Template:CharterVote2/13/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
See also art. 42 and the Special_requirements_.2F_automated_access section at the bottom of the page. --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to add "As far as possible, special requirements of visually or otherwise impaired users and for machine readability shall be taken into account." (from art. 42) as a separate article between the current articles 13 and 14, and to add a qualifier of the "Appropriate policies shall be developed when needed by both the Management and Editorial Councils." kind to it. --Daniel Mietchen 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"General public" is just too "general." Can we agree on college undergraduate level? U.S. newspapers and advertising tend to be targeted at a 12 to 14 year reading age. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to do that, but I think it will be read as elitist or something similar by some people. Is it too vague to use "average educated adult"? -Joe Quick 04:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm...expert-guided is inherently elitist, if one is anti-intellectual. I see nothing wrong with citing a reading level, for which there actually are various metrics. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we leave it to the EC to decide. We never know when some lady will come and want to write a whole childrens section, or if WatchNow wants to become part of CZ. It shouldn't take a charter referendum to decide. It would look like this with the info removed:

• All basic material shall be presented as clearly as possible, without unnecessary complications, and advanced topics shall be made as accessible as possible.

D. Matt Innis 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, would you agree on putting the level into Interim Guidance, with the expectation that the EC will elaborate? Alternatively, add to your proposed text, "The Editorial Council will issue policies on specific audiences for CZ sections."

I would have no problem if you wanted to add to interim guidance that the EC should make a determination as to what level of audience Citizendium should aspire. D. Matt Innis 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think: retain the following (from Matt above) and move specific reading level to interim guidance for the EC to decide. It should be policy somewhere, but at charter level, we just need to say that things should be presented clearly. -Joe Quick 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• All basic material shall be presented as clearly as possible, without unnecessary complications, and advanced topics shall be made as accessible as possible.

Agree. But wouldn't mind if we deleted it altogether. Maybe move the whole thing to EC interim guidance. D. Matt Innis 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. (see my next comment) Note this gives the EC & its delegates (ME?) power to remove content because it's not clear or accessible, or because it's complicated. I also agree with Matt that this should be deleted or moved. Shall we get someone working on a template? {{Content Removed--Too Complicated}} Russell D. Jones 16:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Do we want the EC or its delegates (ME) to be able to remove content with such vague description... I don't think I do.. thoughts? D. Matt Innis 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We are empowering the ME, the EC, and MC to enforce the charter and if the charter says that content "shall be" "clear," "accessible," and "uncomplicated" we are empowering them to remove unclear, inaccessible, and complicated content. Yes, it's a vague loophole. Russell D. Jones 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally a vague loophole is needed. This is what would allow an ME to remove an article to Cold Storage or to the User's space. The action could be appealed, I assume... so, in that case, think it should remain in the charter. The question is do we want it to include "non-neutral"? D. Matt Innis 17:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this be less needed if things start out in draftspace? I'm increasingly thinking of ColdStorage as more "sealed" and not to be indexed. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be used as much, that's for sure. The draftspace issue is something that is not even covered in this charter. That would probably require a referendum, would it not? D. Matt Innis 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking interim guidance for all now. We need the article on the possibility of original research, since that differentiates CZ at a policy (i.e., Charter) level. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Draftspace" idea is too radical a concept to pursue at this point in the drafting process. It will have to remain for a referendum or amendment. Russell D. Jones 18:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Decision:

• Move to Interim guidance or preamble. There will be enough loopholes, we don't need to create any.

AgreeD. Matt Innis 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest, in Interim Guidance, that the EC formally define target reading levels for general articles. --Howard C. Berkowitz 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Accessible" (in all its ambiguity) is in the preamble already, so moving the details to interim guidance (in the sense of charging the EC/MC with drafting guidelines on this) would be OK with me. --Daniel Mietchen 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; move to I.G. Russell D. Jones 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree to move. Joe Quick 16:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)