User talk:Christine Bush: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Christine Bush
m (→‎Some background for visitors: Removed unnecessary indentation.)
imported>Christine Bush
m (Included one additional equivocation.)
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Please note: the user of this page prefers inverse chronological sorting ''of threads'', thank you. New sections may be placed conveniently at the TOP of this page and the world will not end as a result of doing so. I promise.
=='No complaints'==
Regarding [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Forum_Talk%3AManagement&action=historysubmit&diff=100843483&oldid=100843479 this]: complaints about other project members are grounds for Constabulary intervention, but the Managing Editor's comments on a Council member's proposal are not a complaint about that person's conduct. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


:   Thank you for your prompt explanation. My point, respectfully, is that Managing Editor did not comment on a proposal---he editorialized about a draft. There is a meaningful difference. Put simply, ''a proposal becomes a proposal when it is proposed'', at such time as it is delivered to Managing Editor, and the Council, in the Forum and published as such.


== Council Communications ==
:   No. Managing Editor has NOT commented on a Council Member's proposal---he found a draft in a user's namespace and wrote a preemptive editorial in an effort to squash it. He wrote: "I call your attention to a draft proposal, by Christine Bush..." '''There is no attribution of my role as Author Representative in his editorial.''' It is inconsistent, if not unfair, to apply one standard of conduct when I have the courtesy to address someone by role, and another to them while they fail to do so.
I am unaware of any pending votes at this time. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 17:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


:   Managing Editor has overreached. He has entirely bypassed the courtesy of commenting and gone straight to making a calculated effort to censor. This sets a chilling precedent that Constabulary should consider carefully. I would be satisfied if Managing Editor were cautioned by Constabulary against continuing this trend. We have so many more important things to do than draft and debate proposals to further restrain the activities of the Managing Editor. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 00:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


=== Your forum account ===
::As you have approached the Chief Constable over this, I'll leave a final decision to him. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


Christine, please consider reinstating your account on the forums. The reason you should do that is because you are a member of the Citizendium Council, whose business will be conducted there, with few exceptions, for purposes of transparency and obtaining community feedback. Without the ability to post on the Council Boards, the Council will not have your vote on motions, or your always thoughtful comments.
::: It seems to me that the managing Editor said nothing that I read as a personal attack, so don't see a case for the constabulary. He may or may not have been unwise in what he said or how he said it, he may have been better advised to stand back for a while, or he may have been wise to let it be known that this issue is one that has been extensively debated in the past. Since I am often unwise it would be unwise of me to be too judgemental about the wisdom of others.  I understand why you are irritated, the only balm I can suggest is that you take your irritation as an unfortunate and unintended byproduct of a post that was meant to be informative and certainly not meant to be offensive, even if perhaps it didn't quite come across that way.


Please reconsider.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
:::My personal views on pseudonyms (as given to Larry) were that they should be allowed (to authors, obviously not editors) under exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the Managing Editor (then Larry).  I believe that that was  the policy that Larry adopted but  nobody applied for an exception (as far as I know). (There was one with what seemed  to be cast iron reasons for wanting a pseudonym, but he didn't pursue his application beyond an initial enquiry). I thought and probably still think that real names demand respect, while pseudonyms seem often to invite disrespect. Maybe I was a bit too optimistic about the former and a bit too jaded (from Wikipedia) about the latter. :-)[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


:Please advise how discussions dominated by a disproportionately few persons, in a different sub-domain (with planned obsolescence), behind closed doors, is transparent. Thank you. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I am responding here at the request of Christine because her comment concerning the Managing Editor on the forum page was commented out by the constabulary while the Managing Editor's less than favorable characterization of work that she was performing in her user space was left unaltered.  To her, this appears as a double standard, and more importantly, an abuse of power and an effort to spoil the pot before it was brought to a boil.


:I was invited to contribute '''boldly'''. (Be careful what you wish for.) [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 19:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
::::As the Chief Constable, I can only speak to the use of the nocomplaints template. As far as I can tell, John's explanation was well reasoned and according to our guidelines, especially since the fora have been moved to the wiki where the constabulary has more responsibility to keep the environment civil. It is important to note that templates were never meant to alter content discussions--just to keep them civil. I encourage everyone involved to continue to discuss issues that elicit a passionate response, because these subjects are no doubt important enough to care about. But, check your weapons at the door and use your best arguments to make your point lest your position be weakened by your inability to practically defend it.


==== Some background for visitors ====
::::Keep up the good work everybody. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


I suspect the decision to conduct Council business in the Forum, instead of in the wiki, was based entirely on a precedent set at some point rather than on an explicit policy. (I have not rummaged through the archives, yet, to confirm this claim. But I am confident that if this is not the case that it will be pointed out in short order.) The Constabulary made it quite clear when I was elected that the role of Author Representative entailed no compulsory activities. I interpret this proviso to include within its scope not being compelled to participate in Forum discussions. Despite this, for the first two months of my term, I did participate in Forum which was a mixed experience.
:::::''unsolicited comment'': For what its worth, I support Christine on this issue, and flag ME's preemptive overreach into author space.[[User:Claus Bruentrup|Claus Bruentrup]] 08:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


The Constabulary did indicate that I would be asked to vote on things once in awhile, which I will gladly do if made aware of them. This is the crux of the matter. If discussion is essentially taken "offshore" (to use a contemporary economic practice which I find more appropriate here than "offline"), it easily distracts (and I would argue, ''diminishes'') the main project: our wiki. The result is that the CZ wiki has become essentially a [[content management system]] (CMS). A CMS is very useful, but there are some things with which a CMS should not be confused, like a community.
:Thanks for your collective feedback.


No doubt, the CZ Forum was adopted with the belief that it would address a problem well-demonstrated elsewhere, i.e. users have great difficulty confining their comments on Talk pages to the content and substance of the article with which it is associated in the wiki database. I do not dispute either this tendency, or the effectiveness of using a Forum to address it. However, we should also note that Forum participation is not only not compulsory for Council members, it is not compulsory for anyone. The result? A disconnect between new (or wiki-only) users and Forum users. Almost all self-criticism, meta-discussion of the CZ project, and governance itself is absent from the wiki (except for a good bit of old stuff that was either never migrated to the Forum, or never removed from the wiki---[[CZ:Management_Council_Passed_Motions|Past managerial decisions]], [[CZ:Editorial_Council|Past editorial decisions]], [[CZ:Elections|Past Elections]]). This is why you, like I did, may experience some part of CZ as a ghost town. In a way, it is.  
:A failure to distinguish between thinking critically and complaining is about the most damning failure of a knowledge compendium project I can imagine.  


''[[Trigger warning]]:'' I think other wiki-based encyclopedia projects get this part right. It all stays in the wiki. And as Author Representative (if only for a year) I feel like I belong here, where the Authors are.
:Additional comments regarding this topic are welcome from anyone. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


Fortunately, a wiki-based Forum is being tested even as I write this and the current Forum's days are numbered. I hope the Council will consider that it might be prudent for our deliberations and votes to be among the first uses of this new addition to our wiki.
=== Archives of this page ===
 
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Christine_Bush/Archive1 Archive 1] (2014-10-21)
:Some random points:
#The decision on where to conduct governance has largely been down to the elected officers of the day, but the old Management Council, whose decisions are largely upheld by the current Council, did pass a [[CZ:Management Council Motions Passed/Archive 2010|rule]] some four years stating that most of their debates would take place on the forums. However, different groups have done different things, and at various times discussions have been held on the main wiki, the forums, the public mailing lists, the Editorial Council wiki, and private e-mail, resulting in a situation where members are often unaware of new rules or decisions. (I did devise a way for new Council discussions to be automatically linked-to on social media, but that hinges on people reading e.g. Twitter.) There is also a [[CZ:Charter#Article 24|Charter article]] that demands "transparent and fair governance with a minimum of bureaucracy".
#There are no rules, as far as I can tell have trawled through lots of them, that requires any elected officer or appointee to do anything at all, including maintain a forum account. However, they can be removed for "inactivity", [[CZ:Charter#Article 25|according to the Charter]]. This has never been defined and so in practice may have previously been interpreted very narrowly, i.e. the person has disappeared and is uncontactable. No-one has ever been removed in this way, I believe.
#There is a sense in which the forums and the wiki are separate domains. Many members do not have forum accounts at all; others that do never post; and some people have forum accounts despite not having a main wiki account. The only real problem with moving to the main wiki, I think, is how to allow non-members an effective means of communicating publicly with project members. We investigated using a Google group as an open forum last year, but it never formally went before the Council. I recently moved the wiki forum test pages from the wiki to ensure they don't get wiped if that wiki is ever re-synchronised with the main one, and also to see if it would lead to a re-opening of this debate. I personally would rather we were on the main wiki, as it is more bureaucratic to maintain and police the forums as well. I also wonder whether there would have to be a rule over how the Constabulary should act on a main wiki forum, since they are supposed to be more hands-off on the current forum, and are not allowed to involve themselves with content.
#The governance pages on the main wiki are supposed to be there, as a permanent record. They sometimes link to forum discussions, but they're not intended to be moved to the forum. Elections also take place via the main wiki. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 
''Thank you'' for this additional background. I appreciate it. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 21:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 
== Thanks and congratulations ==
 
Christine, thanks for taking part in the election, and congratulations on winning a seat on the Citizendium Council. I look forward to working with you and the other members of the Council, and in particular, discussing the thoughts you put forward in your election statement.
 
The issue of making Citizendium a nonprofit tax-exempt organization has been discussed many times in the past few years, without resolution. Please look at the messages on this topic in the forum: [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4337.msg45684.html#msg45684 here].
 
If you have any thoughts on how we can proceed, or any resources that could help, please bring them up. If you wanted you could start a new forum topic for discussion.
 
[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 
: >> Hi Anthony, thank you for this welcome message and for all that you do for CZ. I want to be an active member of the Council. I look forward to working with you. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election ==
 
You've been nominated as a candidate in the [[User:ElectionJune2014|June 2014 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2014/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline the position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write a statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 15:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 
: I have accepted and appreciate your vote. I did not post a statement to the "official" statement page in time, but  [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Christine_Bush/June2014-ElectionStatement I have written one that you can read here].
 
 
== Welcome Template ==
 
{{awelcome}} [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 19:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:54, 24 October 2014

'No complaints'

Regarding this: complaints about other project members are grounds for Constabulary intervention, but the Managing Editor's comments on a Council member's proposal are not a complaint about that person's conduct. John Stephenson 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you for your prompt explanation. My point, respectfully, is that Managing Editor did not comment on a proposal---he editorialized about a draft. There is a meaningful difference. Put simply, a proposal becomes a proposal when it is proposed, at such time as it is delivered to Managing Editor, and the Council, in the Forum and published as such.
   No. Managing Editor has NOT commented on a Council Member's proposal---he found a draft in a user's namespace and wrote a preemptive editorial in an effort to squash it. He wrote: "I call your attention to a draft proposal, by Christine Bush..." There is no attribution of my role as Author Representative in his editorial. It is inconsistent, if not unfair, to apply one standard of conduct when I have the courtesy to address someone by role, and another to them while they fail to do so.
   Managing Editor has overreached. He has entirely bypassed the courtesy of commenting and gone straight to making a calculated effort to censor. This sets a chilling precedent that Constabulary should consider carefully. I would be satisfied if Managing Editor were cautioned by Constabulary against continuing this trend. We have so many more important things to do than draft and debate proposals to further restrain the activities of the Managing Editor. Christine Bush 00:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As you have approached the Chief Constable over this, I'll leave a final decision to him. John Stephenson 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that the managing Editor said nothing that I read as a personal attack, so don't see a case for the constabulary. He may or may not have been unwise in what he said or how he said it, he may have been better advised to stand back for a while, or he may have been wise to let it be known that this issue is one that has been extensively debated in the past. Since I am often unwise it would be unwise of me to be too judgemental about the wisdom of others. I understand why you are irritated, the only balm I can suggest is that you take your irritation as an unfortunate and unintended byproduct of a post that was meant to be informative and certainly not meant to be offensive, even if perhaps it didn't quite come across that way.
My personal views on pseudonyms (as given to Larry) were that they should be allowed (to authors, obviously not editors) under exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the Managing Editor (then Larry). I believe that that was the policy that Larry adopted but nobody applied for an exception (as far as I know). (There was one with what seemed to be cast iron reasons for wanting a pseudonym, but he didn't pursue his application beyond an initial enquiry). I thought and probably still think that real names demand respect, while pseudonyms seem often to invite disrespect. Maybe I was a bit too optimistic about the former and a bit too jaded (from Wikipedia) about the latter. :-)Gareth Leng 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I am responding here at the request of Christine because her comment concerning the Managing Editor on the forum page was commented out by the constabulary while the Managing Editor's less than favorable characterization of work that she was performing in her user space was left unaltered. To her, this appears as a double standard, and more importantly, an abuse of power and an effort to spoil the pot before it was brought to a boil.
As the Chief Constable, I can only speak to the use of the nocomplaints template. As far as I can tell, John's explanation was well reasoned and according to our guidelines, especially since the fora have been moved to the wiki where the constabulary has more responsibility to keep the environment civil. It is important to note that templates were never meant to alter content discussions--just to keep them civil. I encourage everyone involved to continue to discuss issues that elicit a passionate response, because these subjects are no doubt important enough to care about. But, check your weapons at the door and use your best arguments to make your point lest your position be weakened by your inability to practically defend it.
Keep up the good work everybody. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
unsolicited comment: For what its worth, I support Christine on this issue, and flag ME's preemptive overreach into author space.Claus Bruentrup 08:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your collective feedback.
A failure to distinguish between thinking critically and complaining is about the most damning failure of a knowledge compendium project I can imagine.
Additional comments regarding this topic are welcome from anyone. Christine Bush 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Archives of this page

Archive 1 (2014-10-21)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Christine_Bush&oldid=767769"