Template:CharterVote2/7/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
The group ofEditors shall have to assure the quality of the Citizendium's content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right

1. to approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately,
2. to decide in disputes over specific content matters, and
3. to remove incorrect(ly) or poorly presented content.

I'm suggesting:

Editors shall assure the quality of the Citizendium's content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right

1. to approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately,
2. to decide in disputes over specific content matters, and
3. to remove incorrect or poorly presented content.

D. Matt Innis 19:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There must be a better balance between authors and editors. And the editors must also be empowered to fulfill the mandates of the EC. The power of editors over authors must be limited. Jones 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors shall assure the quality of the Citizendium's approved content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right

1. to approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately,
2. to resolve decide in disputes over specific content matters when requested, and
3. to enforce style and content guidelines as established by the Editorial Council; and

4. to remove identify for discussion incorrect or poorly-presented content.

I like yours better. I'll agree to Jones' cofiguration. D. Matt Innis 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jones. -Joe Quick 00:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with article 4. --Daniel Mietchen 23:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also overlap with article 15. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, suggest a fix .... Russell D. Jones 11:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the final phrasing of article 4, I can now agree to Russell's phrasing above, reformatted here:

Editors shall assure the quality of the Citizendium's approved content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right to

1. approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately,
2. resolve disputes over specific content matters when requested,
3. enforce style and content guidelines as established by the Editorial Council; and
4. identify for discussion incorrect or poorly-presented content.

--Daniel Mietchen 23:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. (do we still want the hyphen?) D. Matt Innis 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Russell D. Jones 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Four members (Innes, Jones, Mietchen, Quick) have agreed with last formulation of this article. Russell D. Jones 02:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree (there are two hyphens, though) Howard C. Berkowitz 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So? Are you prejudiced against hyphens? Russell D. Jones 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just questioning the earlier statement that "a" hyphen remained. Personally, I have no need to dash hyphens to the ground or stand by a line in the text. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaced two commas by semicolons and removed the second hyphen, as per Ro's comments. --Daniel Mietchen 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)