Approved editions - now with added GRAVI

[Anthony.Sebastian]

I miss a point.

Will CZ base "approval" on one expert per article, or more than one, and if the latter, how many?

Will CZ have the ability to certify an article as "peer-reviewed" by three or more peers of the author?

If no peer-review, does that not render article somewhat ex cathedra, especially if not extensivesly source-cited?

Anthony.Sebastian

One editor "signs" the article as approved, but the article itself by that point will be the product of multiple editors and (almost certainly) authors.  There will be no "one person" who could be described as "the author" of an article.  The person who approves it is merely certifying that it is accurate and vandalism-free.

Also, any editor can "un-approve" an article, either because of concerns, or to approve a new version.  I hope that editors will flock to approved articles to make sure that they are good, and will leave comments on talk pages, or will pull the "approved" status if they feel it isn't good enough.

Zachary:

Will CZ articles show the names of the authors/editors?  If not, why?  If so, will the names include links to "profiles" that inform readers of qualifications?  If not, why?

Anthony.Sebastian

[Chris Day]

Will CZ articles show the names of the authors/editors?  If not, why? 

My guess is not, since there will be so many contributions from mulitple authors.  At present it is very quiet here, so one author can work on an article without interuption.  As more join the project the last draft of any given article will be change quite quickly. However, author contributions will be conserved in the history of each article where every edit can be seen.

If so, will the names include links to "profiles" that inform readers of qualifications?  If not, why?

Again the history of each article will give a link to authors user pages. But, I assume the only qualifications that will be visible are those of the editor that finalises any given version. And that editor may not even have edited the article.

[Zachary Pruckowski]

Will CZ articles show the names of the authors/editors?  If not, why? 

My guess is not, since there will be so many contributions from mulitple authors.  At present it is very quiet here, so one author can work on an article without interuption.  As more join the project the last draft of any given article will be change quite quickly. However, author contributions will be conserved in the history of each article where every edit can be seen.

If so, will the names include links to "profiles" that inform readers of qualifications?  If not, why?

Again the history of each article will give a link to authors user pages. But, I assume the only qualifications that will be visible are those of the editor that finalises any given version. And that editor may not even have edited the article.

All of this is true.  For all articles, a list of people who have edited the article (along with links to their talk pages and profiles/resumés) can quickly be established with a visit to the history page for the article.  It could take a while if a page has 500 edits, but you can see everyone who edited the page, and what each edit added or subtracted.

Additionally (and this may be the source of the confusion), the template that indicates that an article is approved will bear the name of the approving editor.  It will say something to the effect of "This article has been approved by %EDITOR, one of Citizendium's editors in the field of %FIELD".  Then you can quickly find the editor who approved it, and with minimal work can find other contributors.

[David Tribe]

Well, now the whole concept of having the Approved edition as default is official.

If an "approved" or "certified" versions of an article is available, that version will be presented to the public by default; in that case, viewing unapproved versions will require further mouseclicks for the public, and such versions will be clearly labelled as unapproved, and users will be instructed not to rely upon them.

Which, for the record, I agree with, after reading this discussion...

For the next year or so, having the approved version as default will drive editors and authors on to work on the as yet unapproved articles, which is what we want. The date when we get to the stage that 50% of our articles have approved versions may well  be ? never?

[David Goodman]

Consider the way the OED does it. All contributions are welcome, and you will get an entry in the (very long) list of contributors, but you're not identified with any particular entry. People remain very willing indeed to send in small and large amounts of new material. (And you know what you did, and can still show it off to your friends)