Policy on editor banning of authors

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

If additional people wanted to contribute, they'd need to ask the editor.  If the small group found they could not agree, or did not get on, the membership could be altered, or the group disbanded, by the editor.  WITHIN the group, an egalitarian approach would prevail -- no special privileges for editors over authors -- but the movement of the entry from its Draft to Regular mainspace version would depend on the original assigning editor's judgment.

This is sounding good.   A slight modification would be to have a less formal start. Sometimes article just get going wth a nucleus of authors without any formal kick start. What you are really proposing here are ground rules for group interaction whereever they nucleate. If all authors and editors are aware of such ground rules then fuses should will be less short. and group writing more fun.

In principle, these ideas are fine, but I think we really do need clear frameworks of rules within which to do this. I actually dislike rules, but it seems that they are the key to legitimacy on CZ, even of Editors and the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, I would strongly discourage any pilot projects -- such as Russell proposed above -- until the framework is clear. I think we would end up with more problems, albeit of a slightly different nature.

[Russell Potter]

Martin,

Just to clarify -- I don't think CZ should impose some tightly-restricted off-from-the-rest-of-us pilot project -- on anyone!  But I think it might be a useful experiment to try to match people, or take groups of people who have already matched themselves up, and see if, with a sort of voluntary "do not disturb" sign over their virtual door, they might have a better CZ article-writing experience.  It need not be policy, just a possibility -- such small "taskgroups" could work alongside and among other modes of organization.

[Chris Day]

One possibility is, rather than hanging a do not distub sign, to edit in user space for a while.

[Aleta Curry]

One possibility is, rather than hanging a do not distub sign, to edit in user space for a while.

Hmmm...or a special group user space.  The problem with this approach, of course, is that there the group is, working away, and the article remains in its space, where others work away, and by the time the group comes up with a draft they like and bring it across, what's actually in the space may have been drafted with a completely different framework or approach.  Now someone has *more* work to do merging or integrating the two, as I don't think *anyone* would appreciate having their work simply tossed out in favour of the group article.

[Russell Potter]

Aleta, the original proposal I made involved a managing editor assigning the article to the group (and/or the group signing up for the article, and obtaining the managing editor's OK.  The entry itself would be blanked and locked with a message saying it was being worked on.  Once posted, of course, the /draft version could have all kinds of comments from everybody, which could cycle through and result in a version the original managing editor could approve if it was felt to be a clear improvement.

This is very similar to how this is done for most print references: the commissioning editor hires an expert editor, who then deals out the articles to individuals or groups.  Managing editors then vet the entries as they come in.  The final results are approved by the expert editor, then go through copyediting by expert copyeditors, and the results are thus of a very high quality.

[Aleta Curry]

(3) a mixed team of people with different statuses and abilities, who contribute different things to the research, but with an experienced team leader to manage the whole caboodle.

I suspect that this really isn't a workable model here, and (3) is a more promising approach.

I had always assumed that the model would be three. I think it will work well, even if not suited to all.

The problem, Chris, is that people tend to talk about (3), but actually *expect* (2)--especially the shut-up-even-if-you're-right part.


Russell--but that's just it--that is, indeed, the way it is *conventionally* done, but NOT the way a wiki works.

Isn't the whole point here that *anyone* can work on *what* s/he likes *when* s/he likes for as long as s/he likes? 

Fine-and-dandy if the British History Editor identifies "Mary Tudor" as a priority article and assigns it to the Tudorite group, who hang out a "do not disturb" sign over Mary Tudordom.  I come along and ask to join the Merry Tudorites, and I'm either invited in, or told to go elsewhere--can't imagine I wouldn't bristle at the latter.

Now, what if I just wake up one fine morning and decided to write about Mary Tudor.  I check it out.  Red link.  Oh boy oh boy!  I start writing away.

British History Editor sees "Mary Tudor" in the stub list or developing article list and says oh my, we should really get a group of experts onto this one.  What happens to poor Aleta and her mangy stub?

[Stephen Ewen]

...if the British History Editor identifies "Mary Tudor" as a priority article and assigns it to the Tudorite group, who hang out a "do not disturb" sign over Mary Tudordom.  I come along and ask to join the Merry Tudorites....

    

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

The Merry Tudors and their mangy stubs 

[Stephen Ewen]

Okay, leaving Aleta's merriness now, which is still cracking me up when I read it...

In response to this push for assigning topics to editors and authors who then form a core group that can allow or disallow newcomers:  laying aside the important philosophical problems a moment, let me say that I think there is a way to help remove this push for it. 

Months ago I privately proposed writing "Etiquette for Authors and Editors".  While this is admittedly a challenging thing to summarize, if targeted to known problematic areas--the ones giving impetus to the drive for article assigning, for example--I believe it might go a long way to smooth author/editor relations. 

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I think an Etiquette of that sort would be helpful, as is the one on language variants. When you make legitimate rules clear and simple, there is less conflict.

Also, there is a good case to be made for leaving things alone until they emerge as problem pages. A mechanism for changing the status of an article we discussed before, but wihtout reaching any conclusions. This is central, for me, to know when and how to label a page as a problem and give strong [even absolute] editorial control over its drafting. We all know the articles which have needed that [and a few have had it!]