Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Wiki Issue Exploration Structure"
m |
m |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
=== Statement of background with agreed points === | === Statement of background with agreed points === | ||
A timeline could be used here. | A timeline could be used here. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
=== Contentious points === | === Contentious points === | ||
Revision as of 02:35, 22 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
Succint numbered fact like points that are contenous. No generalizations here, put those into the conclusion section. Sub debate on each one using sources and argument on the sources. If agreed apon move into the background section. If disproved move into the disproven points. Falsifiability is important here. 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
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.
Example Pages
Clinton-Barak Israeli-Palestinian Peace Offers