Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Wikifying"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (category +policy) |
(→Benefits: link to jsrrts's exploration structure guideline) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* The main argument becomes much easier to follow, as it can ideally be reduced to simple logic ("I believe A, and B, and C, and therefore D" or "I believe D, and the only counter-arguments I've ever seen are E, F, and G, which I think I've pretty much demolished"); if it can't be reduced to simple logic, at the very least the complications arising from the ''connecting'' text can be kept separate from the individual points. | * The main argument becomes much easier to follow, as it can ideally be reduced to simple logic ("I believe A, and B, and C, and therefore D" or "I believe D, and the only counter-arguments I've ever seen are E, F, and G, which I think I've pretty much demolished"); if it can't be reduced to simple logic, at the very least the complications arising from the ''connecting'' text can be kept separate from the individual points. | ||
* Discussions of particular points can often spin off into sub-points; such discussions can often become hopelessly tangled in traditional forums (never mind earlier forms of discussion such as verbal debate or letters-to-the-editor), but in the wiki format each sub-point can be split off yet again into another page, allowing each point to remain clear and not unnecessarily entangled with any others. | * Discussions of particular points can often spin off into sub-points; such discussions can often become hopelessly tangled in traditional forums (never mind earlier forms of discussion such as verbal debate or letters-to-the-editor), but in the wiki format each sub-point can be split off yet again into another page, allowing each point to remain clear and not unnecessarily entangled with any others. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is further discussion of these ideas on the following page: | ||
| + | * [[Issuepedia:Wiki Issue Exploration Structure|Wiki Issue Exploration Structure]] proposes an outline for creation of issue-related pages | ||
| + | |||
==Usage Guidelines== | ==Usage Guidelines== | ||
Issuepedia encourages the posting of arguments or discussions on [[Issuepedia:Topics|a wide range of topics]]. If you are not certain whether a posting belongs in the "main body" of discussion on Issuepedia, then post it under your username, i.e. name it [[User:YourUsername/Name of article]]. "Name of article" can be today's date (preferably like this: {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}), perhaps with a brief descriptive word like "argument" or discussion ([[User:YourUsername/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}} discussion]]) | Issuepedia encourages the posting of arguments or discussions on [[Issuepedia:Topics|a wide range of topics]]. If you are not certain whether a posting belongs in the "main body" of discussion on Issuepedia, then post it under your username, i.e. name it [[User:YourUsername/Name of article]]. "Name of article" can be today's date (preferably like this: {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}}), perhaps with a brief descriptive word like "argument" or discussion ([[User:YourUsername/{{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTMONTH}}-{{CURRENTDAY}} discussion]]) | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 2 April 2007
Benefits
The wiki format allows arguments to be greatly clarified by splitting off each part of the argument into separate pages, which we call "wikifying". This has several advantages:
- Readers do not need to read about the points they already agree with (or are willing to concede)
- Readers can respond specifically to points they disagree with, without having to quote part of the argument to show what they are responding to
- Readers who are not interested in discussion on certain points (typically those they either agree with or don't care about) do not have to read through either the initial argument on that point or any subsequent discussion
- The main argument becomes much easier to follow, as it can ideally be reduced to simple logic ("I believe A, and B, and C, and therefore D" or "I believe D, and the only counter-arguments I've ever seen are E, F, and G, which I think I've pretty much demolished"); if it can't be reduced to simple logic, at the very least the complications arising from the connecting text can be kept separate from the individual points.
- Discussions of particular points can often spin off into sub-points; such discussions can often become hopelessly tangled in traditional forums (never mind earlier forms of discussion such as verbal debate or letters-to-the-editor), but in the wiki format each sub-point can be split off yet again into another page, allowing each point to remain clear and not unnecessarily entangled with any others.
There is further discussion of these ideas on the following page:
- Wiki Issue Exploration Structure proposes an outline for creation of issue-related pages
Usage Guidelines
Issuepedia encourages the posting of arguments or discussions on a wide range of topics. If you are not certain whether a posting belongs in the "main body" of discussion on Issuepedia, then post it under your username, i.e. name it User:YourUsername/Name of article. "Name of article" can be today's date (preferably like this: 2024-11-24), perhaps with a brief descriptive word like "argument" or discussion (User:YourUsername/2024-11-24 discussion)
Notes
Some other things from which this page could benefit:
- Brief demo of the process of taking a chunk of a page, creating a new page for it, and linking to that page in place of the original argument (this seems obvious to me, but maybe not to everyone?)
- Links to some good examples of successfully wikified arguments or discussions