibility when we get things wrong. Lists of errors are embarrassing, but they are also impressive in that they reveal commitment and responsibility on the part of the authors.
Argument 2. Sharpens our vision and leadership for a new, more responsible Internet. Wikipedia has very famously made some mistakes, and if we grow large enough, it is only a matter of time before the Citizendium is caught in some howlers. (One hopes this will not happen so often and that they won't be so bad; but I do expect it to happen.) If Wikipedia had adopted a policy of posting corrections of errors, and apologizing for them, the public ill-will its scandals generated would have been considerably moderated. If the Citizendium differentiates itself by committing to publicly correcting and apologizing for, we will at once increase our standards and create a reputation for higher credibility than the usual open Internet website. That can do nothing but good.
In fact, we would be differentiating ourselves not only from Wikipedia, but from the vast majority of wikis, blogs, and other "crowd-sourced" websites. We would essentially be taking the leadership of this issue of owning up to errors.
Argument 3. Might spearhead a public debate--at which we would be the center.
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)
But unlike newspapers, we have decided to present our information for public consumption before it is "complete" and fully vetted. Obviously, again unlike newspapers, we are committed to the whole philosophy of publish then filter. But these are additional reasons to adopt a self-correction policy. After all, newspapers have self-correction policies, I assume, because this improves their credibility and to give their readers a sense that they really are committed to accuracy, and are not above correcting themselves publicly as needed.
I can see creating a new Corrections subpage, but it would defeat the purpose of the policy entirely to make that page hidden from the public. --Larry Sanger 09:24, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
- Although newspapers make corrections, they often hide them on page 36, hoping that nobody reads them. They also lump them into one heading as another means of hiding them. Science journals tend to do the opposite, they would say something like Correction:We cured cancer in mice, by XXX and YYY. David E. Volk 10:06, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|