Wikidebates:Community Portal
From Wikidebates
Below is a smattering of thoughts that will eventually be sorted into several pages. Since creating page names is more permanent than other edits, please wait for the content to suggest good page names before splitting it into new pages.
Contents |
etiquette
- Be conservative about editing the side you disagree with.
- Protect Wikipedia from spillover edit wars. In other words, avoid linking to it as an authority, since this will tempt Wikidebates editors to head over to Wikipedia and make changes there to support their case here. Wherever Wikipedia is authoritative it should have an authoritative source. Link to that.
editing suggestions
- In disputes over the wording of claims apply the following rules in order.
- Make the argument for changing other people's behavior ("X is immoral." "X should be illegal.") pro, the argument for leaving people to their own inclinations con.
- Word the claim without negatives. ("X exists." rather than "X does not exist.")
- Make the argument for change pro, the argument for the status quo con.
In a conflict between two rules, choose the earlier. For example, in the U.S. where marijuana is illegal the pro claim in a marijuana debate could be "Marijuana should be illegal." (under number 1) or "Marijuana should be legalized." (under number 3). Choose the former.
yet to be decided
- What is a suitable tone to encourage, and how can it be encouraged?
- Is it better for the reader if the two sides use emotionally powerful but biased terms for the same thing, such as extremist versus freedom fighter, or should we encourage both sides to agree on weaker but more neutral terms, such as insurgent? (See Wikipedia's words to avoid for more on this issue, remembering that Wikipedia's first editorial principle is neutral point of view, while Wikidebates welcomes biased points of view.)
- To what degree will the following types of debates be accepted?
- silly, petty, childish, humorous
- fringe
- abusive
design problems needing solutions
Wikidebates poses a grand design challenge awaiting clever designers.
- What kind of debate structure and page formatting structure can we agree on?
- How can we agreeably shift important arguments toward the top or otherwise compress the debate for readers with limited time or interest?
- At what point should a contentious supporting claim be pushed out to become its own debate?
- How do we handle duplication between general debates and their respective special cases? For example, many "drug abuse" debate arguments will apply to a "marijuana" debate.
templates
If we use templates to structure debates, what standard sections (i.e., "parameters") should be included?
- "is a subclaim of" pointer to a super-debate - for contentious claims that branch off and become sub-debates
- phrase describing the debate
- brief pro and con summary statements
- perspective - the place of this debate in the world
- background - useful things for a naive user to know
- list of agreed points
- supporting claims and their rebuttals
- Could label every statement as either believed, disbelieved, or undecided by the other side.
- links to other debates on this topic
- links to special-interest sites supporting each side, ordered by size/respectability
- links to informative sites that both sides agree are neutral
to do
- Improve the logo.
- [by Webmaster] Enable image uploads.
