Sub-workgroups

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Should we establish all these subgroups ahead of time?  I think not.  Only when there is a critical mass, or an organisational need, as in the Chemical Engineering Subgroup should we establish these groups.  They should be user driven, bottom up, rather than a top down directive from CZ. In this way authors will feel it is their patch in CZ.  Chess or Cricket lovers will have their own cozy domain within the Sports Workgroup, but only if they wish to form it. This is the key difference between my view and Milts. While I see the advantages of subgroups from a navigational perspective, I still see a well developed network of "Related Articles Subpages" as more important to the readers for finding articles.  Clearly the well developed part is critical if they are to be reach their potential as a navigational tool, so we do have a long way to go in that regard.

I agree.  We don't want to dictate to people how they will approach their CZ contributions and we don't want to have a hundred unused workgroups cluttering things up.  We do want to allow people to create groups when they need them.  The one danger that I see is that we'll end up with a ton of overlapping and forgotten groups - we need to be careful about not letting things get out of hand.

When I go to a paper encyclopedia, I look for the closest match I can find for a specific term. More often than not, the paper encyclopedia does have something analogous to "related articles" here, which indeed is a way of searching for a concept.

I suppose I do see the primary use of groups/subgroups as organizing writing and collaboration, rather than as of particular assistance to end users; related articles does a better job of that.

(signed)
*confused*

[Aleta Curry]

5) Invite your colleagues to join. Authors and Editors can be added to the subgroup by adding the appropriate category tags to their user page (either {{Category:NAME Editor}} or {{Category:NAME Author}}, where NAME refers to the subgroup name). Anyone can add themselves as an author, of course. It should be noted that the editor label does not give special editorial rights outside their designated workgroup! It is merely to identify members of the subgroup that are editors in one or more workgroups. Note: there may well be clusters in the subgroup that a "subgroup editor" cannot approve.

We may want to rethink this and only have subgroup members rather than authors and editors. In this way roles within the workgroup context will never be confused with roles in a subgroup.

That will have to depend on the specialty.  I think for now leave this on a case-by-case basis, because some editors will only be editors in the subgroup, not in the parent workgroup (where the workgroup covers lots of unrelated topics).  Some might be technically qualified to be editors in both, but might elect to specialise.

Edited to add:  Chris, I like the current version a lot!

[Chris Day]

For those following this saga see a first draft for the editorial council proposal at:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Chris_Day/sandbox1

I still have to set up and improve some of the mechanics before it goes live.  We're close though.

Please do not be deterred from editing the proposal.  I welcome all feedback and contributions.

[Milton Beychok]

I suppose I do see the primary use of groups/subgroups as organizing writing and collaboration, rather than as of particular assistance to end users; related articles does a better job of that.

Howard, I respectfully disagree with you on this. Readers coming to CZ in search of info (who know nothing about Related Articles or how to navigate CZ) will look for categories covering the discipline about which they want info. An electrical engineer will first look for an Electrical Engineering category. A military historian will look for a Military History category. A thermodynamics student will be looking for a Thermodynamics category. Those readers will not know that what they are looking for is somewhere amidst a great many articles in the Engineering category or the History category or the Chemistry category.

In other words, I am convinced that sub-workgroups (and the resulting categories for those sub-workgroups) will greatly facilitate navigation of CZ by end user readers.

[Matt Innis]

In other words, I am convinced that sub-workgroups (and the resulting categories for those sub-workgroups) will greatly facilitate navigation of CZ by end user readers.

I hadn't even thought about that aspect of it; that users can find articles based on the subspecialty categories.  That is because I am always thinking about the editorial aspect, i.e. who's in charge.  This could also help us satisfy some of the 'specialty editor' issues.  Maybe we could 'qualify' more editors in subspecialties that would not otherwise qualify for the bigger workgroup... hmm.

[Chris Day]

Maybe we could 'qualify' more editors in subspecialties that would not otherwise qualify for the bigger workgroup... hmm.

I've been thinking about this and I wonder if it is too complicated.  A better approach would be to approve people as workgroup editors despite them having only very specialist expertise. In the Subgroup proposal i mentioned a hypothetical chess grandmaster and a dog breeder. If breadth is a requirement then clearly these two would not qualify to be editors for the Games or Hobbies (or Biology) workgroups respectively.  But this makes no sense. 

We need to have more trust that editors will only wear their editorial hat when appropriate.  There are many areas of biology in which I would not feel comfortable making editorial decisions.  Knowing our own boundaries is part of the professionalism we aspire to. So the solution, in my opinion, is to loosen the requirements for being an editor not create a multitude of specialist fifedoms.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

We need to have more trust that editors will only wear their editorial hat when appropriate.  There are many areas of biology that in which I would not feel comfortable making editorial decisions.  Knowing our own boundaries is part of the professionalism we aspire to. So the solution, in my opinion, is to loosen the requirements for being an editor not create a multitude of specialist fiefdoms.

Exactly. I've run into objections when I raised a point where I've had direct knowledge of a specialized, interdisciplinary applications. If one thinks of spectroscopy as mostly belonging to physicists, ocean temperature distribution as earth sciences, it tends to exclude applications of multispectral scanning. Now, I've gotten away with some statements of fact when I phrase it in the perspective of military intelligence sensors, perhaps because it's "common knowledge" that such sensors are very real, although there's great mystery about even the unclassified aspects of how they are used. At one point, however, I was about to make an observation about how commercial fishermen use ocean temperature data, gathered by satellite, to plan tuna fishing, I realized I was neither a Physics nor Earth Sciences nor Biology (fish, after all) nor Agriculture editor, so should not have a right to make a call on the subject.

Indeed, I would not, for example, try to use some of these same discipline to talk about algal blooms. On the other hand, when I develop communications, computer and electronic systems for commercial fishing, listening to the captains' experience, deciding a few tidbits from antisubmarine warfare aren't classified, and help them have a multiscreen or layered screen letting them combine ocean surface temperature, bathythermography, and bathymetric sonar to go and catch the fish, obviously I must not be qualified. The fishing boat captains aren't even Engineering or Computers editors, so how could they possibly make use of such information?

You touch on the key, Chris. There are times when both non-editors have specialized knowledge of a niche. There have been some unfortunate situations where a (former) editor used the broad workgroup to assert authority over either subjects outside it, or don't understand a specialized area within their workgroup.

Now, if we had a surfeit of editors, and some workgroups do have at least a quorum, multiple editors might join and say that the "non-expert" indeed makes sense. But when we have situations where Approvals are backlogged because the author is the only Editor in a workgroup, or there are no active Editors in a workgroup, we have a problem that needs at least a short-term solution.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I suppose I do see the primary use of groups/subgroups as organizing writing and collaboration, rather than as of particular assistance to end users; related articles does a better job of that.

Howard, I respectfully disagree with you on this. Readers coming to CZ in search of info (who know nothing about Related Articles or how to navigate CZ) will look for categories covering the discipline about which they want info...

Key word in the above: readers, as in human beings. A substantial number of readers do not come directly and browse, but use search engines. The ability to have such things as moderately complex interconnections of related articles puts out information that no human may use directly.   

Trends in information retrieval, such as the Semantic Web, are not here yet, but are coming. In my own work, I use a certain amount of semantic linkage to organize information. Once one has tools, an understanding, or at least a "knowledge engineer" to help, it can be a remarkably good way to organize information. "Mind-mapping" is a new and evolving way to present the results of such information. 

It's an evolving field.

[Larry Sanger]

Maybe we could 'qualify' more editors in subspecialties that would not otherwise qualify for the bigger workgroup... hmm.

I've been thinking about this and I wonder if it is too complicated.  A better approach would be to approve people as workgroup editors despite them having only very specialist expertise. In the Subgroup proposal i mentioned a hypothetical chess grandmaster and a dog breeder. If breadth is a requirement then clearly these two would not qualify to be editors for the Games or Hobbies (or Biology) workgroups respectively.  But this makes no sense. 

This is actually already the case!  I have made probably a dozen or more "specialty editors" who are not editors in a general workgroup but can approve articles and otherwise act as editors in some more limited (always ad-hoc) area.  CZ:Editor Policy has the details.

[Chris Day]

Excellent, I was not sure if that was the case, glad to hear it is.

[Chris Day]

Finally!

Thanks for your patience. Let the comments fly.

[David E. Volk]

Let's put out a call on the forum and main page for people to apply for specialist editorships if they have niche knowledge.  The gentleman who wrote NMR Spectroscopy could be a specialist editor and approve my article List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments 
 
He is an author but not yet, presumably, qualified to be a Chemistry of Physics editor in general.

[Matt Innis]

Let's put out a call on the forum and main page for people to apply for specialist editorships if they have niche knowledge.  The gentleman who wrote NMR Spectroscopy could be a specialist editor and approve my article List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments 
 
He is an author but not yet, presumably, qualified to be a Chemistry of Physics editor in general.

Exactly what I meant about qualifying someone as specialist editor that would not qualify as an editor for the larger workgroup.