Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Wiki Issue Exploration Structure"
m |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
One can state an opinion/hypothesis and then provide facts that when taken together imply that result. | One can state an opinion/hypothesis and then provide facts that when taken together imply that result. | ||
Wiki's offer a great opportunity to debate in a structured format. | 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV NPOV], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research NOR] 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. | + | Wikipedia offers a good way to evaluate certain events or facts. Due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV NPOV], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research NOR] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not 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. |
---------- | ---------- | ||
Revision as of 08:25, 9 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. 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 facts
A timeline could be used here.
Contentious issues
Succint points that are contenous. Sub debate on each one using sources and argument on the sources. 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.
Disproven issues
Succint points that have been proven to have no bearing on the current issue.
Conclusions
A conclusions 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.
References
Wikipedia: Rhetoric and Composition/Argument