Editorial Contributions

HOW TO GET STARTED AS AN AUTHOR

  • Drop us a note with a summary of your interests and qualifications here: join-wex ## liicornell.org
  • Assuming all is well, we'll send you our Wex Authoring Guide.  
  • We'll next work with you to identify an initial article for you to write--or to edit if it already exists but could be improved.  
  • Once that is done, we'll send you credentials so you can log-in to our content management system and get writing.
  • It's just that easy.

RATIONALE

Any collection of information that is collaboratively edited, as Wex is, has to strike a balance between the scale and quality of its offerings. That balance is affected strongly by the way it conceives and governs its pool of author/editors.

We agree with the founders of Wikipedia that materials that are left open for the world to edit will, in general, evolve into better and more authoritative resources over time. However, this approach raises serious policing issues in the short term. Some are quality-related; others have to do with problems of objectivity or of inappropriate use of the encyclopedia as a platform for advertising. The LII has a very small staff, and would find such problems difficult to control.

We also believe that a selective author pool, while comparatively limited in the volume of material it can generate, will generate higher-quality material in the short term. For these reasons, we've opted to keep the authoring pool selective for now, but we welcome qualified contributors -- see below.

WHEN NOT TO CONTRIBUTE

The goal of Wex is to be informative, objective, and balanced. We are not interested in contributors who have some political or intellectual axe to grind.  While it's fine to participate for reputational reasons, that should not be your primary motivation.  (In our experiences, it shows in the final submission.)

QUALIFICATIONS

We are interested in contributors with:

  • demonstrated expertise in particular areas of law 
  • a desire to educate law novices
  • the ability to communicate effectively with an extremely diverse audience.

Our criteria are fluid, but in general we prefer formal legal education and give preference to legal academics and distinguished practitioners. The idea is to build the most authoritative source we can with a minimum of re-editing and tussling over content. A primary concern is that the material be useful to novices in particular areas of law -- a group comprised by practitioners learning about a new area, law students, and the general public. A desire and an ability to teach diverse groups is essential.

 

 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: