Editorial Council Resolution 0007: Editorial Council membership rules

[Robert_W_King]

I'm not sure I'd call it Lord of the Flies, that seems a bit excessive. Also, I'm just not sure what some people are getting at. Should 15 year olds not be allowed to revert? Not be allowed to revert graduates? Doctorates? Neither of those make much sense on a wiki. Making blanket age restrictions to limit teenagers would clearly be "carpet bombing" to the deterrence of many good edits and users.

Anyone, old or young, who reverts against consensus or reverts Editors based on statements of fact or claims of academic consensus and the like (not policy/style) without backing it up several times or is otherwise disruptive should be dealt with.  This is more plausible, but of course, then has nothing to do with age.

I usually bat for the "anti-age discrimination" camp, but I will point out (which Steven has as well) that young (or in many cases, simply immature) people can be easily recruited by each other in the total "tribal" sense; it is a common bond that youth will forge together because they feel oppressed by their age.

Also young people may not be able to distinguish the concept of the differences between what is wrong and what is consensus, that just because a group of people think something is right doesn't make it so.  I am of the pretty firm stance that if there is any question as to the relative intelligence or maturity of individuals it should be taken on a case-by-case basis.  Even older people have the ability to still act like children sometimes.

[Aaron Schulz]

I usually bat for the "anti-age discrimination" camp, but I will point out (which Steven has as well) that young (or in many cases, simply immature) people can be easily recruited by each other in the total "tribal" sense; it is a common bond that youth will forge together because they feel oppressed by their age.

Also young people may not be able to distinguish the concept of the differences between what is wrong and what is consensus, that just because a group of people think something is right doesn't make it so.  I am of the pretty firm stance that if there is any question as to the relative intelligence or maturity of individuals it should be taken on a case-by-case basis.  Even older people have the ability to still act like children sometimes.

Right, and all of these negative attributes people may have could make them disruptive and violate policy. In which case we deal with it as it comes (warning,probation, blocks, bans and such). My problem is that age requirements are too blunt, inaccurate, and could set back the project by limiting participation. It would be nice to prevent all possible bad behavior, but it's not really going to happen without too high a cost. Some people will have some rope to hang themselves. Also, users have to submit applications for CZ, unlike WP, and so we can get some clues from how they do that.

Of course, this discussion has strayed from the original topic of Editorial Council members. For that purpose, some age restrictions could have plausible use as a minimum bar, since it is an area we really don't want serious mistakes and skrew-ups in. Still, better criteria, such as editing history, academic credentials, and application data would be strictly better ways of measuring than age, in that they would make age requirements unnecessary (IMO at least).

[Denis Cavanagh]

Hi Aaron,

Just wanted to clarify what I said. I am, above all, a teenager myself (19) My problem isn't with fifteen year olds, but the roles young teenagers are given on an encyclopedic project. Considering Wikipedia is fast becoming the first stop knowledge base for the world (And that isn't an exaggeration)  I think its just plain crazy that the majority of articles are written (or agreed upon) by people though well meaning, simply don't have the credibility to offer a definitive answer on things.

My brief stay on Wikipedia was confined mainly to an argument I had with a user about the political classification of the Progressive Democrat Party over here in Ireland. I reverted the edit that claimed they were socially Liberal (as thir recent lurch to the right would tell you) but got into an edit war with another user who claimed 'consensus' had been agreed on this point. I replied with the obvious; Consensus or no consensus, its still incorrect. S/he responded with a barrage of immature (and I like to think I coined this myself) 'policyspeak' throwing all manner of policies at me left right and centre on my talk page (You are breaking WP:NOT, WP:BLA etc. etc.)

This experience convinced me of a need for a credible alternative, and when I learnt of Citizendium it didn't take me long to pack my bags.

[Larry Sanger]

As far as age limits go, I think invoking ageism here is silly.  Maturity is far more important.  Maturity comes with age -- maybe not at the same age for everyone, but life experience is required.  I do think 30 is a bit extreme though; I like to think that I have some sense about me at the tender age of 23.

I agree completely, Joe. I have met too many immature idiots [including ones with PhDs] who are 40+ to think that any proxy measure is  reliable: statistically, they mean something, but that is not helpful for a small editorial board. Let's make rules where we really need them, but not precise inflexible rules with approximate rationales. I hate those.

Revisiting some old posts here.

The above is a very interesting point.  I think that restricting age, after Council membership opens to everyone (via the author and elected slots), would be politically unfeasible.  (It would be feasible to open up to younguns and the less educated.)  Moreover, the Council simply would not be taken seriously by many academics if on the Editorial Council were sitting a 16-year-old, or even a 21-year-old.  This will be important in the future, if CZ grows in influence and the Council grows in importance as a result.

I understand (I think) that age and education are only very imperfectly associated with ability.  This fact bothers me, and makes it difficult for me to advocate what I do advocate, namely, minimums of both education and age.  This isn't justified merely as being a "proxy" for ability, as you imply, Martin.  It is justified on two grounds at least.  First, the Council must be able to command some respect, not just due to its power to pass resolutions, but due to the alleged high quality of its collective judgment.  When we ask ourselves whether high school graduates and people in their teens or early twenties will be taken seriously by people who really are well qualified, the answer is going to be, like it or not, "no."  Second, there's the argument I made earlier, which I'll sum up again.  We certainly have to set cut-offs somewhere for both age and education.  We can't administer a "test" for reasons of feasibility I will not review.  But then we must use fairly straightforward, objective criteria, no matter how imperfect, or else we risk opening up the process to abuse.  The first point gives us adequate reason to draw the line at college graduate plus 25 years old, I think.

[Larry Sanger]

I'm not sure that's true, Steve.  Examples would help.

My point is that I can't confidently produce that, accounting for all statements on the matter.  I'd like to see a codified limits/rights statement on EC purview.  That seems a foundational tabulation for all other evaluations, I think you'll agree.

There already is such a statement.

I would expand this to include all (user-aimed) content...but one thing at a time.

[Larry Sanger]

Yes, the resolution significantly reduces the current power and autonomy of the Editorial Council. Whether or not this is desirable, I leave for others to say.

How does it do that?  I don't understand.

Well, it is not so obvious, I suppose. It is an argument about institutions which underpins this comment: institutions evolve through a learning process, which is specific and to a great extent predicated on the character and interactions of its original participants as well as its structure and structural context. [Sorry this is so heavy] I had imagined the CZ Editorial Council to be a sort of guiding force from experts on how to set standards and quality, while also attending to the needs of authors and editors. This implies a degree of permanance of its composition -- how permanent, I won't try to say.

Your resolution seems to be redrafting the concept to be more like a governing chamber, than a consultative council. It bears more analogy with a parliament, than with an expert advisory body. I always thought that was more suitable as the role for the Executive Committee.

So, the temporary occupants of the Ed. Council will in theory have a lot of power, but I doubt that in practice it will be evident. If they respond to their "voters" they will tend to follow popular opinion; this is not so bad, but it is different from offering independent advice. Even if there is some degree of independent thinking going on, the lack of people with experience in that post has implications for the learning experience of the institution itself.

I think what I am saying is what I said in an earlier post, that there has to be a mechanism for continuity of the institution, somewhere between the example of the US Supreme Court and what is now proposed. The current proposal may lead to a GREATER political role, rather than less, for the Ed. Council, which I know is the opposite of what you intend. At the same time, for the reasons I offer above, the actual effectiveness of such an institution may be less and its real power thereby reduced.

These are preliminary thoughts, and I am open to any sort of comment on them.

Very interesting analysis, Martin.  I just don't see how we can avoid having a governing chamber.  As usual, I am thinking to the future, when we might have, say, 10,000 active contributors, all of them with definite ideas about how things should be done.  Well, we want the decisionmakers to enjoy legitimacy among that group of contributors.

[Larry Sanger]

...Again, at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, the merits of the individual should be the determinant of participation.

I'm sure you're right about that: they should be, if at all possible.  But who determines the merits of the individual?  There are only a few ways to make the determination: have evaluations by some specially-appointed persons, who then have far too much power and opportunity to abuse it; hold elections for all seats, which I do not want to do (we can argue this separately if you wish); or give a test (which again is too open to abuse), a la Confucian-Chinese bureaucracy!

The sad fact, Martin, is that beyond these methods (as far as I know), there is no fair way for a political body to determine "the merits of the individual."  It is simply idle to insist on this point.  It simply does not follow from it that there should not be age limits.

[Larry Sanger]

Who says anyone over the age of 25 isn't immune to the forces of evil?  At 26 you can go rogue and make a mess of the project.

No one says anything like this, Robert: it is, again, a matter of legitimacy and probabilities, that's all--and the lack of feasible alternatives that cannot be abused.

Even 40 year olds can be pushed over the limit. 

Speaking as a 39-year-old: duh. 

I guess in the end I'm proposing that even if we set guidelines, we should take things on a case-by-case basis.

How do we "take things on a case-by-case basis"?  What does that even mean, here?

[Larry Sanger]

For policy-setting groups such as the editorial council, the potential damage caused by a rouge teen is lessened and the need for representation is greater, so I do not support age limits for the editorial council. The experience needed to qualify as an editor is rarely attained before age 25-30, so the editorial council will be dominated by non-young people even without an explicit age limit.

That's a substantive argument, which I appreciate.  But I don't think the main reason to exclude "rogue teens" is that some might get out of control.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Larry: your latest draft of the resolution deals much better with the continuity problem; also, I think it is now more clear that it is an expert-led governing body with author participation. Therefore, you have shifted it a fair bit to address the issues mentioned in the last para of my post of 28 Nov. I am much happier with where we are going now, with the existing proposal. I still think that we need to define somewhere the exact raison d'etre of the Ed. Council: I know it is done implicitly, but it helps always to be clear about why things exist and exist in a certain form.

ON the matter of age limits: well, if you really think that some limits are needed [which I am still not convinced about], perhaps we could qualify them with the term "normally", and then give a mechanism for dispensation. E.g. by vote of the existing Ed. Council.

[Larry Sanger]

Larry: your latest draft of the resolution deals much better with the continuity problem; also, I think it is now more clear that it is an expert-led governing body with author participation. Therefore, you have shifted it a fair bit to address the issues mentioned in the last para of my post of 28 Nov. I am much happier with where we are going now, with the existing proposal. I still think that we need to define somewhere the exact raison d'etre of the Ed. Council: I know it is done implicitly, but it helps always to be clear about why things exist and exist in a certain form.

Well, hmm.  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Editor_Policy#Editorial_Council

That says, "The Citizendium's Editorial Council will deliberate about and decide questions of editorial policy."  I know this is very brief, but can you explain a little better what needs to be stated?  Its raison d'etre is to settle significant questions of content policy.

ON the matter of age limits: well, if you really think that some limits are needed [which I am still not convinced about], perhaps we could qualify them with the term "normally", and then give a mechanism for dispensation. E.g. by vote of the existing Ed. Council.

Certainly, I'll add that in.  That's very reasonable.  But bear in mind that all representatives are chosen by sortition; so, if we want to add in someone who doesn't quite meet the standards, all we can do is throw her hat in the ring, we can't ensure that she's added, unless she's occupying one of the ten elected positions.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I was thinking that we need to do two types of thing with improving the definition.

(1) Define the precise limits of competence of the body: I don;t know exactly where they lie with "editorial policy". For example. should the E.C have competence in the area of selection of editors? What about issues pertaining to copyright problems? My assumption is No, in both cases, but maybe you disagree...

(2) Proceeding from the competence definition, then justify the composition and nature of the body. It is not obvious to an outsider why we would have authors; nor is it obvious why we don;t have equal numbers of authors and editors...This sort of stuff.

[Robert_W_King]

Why not by a board review under the majority of the board?  Would that be fair?

[J. Noel Chiappa]

But then we must use fairly straightforward, objective criteria, no matter how imperfect, or else we risk opening up the process to abuse.  The first point gives us adequate reason to draw the line at college graduate plus 25 years old, I think.

I take your point about the need for objectivity, but by saying "college graduate" you rule out people like Ed Fredkin. (Not to mention Thomas Edison!) How about amending it to "college graduate or equivalent experience"? To avoid having to create more bureacracy for such a (hopefully minor and little-used exception), the latter can be determined by the existing Editorial Council.

(If people are worried about the potential for the board to unfairly reject people, the point is that such a change cannot make the board any more 'inbred' than it might already be, because this mechanism can only increase the size of the pool of potential members, so even if they never pass anyone under this clause, you're only back to where you were beforehand.)

Oh, and if you want to limit the ability to pass through losers, and the basic age limit is young (say 28 - heck, you can be elected to the US legislature at 25!), then limit it to a certain age, e.g. "candidates must be aged X and be a college graduate, or be aged X+Y and have equivalent experience, the latter to be determined in all cases by the existing Editorial Council".

[Larry Sanger]

I was thinking that we need to do two types of thing with improving the definition.

(1) Define the precise limits of competence of the body: I don;t know exactly where they lie with "editorial policy". For example. should the E.C have competence in the area of selection of editors? What about issues pertaining to copyright problems? My assumption is No, in both cases, but maybe you disagree...

There's already a very specific list (though I don't think it's quite complete) on [[CZ:Editorial Policy]].

(2) Proceeding from the competence definition, then justify the composition and nature of the body. It is not obvious to an outsider why we would have authors; nor is it obvious why we don;t have equal numbers of authors and editors...This sort of stuff.

OK, that makes sense, I see now; we need more of a general introduction.  We'll can add that language when we change [[CZ:Editorial Policy]] to reflect these new rules.

Why not by a board review under the majority of the board?  Would that be fair?

I don't follow...why not a board review for what?  (Look at the current proposal.  It might have already stated what you're suggesting.)

But then we must use fairly straightforward, objective criteria, no matter how imperfect, or else we risk opening up the process to abuse.  The first point gives us adequate reason to draw the line at college graduate plus 25 years old, I think.

I take your point about the need for objectivity, but by saying "college graduate" you rule out people like Ed Fredkin. (Not to mention Thomas Edison!) How about amending it to "college graduate or equivalent experience"? To avoid having to create more bureacracy for such a (hopefully minor and little-used exception), the latter can be determined by the existing Editorial Council.

Your point is well taken, and that "or equivalent in the judgment of the Selection Official, with oversight by the Board)" (or words to that effect) is already in the proposal.

(If people are worried about the potential for the board to unfairly reject people, the point is that such a change cannot make the board any more 'inbred' than it might already be, because this mechanism can only increase the size of the pool of potential members, so even if they never pass anyone under this clause, you're only back to where you were beforehand.)

Oh, and if you want to limit the ability to pass through losers, and the basic age limit is young (say 28 - heck, you can be elected to the US legislature at 25!), then limit it to a certain age, e.g. "candidates must be aged X and be a college graduate, or be aged X+Y and have equivalent experience, the latter to be determined in all cases by the existing Editorial Council".

Right, there's language to that rough effect in the proposal.  Have a look...