Issuepedia:About

Mission

Issuepedia is the encyclopedia of issues, analysis, thought, and opinion. As with Wikipedia, anyone can edit; unlike Wikipedia, we encourage opinions and rants as well as carefully considered analysis and purely factual writing.

Issuepedia's mission is to aid in the process of making important decisions which affect large numbers of people, either directly or indirectly.

Issuepedia's immediate function is to document:

• significant issues
• opinions held on those issues along with any reasoning or background necessary to understand those opinions
• analytical tools available for attempting to reach a reasonable decision on such issues

See also: Article Types

It is also intended as a forum for further discussion, and to provide a central point for information about other forums where issues may be discussed in a productive way. Being a wiki, it allows anyone to edit any article or to create their own; it is our hope that this process will result in a comprehensive encyclopedia of issues and opinions, in much the same way that Wikipedia (which uses the same wiki software) has become a valuable comprehensive reference work for factual information purely through volunteer efforts.

By providing a location where points of argument (and agreement) on any given issue can be documented and referenced, Issuepedia hopes to eliminate much of the endless circular arguing and side-tracking which has always plagued such discussions. In traditional formats (such as face-to-face discussion or written editorializing), any argument has always faced a compromise between thoroughly informing and sticking to the point. The relatively new technique of embedding hyperlinks within a discussion or argument makes it easier to provide complete source materials and thorough explanations without getting into a side-track and possibly losing the thread of the main thought.

Author David Brin raised much the same point in his essay "Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society's Benefit":

Many wonderful and eloquent arguments are raised, only to float away like ghosts, seldom to join any coalescing model. Rabid statements that are decisively refuted simply bounce off the ground, springing back like the undead. Reputations only glancingly correlate with proof or ability. Imagine anything good coming out of science, law, or markets if the old arenas ran that way!

Issuepedia is a central repository for arguments on all issues. Once a point has been raised, it should be documented here – and if someone else demolishes it, that too should be documented here. The central issue about which the dialogue is taking place can then be linked to both points, so anyone debating that issue can quickly be aware of the first point, and the fact that it has been demolished (and any subsequent counter-points, etc.) – in short, the whole body of debate around any issue should ultimately be documented. Points can be checked for factuality, arguments can be checked for rationality, and hopefully we can arrive at a sensible conclusion.

User Roles

Users of Issuepedia (including both readers and contributors) have various different roles to play. Users are not restricted to choosing a single role, but it may be helpful to keep in mind which role you are playing at any given time:

• A reader reads articles in Issuepedia in order to find what information may be available on a given issue or other topic, but does not contribute content or editing
• An editor examines existing contributions and makes improvements to accuracy or clarity, where needed
• A researcher compiles facts and opinions from other sources and reports them with (more or less) neutral point of view
• A pundit* is someone who states an opinion. Although the opinion should be clearly labeled as such – Issuepedia recommends the use of a section header entitled "Opinon" or prefixed with the word "Opinionated" ("Opinionated Statement", "Opinionated Summary"), the body of the opinion may be phrased in factual terms ("This action is just plain wrong!"). The point is not so much to convince anyone of the expressed point of view as it is just to "weigh in" that this is what you think.
• A debater* is someone who examines the known facts relating to a given issue, and uses that information to argue towards a conclusion. Such writings may also refer to opinions, but mainly as a way of gauging the relevance of an issue or as a launching point for the discussion ("Person X thinks such-and-so; I've looked at the evidence, and here's what I see.") Issuepedia does not yet have a recommended format for writings of this nature, though prefixing the article or section's title with "Thoughts on" should make it clear that the writing contains both opinions and analysis.

* I'm using these words until I think of something better

There may be other relevant roles I haven't thought of yet.

Administration

As of this writing, Issuepedia is solely administered and mostly written by Woozle, who invites others to participate. Issuepedia is hosted on a dedicated server whose primary function is hosting images for vbz.net, Woozle's online store (and wiki), which pays all the hosting charges; to support Issuepedia, please feel free to mention vbz.net (and Issuepedia) to others. We also accept donations via PayPal, should anyone want to encourage Woozle to put more time and effort into Issuepedia.

And yes, I need to do some banners and buttons.