Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Commons"

Revision as of 02:51, 11 January 2007

Introduction

Welcome to the Issuepedia:Commons! This is an area for general discussion about whatever – site issues, stuff that doesn't have a page yet, etc. It is analogous to the Wikipedia:Village pump. You can post here or on the discussion page.

Articles

General

FAQ

Recent Proposals

Wiki Argument Structure: should probably be in Issuepedia: namespace
Issuepedia:Reasonably sound opinion

Recent Dialogue of Interest

Notes & General Discussion

write stuff here or on the discussion page

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Introduction==
 Welcome to the [[Issuepedia:Commons]]! This is an area for general discussion about whatever &ndash; site issues, stuff that doesn't have a page yet, etc. It is analogous to the [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]. You can post [http://www.issuepedia.org/index.php?title=Issuepedia:Commons&action=edit&section=new here] or on the {{talkpage}}.
-==(F)AQ==
+==Articles==
-''not so much <u>frequently</u> asked as... asked.''
+===General===
-* '''Q''': Why is it when I search on "jsrrts" or "woozle" the User pages are not listed?
+* [[Issuepedia:FAQ|FAQ]]
-** '''A''': You can set which namespaces to search in your user preferences ("preferences" link in the group at top-left). By default, I've excluded the user pages (and some other namespaces), but I'm open to reasoned suggestions for change.
+===Recent Proposals===
-* '''Q''': I prefer the indented response talk style I've edited [[Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid]] to, what do you think?
+* [[Wiki Argument Structure]]: should probably be in Issuepedia: namespace
-** '''A''': First: I do appreciate work in this direction; development of useful standards and guidelines for online debate is part of my goal for Issuepedia. Second: It looks fine as one possible style. When a conversation is mostly linear back-and-forth as was ours, the indented style tends to lead to increasingly cramped text as the conversation continues. When a conversation involves responses to individual points, and counter-responses to those responses, etc., then indentation becomes much more necessary... though eventually I'd like to see one or more templates for this, to give more visual cueing as to the content of each statement: is it the original poster, or a reply? Is it agreeing, commenting, or rebutting? At some point, though, it may be that tracking the interconnections will stretch the wiki format beyond its effective limits and we will need something more like [http://honestargument.com/arg/22 HonestArgument] or [http://truthmapping.com/viewtopic.php?id=508 TruthMapping] or the other ideas discussed in [[Issuepedia:Dispute Resolution Technology]]. (PS: The way you reformatted the page is fine.)
+* [[Issuepedia:Reasonably sound opinion]]
-* '''Q''': I was wondering what is gained by articles such as [[Mormonism]], aren't these factually better served through Wikipedia? Are you trying to do something different here from [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|Wikipedia]]?
+===Recent Dialogue of Interest===
-** '''A''': Yes, Issuepedia has a substantially different approach from Wikipedia. Some of this is covered in [[Issuepedia:About#Site Role]] (although it probably needs to be covered better; questions like this one help me to identify areas which could use further explanation). Some specifics on how Issuepedia differs from Wikipedia:
+* [[Talk:Clinton-Barak Israeli-Palestinian Peace offers]]
-*** Original writing and criticism ''is'' acceptable on Issuepedia; some guidelines will probably be needed at some point (see [[Issuepedia:Topics]] for some brief guidelines on appropriate subject material &ndash; more is needed, but I'm content to wait until it becomes clear that a restriction is needed before imposing such)
+* [[Talk:Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid]]
-*** Issuepedia is ''not'' strictly [[wikipedia:NPOV|NPOV]], although opinion should be marked as such. There's a fuzzy line, however, between "opinion" and "drawing a reasonable but controversial conclusion"; I haven't quite worked out how to handle that yet, except to make a loose ground rule that it's okay to state [[Issuepedia:reasonably sound opinion|reasonably sound opinion]] as fact, with the understanding that there may be disagreement and those statements might have to be re-qualified as opinion... which ultimately leads to the question of how we, as a community, can ultimately and fairly [[Issuepedia:how do we decide what is reasonable|decide what is reasonable]] ''without'' settling for "agreeing to disagree".
+==Notes & General Discussion==
-*** Personal statements of opinion are encouraged; I'd like to work out some way to formalize this. See [[User:Woozle/Position Statement|my position statement]] for an example.
+''write stuff here or on the {{talkpage}}''
-*** Issuepedia ''is'' intended to be conducive to discussion. I'm investigating options for more traditional "forum-style" discussion areas, as many people may be more comfortable with that style of discussion than with wiki editing; when useful points are made in the forum, they can be added to appropriate pages in the wiki. (Hopefully the forum discussions would also be informed by documentation of existing points so we won't end up with the same point being raised over and over again, as often happens in traditional forums.)
-*** Issuepedia ''can be'' a soapbox, but such advocacy needs to be kept separate from the regular discussions. Single-POV writings should probably be kept within userspace (as in the Position Statement example above). Unlike traditional soapboxes, of course, stated opinions will be subject to ruthless scrutiny and rebuttals...
-*** Collections of links are acceptable on Issuepedia; I think of Issuepedia as being a cross between a news-file and a library, with merely a dash of encyclopedia thrown in. (Better link management is another technological goal for Issuepedia &ndash; so we can categorize links, have a single point for corrections and updates, and to make them searchable by URL, author, subject, etc.) If a link seems useful but you aren't sure where it should go (or don't have time to create or find the page), it can go in [[Snippets]] &ndash; but try to say something about why the link seems useful and what topics it relates to. (This is useful not only for the process of formally filing links, but also for searches &ndash; someone may later be searching for information which can be found in a link you have saved; try to make it findable!)
-*** ''There are probably other areas of dissimilarity, but that should give you a good idea to start with.''
-*** With regard to [[Mormonism]] specifically (or [[Islam]]): On Issuepedia, you can say things like "Official church doctrine holds that you must either believe all of the Book of Mormon, or else reject it entirely as untrue. This is a [[false dilemma]]." In other words, part of Issuepedia's function is to allow the mental faculty of ''judgment'' to be employed, even if it is sometimes wrong. If it is wrong, others will surely point this out before long, debate will ensue... and then we get back to figuring out [[Issuepedia:how do we decide what is reasonable|how we decide what is reasonable]].
-* '''Q''': I couldn't save this page without getting it blocked by the spam filter on the site "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: " the humansecurityreport.info site. I removed the reference from above.
-** '''A''': Oops! That was due to a temporary blacklist of the .info TLD. I've removed the blacklist and replaced the link. I got spam three days in a row from .info domains, so I took a shortcut; this may happen occasionally. If any other legit links get blacklisted, please feel free to [[contact|alert me]] to the problem.
-===FAQ credits===
-* questions by [[User:Jsrrts|Jsrrts]] 00:13, 9 January 2007 (EST)
-* Answers by Woozle, so far