Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(rti wiki editorial review,retired ic reviewer,rti wiki editorial board,rti content review,editorial process rti)&metatag-description=(RTI Wiki's editorial-review process and how retired Information Commissioners and senior advocates join as reviewers. Scope, commitment, and contact.)}}
+====== Editorial Review — Reviewer Onboarding ======
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**RTI Wiki is looking for retired Information Commissioners and senior RTI advocates** to join our editorial-review panel. The commitment is light (one sitting per quarter, 30-45 minutes). The contribution is decisive — you tighten our factual accuracy and catch errors before citizens rely on them.
+</WRAP>
+===== Why RTI Wiki reviews content =====
+This site is used by citizens filing their first RTI, by Public Information Officers training in their role, and by First Appellate Authorities drafting reasoned orders. A wrong fee rate, a stale case citation, a superseded clause — each can cause a citizen to miss a deadline or a PIO to sign an appealable order.
+We already:
+  * **Verify every published article** — a green "Verified" badge appears at the top of the page, backed by the entry in ''conf/verified.json''.
+  * **Cite statute and case law** — every ground, exemption, and procedural claim links to the Act section and the binding authority.
+  * **Link to primary sources** — CIC orders, SC and HC judgements (via India Kanoon or the court's own portal).
+  * **Track last-reviewed date** — visible at the bottom of every article; auto-emitted as `dateModified` in the article's schema.org JSON-LD.
+What we do not yet have — **independent editorial oversight** by people who wrote the rulings, drafted the orders, and appeared in the appeals that shape Indian RTI practice. That is what this panel is for.
+===== Who we are looking for =====
+  * **Retired Central or State Information Commissioners** — any tenure, any jurisdiction.
+  * **Senior RTI advocates** — at least ten years of pleaded RTI appeals in the High Courts or the Commissions.
+  * **Retired Public Information Officers at senior rank** — Joint Secretary / Commissioner-level, with a substantive RTI docket history.
+  * **Retired Secretaries / Additional Secretaries** who administered Section 4 disclosures.
+  * **Academics specialising in transparency law** — tenured faculty with published work on the RTI Act or comparative information-rights regimes.
+===== What the commitment looks like =====
+==== Quarterly sitting ====
+  * **Frequency.** Once per quarter (four times a year).
+  * **Duration.** 30 to 45 minutes.
+  * **Format.** Video call (Zoom / Google Meet) or a written exchange — whichever the reviewer prefers.
+  * **Agenda.** The editor brings 5-10 articles that have been updated since the last sitting. The reviewer flags any factual error, stale citation, or tonal issue. The editor takes the note and fixes.
+==== Topic-specific review ====
+We may also reach out for **a single-article review** when the article concerns the reviewer's specialism. Example: an article on PIO procedure under Section 7 might be sent to a retired Information Commissioner who decided many §7(8)(i) matters. A single-article review is usually 15-20 minutes, written.
+==== No ghostwriting expected ====
+Reviewers do not draft content. The editor drafts; the reviewer flags errors or suggests sharper framing. All edits are the editor's responsibility.
+===== What reviewers receive =====
+  * **Public acknowledgement.** Reviewers are listed on the **Editorial Board** page with their designation and tenure — opt-out on request.
+  * **A direct line to the editor.** Feedback loops are fast; corrections typically go live within 48 hours.
+  * **Citation credit.** Articles a reviewer has substantively shaped carry a small footnote: *"Reviewed by [Name], former Chief Information Commissioner, [State]."*
+  * **Copies of updates.** Reviewers receive a quarterly digest of what changed, for their own records.
+  * **No honorarium or fee** (the site runs on ad revenue and is not a commercial publication). We offer this as public-interest volunteer work.
+===== What RTI Wiki is not =====
+  * **Not a news outlet.** We cover the Act, not daily headlines. We archive significant CIC orders and landmark court rulings; we do not report on breaking news.
+  * **Not a litigation service.** Our tools (Generator, First Appeal Builder, PIO Reply Checker, Question Builder) assist the citizen to draft their own application or appeal. They do not file on anyone's behalf.
+  * **Not a partisan platform.** Reviewers from across the political spectrum are welcome, so long as the feedback is factual and procedural.
+===== Our editorial principles =====
+  - **Statute first, case-law second, commentary last.** Every claim cites either a section of the Act, a binding judgement, or a published CIC order. Opinion is clearly marked.
+  - **No "why" questions in sample RTIs.** We teach citizens to ask for records, not answers. See our drafting guide at **[[:blog:how-to-write-rti-application|Ask for records, not answers]]**.
+  - **Case-law currency.** After every significant SC / HC ruling, we update the relevant articles within a week.
+  - **Plain-language rule.** We aim for a ninth-standard reading level on citizen-facing pages. Legal-practitioner pages (PIO framework, FAA checklist) are written for the trained reader.
+  - **DPDP-compliant privacy.** We follow the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the 2025 Rules. See our [[:privacy-policy|Privacy Policy]].
+===== Our commitment to corrections =====
+  * **Response within 24 hours** for any substantive correction notice.
+  * **Fix within 48 hours** when the correction is clearly supported by source.
+  * **Credit** (on request) in the article's footer: *"Correction by [Name], [date]"*.
+  * **Public changelog.** See **[[:corrections|corrections page]]** for reporting errors and the SLA.
+===== How to join =====
+Write to **[[mailto:[email protected]|[email protected]]]** with the subject line **"Editorial Review — Interest"** and a short note:
+  * Your role(s) in RTI practice over the last ten years.
+  * Your specialism (e.g. Section 8 case law, police records, service records, forest rights, scheme-specific).
+  * Whether you are available for quarterly sittings, single-article reviews, or both.
+  * Whether you are comfortable with public acknowledgement on the Editorial Board page.
+The editor will reply within three working days.
+===== Current editorial stack =====
+  * **Editor.** Shrawan Pathak. Contact: [[mailto:[email protected]|[email protected]]].
+  * **Verified articles.** Around 190 pages carry the green "Verified" badge, reflecting editor-level review.
+  * **Review cadence.** //Last reviewed// dates are published on every article.
+  * **Editorial calendar.** Quarterly reviewer sittings are planned from Q2 2026.
+===== Related pages =====
+  * [[:about:editorial-policy|Editorial Policy]]
+  * [[:about:what-is-rti-wiki|What is RTI Wiki?]]
+  * [[:corrections|Report a correction]]
+  * [[:about:editor|Editor — Shrawan Pathak]]
+  * [[:privacy-policy|Privacy Policy]]
+----
+//Last reviewed: 21 April 2026.//
+{{tag>about editorial-review reviewer-onboarding editorial-board}}