People acting as both authors and editors of an article

[Gareth Leng]

1) Can we identify which issues are issues that can be resolved by expert judgement? Well to a large part yes, in that if the questions are questions that can be resolved in principle by reading and understanding the published literature, then they are questions on which an expert can judge. The disputes I've seen here aren't generally of that type.

2) Who judges whether a dispute is of this type? Now whoever does so fairly surely cannot be one of the participants in the dispute, so it must be a third party. A third party can only speak with authority if that person has the status of editor ''in respect of controversial issues.''

3) Larry thinks that "editors should be recognized and vested with authority until such a person needs to get involved.  And even when such a person gets involved, the authority of our local expert(s) over "content questions" (however defined) needs to be recognized."

Well the first part states that editors should have authority until challenged; fine, (though I don't see that they need it unless challenged). The second part states something uncontentious, that on matters resolvable by the literature, the expert on the literature always decides. It seems to me that a neutral uninvolved editor should be a good mechanism for enforcing that.

[Matt Innis]

I think the conversation is getting somewhere. 

Concerning the template, after Larry's second post, I see what he means.  In other words, everyone (including editors) argue their point as an author until the editor uses a template to announce the decision.  Once that template is in place, the matter is settled and we move on.  This allows the editor to converse without authors thinking they are making content decisions.

I would consider this agreeable as long as the template can be appealed - preferably somewhere else, by someone else, away from the article talk page.  We could even bring it to a subpage of the concerned workgroup(i.e. [[History/template appeals/Chiropractic]], or maybe a subpage of the Disputes workgroup.  This would allow for Gareth's uninvolved input.  But, again I might be creating a new tangent.  

So, Larry, I think it could work to stop the discussion on the talk page and allow the article to move on to other things, but if we don't address the the author/editor issue, we haven't solved anything long term and continue to risk disillusioning authors and demotivating them from wanting to participate.

[Joe Quick]

Concerning the template, after Larry's second post, I see what he means.  In other words, everyone (including editors) argue their point as an author until the editor uses a template to announce the decision.  Once that template is in place, the matter is settled and we move on.  This allows the editor to converse without authors thinking they are making content decisions.

Yes.  That much, I think, is clear.  And I think it's a good idea.  The issue remains (and this is what most people are focusing on) whether editors may use such templates when their own contributions to an article are in question.

[Matt Innis]

The issue remains (and this is what most people are focusing on) whether editors may use such templates when their own contributions to an article are in question.

I think the answer here is, Yes.  They can place the template.  That is what will close the discussion on that talk page.

I would also think that IF an author is still concerned, they can bring the issue to the workgroup (or dispute workgroup) at that point - rather than the workgroup coming to them. (Of course, if there is no workgroup, then EIC)  Any further discussion takes place with uninvolved editors.  But again, I might be overstepping the intent of this thread.

[Aaron Schulz]

The template looks like a good idea for the sake of communication, so that people know what is going on. I'd assume that this would only be used for content/fact disputes, and not style/formatting/presentation issues.

Also, as we get more editors, and hence more per workgroup and article, the peer review effect should kick in more and make editorial settlement of disputes seem less like "pulling rank"/"playing the trump card".  With several editors watching over each other, it's hard to complain that one is just being a "jerk"/"owning the page" or being "unfair".

[Stephen Ewen]

Obviously, the dispute between (1) and (2) turns on whether strongly insisting on a point constitutes articulating an editorial decision.  I think that can't be the case, because anyone who makes his points forcefully would always be interpreted, by our rules, as requiring others to follow his decisions.  That, I maintain, is absurd.  Simply because someone has a forceful argumentative style does not mean that he intends to make an editorial decision.

What is absurd is imagining an editor strongly insisting on a point that is not already his/her editorial decision, or two words away from it.  Why else would they be strongly insisting on the point, just for kicks and grins?  Two words away is no separation of powers.

[Matt Innis]

Why else would they be strongly insisting on the point, just for kicks and grins?  Two words away is no separation of powers.

Maybe he/she would be waiting for someone to come up with a good reason for him/her to change their mind? 

[Stephen Ewen]

Maybe he/she would be waiting for someone to come up with a good reason for him/her to change their mind? 

Maybe he/she is just being opinionated, ideological, and driven by their own agenda. 

[Matt Innis]

Maybe he/she would be waiting for someone to come up with a good reason for him/her to change their mind? 

Maybe he/she is just being opinionated, ideological, and driven by their own agenda. 

That should be evident once we get to the uninvolved editors.  Not to mention, just the possibility of elevating the discussion to an uninvolved group might be a good reason to make sure all the ducks are in a row rather than just being opinionated, ideological, and driven by their own agenda... but then this would work for both sides.

[Warren Schudy]

Here's a restatement of my position

An editor currently makes an official editorial decision by *explicitly* saying something to the effect of "I'm an editor and I say X so you must follow that". This isn't terribly clear, so as Larry suggested, a template would help. For the sake of argument, let's assume that such a template exists, so we can define an official editorial decision as simply a use of that template. Statements of editors outside the template have no more weight than those of authors.

There are a number of possible variations on the proposed rule banning editors from mixing official editorial decisions and authoring (hereafter "mixing rule"). Here are a couple:

• If an editor or group of editors is not authorized to approve an article, they may not make official editorial decisions regarding it.
  
• If an editor is a party to a dispute, s/he may not make official editorial decisions in that dispute. If no editor that is not a party to the dispute can be found within 24 hours, an uninvolved constable can make a decision (weighing the editor's opinions more of course).
  

If an editor violates the mixing rule, anyone can ask a constable to vacate the offending decision. If an editor repeatedly violates this rule, they may be demoted to author.

Larry is arguing that under current rules editorial decisions are vague, so a template is good. I agree with that. What we may disagree on is the value of a mixing rule. I believe a mixing rule would make the process seem a lot fairer for authors. Most disputes should be resolved by consensus rather than official editorial decisions, so the extra pain in finding an uninvolved editor shouldn't come up much.

I hope this resolves the miscommunication where Larry felt no one was answering his questions. My guess as to the source of the confusion is Stephen and I accepted Larry's template suggestion for determining when editorial decisions have been made and moved on to arguing about the main topic of the thread, namely when editorial decisions should be allowed, but we failed to adequately communicate the change of topic.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

I have stated time and time again, and Larry refuses to listen to this approach, that an editor should not make editorial decisions on articles where s/he is a major contributor. This is not a matter of expertise, or some peculiar interaction of amateurs versus academics -- it is a simple matter of human nature. You cannot be an arbiter of a conflict if you are actually a party to that conflict.

Insofar as the template is concerned, if that were available in such circumstances, it would encourage abuse of power. It could even destroy Citizendium. It would be a disastrous error of judgement to introduce a quasi-judicial device, with the stamp of authority, and not set very clear limits to its use.

Thus, I propose a clear rule: The editorial decision template can be used ONLY when the editor applying it has made no significant contribution to that article, and has not been a party to any acrimonious debate on the article's content or style.

[Hayford Peirce]

Once again, as I have said over and over, I agree with Martin about this. There appear to be two mindsets about this Editor/Author business that are totally opposed to each other, both emotionally and intellectually. Each group is baffled by the (apparent) obtuseness of the other. So I'll say no more about it except that I hope a concensus is reached, one way or another, and I'll be happy to work within that final framework.

Hayford

[Nereo Preto]

I tend to agree with the rule proposed by Martin (the idea of, if not the wording). It is simple and strikes right into the problem, which is -I agree- one of human nature.

In my professional experience, I met some reviewers that were clearly involved. They cannot do a decent job. It is a common practice in science to decline revision of papers written by collegues you are involved with (both in a positive and negative sense). Martin's rule goes in the direction of this practice, which I'd like to see applied by all of my collegues. I'd like to have something similar in CZ, too.

[Stephen Ewen]

...an editor should not make editorial decisions on articles where s/he is a major contributor. This is not a matter of expertise, or some peculiar interaction of amateurs versus academics -- it is a simple matter of human nature.

Precisely, precisely, precisely.

[RJensen]

[Post removed by moderator; an obvious veiled/indirect insult of another contributor.  This is inconsistent with [[CZ:Professionalism]]; please don't.]