Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:About/archive"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Protected "Issuepedia:About/archive": spam/vandalism target ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This isn't turning out to be relevant, though it may turn out to be relevant later on: | This isn't turning out to be relevant, though it may turn out to be relevant later on: | ||
| − | + | ==User Roles== | |
| + | ''This section seems a bit stodgy and may be outdated, in view of how Issuepedia has evolved. To be re-evaluated when time permits.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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) [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <nowiki>*</nowiki> I'm using these words until I think of something better | ||
| + | |||
| + | There may be other relevant roles I haven't thought of yet. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:22, 13 July 2009
This isn't turning out to be relevant, though it may turn out to be relevant later on:
User Roles
This section seems a bit stodgy and may be outdated, in view of how Issuepedia has evolved. To be re-evaluated when time permits.
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.