Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Wiki Issue Exploration Structure"
m |
(→Contentious points: rewrite... hope this is more or less in line with what you had in mind) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=== Contentious points === | === Contentious points === | ||
− | + | * Succinct enumeration of points that are contentious (i.e. where we have knowledge of disagreement). Points should be somehow [[falsifiable]]; if not initially falsifiable as stated, then some reworking is called for. | |
− | + | * Debate on each point, using sources and argument on the sources; can be split off into separate pages if necessary | |
− | + | * Where any generalizations can be made (e.g. everyone agrees about some attribute a solution will have to have), put those into the conclusion section. | |
− | If | + | * When debate on contentious points seems to have come to an end, we can decide if anything has been resolved (let's call this "reinforcement" or "negation" of a point, rather than "proof"). If point is reinforced, move into "conclusions" section. If disproved, move into "negated points". |
− | + | * Action statements should be used to indicate outstanding action that can be taken to gather facts that will help verify or falsify these points (perhaps there should also be a "Needed" section, where all the loose ends can be listed together for any helpful research-inclined individuals?) | |
− | Action statements should be used to indicate outstanding action that can be taken to gather facts that will help verify or falsify these points | ||
=== Conclusions === | === Conclusions === |
Revision as of 02:35, 25 January 2007
This page is setup to help define a structure that allows issues to be debated or argued. Wikis offer a great opportunity to allow an improved debate format from email exchanges or spoken debates.
Overview
Whats the best way to have a debate about an issue? Firstly don't have an argument, do an investigation! One can state an opinion/hypothesis and then provide facts that when taken together imply that result. Points must be emotionally neutral - be logical. Wiki's offer a great opportunity to debate in a structured format. Complex issues often lead to multiple different conclusions, having codification of two sides of an argument is not helpful.
Wikipedia offers a good way to evaluate certain events or facts. Due to NPOV, NOR and NOT, it is not a good medium for a exploration of the truth of certain arguments. Sometimes these debates are ad-hoc in the discussion pages. The fact that there is criticism of something may be listed without examining the validity of the criticism itself.
Structure
Exposition
A neutral question of the issue to be explored. For example "Can we provide a more structured debate using a Wiki?".
Statement of background with agreed points
A timeline could be used here.
Contentious points
- Succinct enumeration of points that are contentious (i.e. where we have knowledge of disagreement). Points should be somehow falsifiable; if not initially falsifiable as stated, then some reworking is called for.
- Debate on each point, using sources and argument on the sources; can be split off into separate pages if necessary
- Where any generalizations can be made (e.g. everyone agrees about some attribute a solution will have to have), put those into the conclusion section.
- When debate on contentious points seems to have come to an end, we can decide if anything has been resolved (let's call this "reinforcement" or "negation" of a point, rather than "proof"). If point is reinforced, move into "conclusions" section. If disproved, move into "negated points".
- Action statements should be used to indicate outstanding action that can be taken to gather facts that will help verify or falsify these points (perhaps there should also be a "Needed" section, where all the loose ends can be listed together for any helpful research-inclined individuals?)
Conclusions
A conclusion/generalization drawn from weighting the issues above. Sub debate on the weighted values and the correctness of the conclusion. Some way of listing them in a "most likely" order would be good.
Disproven points
Succint points that have been proven to be false.
References
References used in this Exploration
Example Pages
Clinton-Barak Israeli-Palestinian Peace Offers