Difference between revisions of "Issuepedia:Wiki Issue Exploration Structure"
m (Wiki Argument Structure moved to Wiki Issue Exploration Structure: Wanted to stress that it's an exploration of the ideas and reasoning behind an issue) |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Sub debate on the weighted values and the correctness of the conclusion. | 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. | Some way of listing them in a "most likely" order would be good. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---------- | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Example Pages == | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://issuepedia.org/Clinton-Barak_Israeli-Palestinian_Peace_offers Clinton-Barak Israeli-Palestinian Peace Offers] | ||
---------- | ---------- | ||
| Line 47: | Line 53: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
| − | |||
[[wikipedia:Rhetoric and Composition/Argument|Rhetoric and Composition/Argument]] | [[wikipedia:Rhetoric and Composition/Argument|Rhetoric and Composition/Argument]] | ||
| − | + | [http://honestargument.com Honest Argument Wiki Page] | |
| − | + | [http://openpolitics.ca/tiki-index.php Open Politics] | |
| − | |||
| − | [http:// | ||
Revision as of 03:59, 13 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.
Concise statements of sides of the argument
Some overview statements from sources of the two different sides.
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.
Example Pages
Clinton-Barak Israeli-Palestinian Peace Offers