Approving History articles, and the need for a new editor

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

With hindsight, I would have applied for history editor status when I enrolled, within my scope of expertise in primarily military and intelligence history. At The Other Place, one of the few collegial environments is the Military History Project, and, I suppose, I didn't think through that there was as much a distinction between military and history here.  I have seen a number of articles where I think I can help guide their development, again in my areas of expertise -- which also include computing, communications and engineering, all very significant especially in modern history.


http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Howard_C._Berkowitz

[RJensen]

I am disappointed at the inactivity of our editors. But please let's keep them--they are hard to recruit and some may become active.  As the saloon owner said to the angry cowboys: "Please don't shoot the piano player--they are so hard to replace!"

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

(sorry if this is a duplicate)

When I signed up, it was for computers, engineering, and military.  Unfortunately, my one positive experience at The Other Place, by and large, was the Military History group. I assumed, incorrectly, that military would cover my interests in military and intelligence history.

While I'm less formally credentialed in the area than in other fields, I suspect I may now have enough of a body of work here and at WP to give evaluators something to judge. This has broader implications -- I can't  believe that I'm the only person with nontraditional expertise, but there's a reasonable way, I believe, to judge such expertise: let the individual author here for a while and then see if their work is of reasonable quality.

As far as the process, I've both published four books in technical areas, and got into technology through writing and editing.

How would I apply for adding the History editor status? I think it has to be understood that there can be more than one legitimate editing and writing stye. A remark I still cherish, admittedly from computer science, is when a colleague referred to a "full contact design review"?

[Aleta Curry]

(sorry if this is a duplicate)

When I signed up, it was for computers, engineering, and military.  Unfortunately, my one positive experience at The Other Place, by and large, was the Military History group. I assumed, incorrectly, that military would cover my interests in military and intelligence history.

While I'm less formally credentialed in the area than in other fields, I suspect I may now have enough of a body of work here and at WP to give evaluators something to judge. This has broader implications -- I can't  believe that I'm the only person with nontraditional expertise, but there's a reasonable way, I believe, to judge such expertise: let the individual author here for a while and then see if their work is of reasonable quality.

As far as the process, I've both published four books in technical areas, and got into technology through writing and editing.

How would I apply for adding the History editor status? I think it has to be understood that there can be more than one legitimate editing and writing stye. A remark I still cherish, admittedly from computer science, is when a colleague referred to a "full contact design review"?

Okay, you've got a few different questions in one.

How would I apply for adding the History editor status?

Contact the Editorial Personnel Admins:     

* User:Roger Lohmann
* User:Jitse Niesen
* User:Supten Sarbadhikari
* User:David Shapinsky
* User:David E. Volk

While I'm less formally credentialed in the area than in other fields, I suspect I may now have enough of a body of work here and at WP to give evaluators something to judge.


I can't  believe that I'm the only person with nontraditional expertise

You're not.  There are, for example, a couple of editors without even the B.A.  Not many, but they do exist.

 but there's a reasonable way, I believe, to judge such expertise: let the individual author here for a while and then see if their work is of reasonable quality.

Ha!  If we were purebred animals, we'd call that "Registration on Merit".  While I don't think that's spelled out anywhere as part of the nontraditional expertise evaluation (probably should be), I think that certainly is taken into consideration.

I don't know that we've got a *formal* process for nontraditional expertise evaluation ; my feeling is that the admin's common sense and review of each individual situation prevails.

[John Stephenson]

One idea that looks like it'd work until you really think about it is having two classes of editors, one with lower standards (e.g. level of PhD student). This would probably involve lowering standards, even if you demand, say, that three junior editors (or five, or...) are needed to approve an article and clearly indicate that they are semi-expert, rather than senior editors. Also it would involve approvals by people who may not have any published work between them.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Ha!  If we were purebred animals, we'd call that "Registration on Merit".  While I don't think that's spelled out anywhere as part of the nontraditional expertise evaluation (probably should be), I think that certainly is taken into consideration.

I have several senior feline advisors whom, I believe, will state that I have merit by Cat standards. Mind, I live in a very nontraditional household, from the perspective that while the humans can maintain cross-cultural identities, the four dogs and one squirrel (vs. 15 cats) believe they are cats.

[Aleta Curry]

Howard:  anyone with 15 cats and 4 dogs is okay by me, bro!

John:  I've gotta toss that one around in ye olde braine for a while.  I wonder if people would be insulted to be 'junior editors'?  Would it cause more conflict than it's worth with the...er...'senior editors'?  I can just visualise a 4 jrs vs. 1 sr. conflict--like we don't have problems enough already.  Still, I think there's a good idea in there somewhere, but probably as *part* of a crafted policy on evaluating non-traditional expertise, rather than a stand-alone criterion.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Howard:  anyone with 15 cats and 4 dogs is okay by me, bro!

Don't forget the squirrel.

Apopos of nontraditional expertise in editing, when I was reviewing the final proofs for one of the books I've written, I had each chapter in a separate pile on my dining table. A late and greatly missed feline editor jumped up, sniffed each pile, and ...umm...applied a note in recycled fur to two chapters. Was that a nontraditional way of saying not approved?

[Denis Cavanagh]

Actually, a 'Junior Editor' concept may not be a bad idea! Food for thought for the future maybe?

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

The analogy might be closer to "study partner", "buddy", or "peer reviewer" than "editor". Editor, in the scholarly publishing industry (at least the engineering side of it), can have several meanings. For me, it was most useful to have a peer/technical editor that could be a sounding board, and then a copy editor; the best copy editors were the ones that I could alert to my most common writing errors, and to watch for them.

Unfortunately, some publishing houses assume that if one is a subject matter expert in a technical field, clearly, sci-un-tists and enginurz can't rite gud, and the publisher assigns a "development editor". Should I ever find myself in Hell, I need no red creatures with pitchforks. A development editor, with a need for power and a lack of expertise, is, at least for this life, a root canal gone bad.

Anyway, I'd volunteer, preferably but not necessarily in a field where I have expertise, as a "writing buddy" to help people get articles in reasonable shape, perhaps with email or telephone contact -- until the article is in a form where it's stable enough for general Wiki editing. Could this be a form of "junior editor"?

As I see the current Citizendium editor concept, while it is best in cases where it is a form of mentoring, it is principally a form of error checking. Right now, there are times where I see things in works-in-progress that are flatly wrong, but the social dynamics of the case don't feel right for intervention.

[Aleta Curry]

Howard:  anyone with 15 cats and 4 dogs is okay by me, bro!

Don't forget the squirrel.

Apopos of nontraditional expertise in editing, when I was reviewing the final proofs for one of the books I've written,... A late and greatly missed feline editor jumped up, sniffed each pile, and ...umm...applied a note in recycled fur to two chapters. Was that a nontraditional way of saying not approved?

No, it was 'immediate feedback'!   

[Denis Cavanagh]

Howard,

Don't ever be afraid to pitch in with suggestions, particularly in any articles I'm ever involved in! Personally speaking my military history capacity is perhaps where I am weakest when writing about in the field of history and someone like yourself is more than willing to 'reform' by often poor contributions on that matter!

Regards.

[John Stephenson]

John:  I've gotta toss that one around in ye olde braine for a while.  I wonder if people would be insulted to be 'junior editors'?  Would it cause more conflict than it's worth with the...er...'senior editors'?  I can just visualise a 4 jrs vs. 1 sr. conflict--like we don't have problems enough already.  Still, I think there's a good idea in there somewhere, but probably as *part* of a crafted policy on evaluating non-traditional expertise, rather than a stand-alone criterion.

Yes, that's what I was saying - it wouldn't work, probably.

[Milton Beychok]

The same need for more editors applies to the Engineering workgroup articles as well. There are 30 editors signed up as Engineering editors, but all I have seen are about 4 active ones. As a result, I have noted that some Engineering articles have been approved by editors from other workgroups.

I speculate that most working engineers and engineering in acadamia are too busy to actively particpate. What we need is some way to reach out to retired engineers and emeritus engineering professors. Does anyone have any ideas how to reach them?

Milt Beychok

[Aleta Curry]

I think Larry might suggest you need a plan for the Engineering Workgroup week.