Sidebar Test

Example

When a comment is created and associated with a specific paragraph in the wikitext of the individual page, a hook like <sb:xxxxx> is inserted in the text, where xxxxxx points to the sidebar revision ID tag used to retrieve the sidebar text for rendering on the displayed page. (The xxxxxx may be replaced with a user provided text which is actually linked to the equivalent of the sidebar-rev_text_id).

File:Counterpoint

This is the comment. But instead of appearing as a reference at the bottom of the page, <sb> and </sb> bracket the text to appear as a sidebar comment next to the paragraph in which it is contained.

The mediawiki extension Cite is a model of how inline text is rendered elsewhere in the page. There is also a discussion of how Cite is rendered in visual editor which may give some insight into managing sidebar comments within VisualEditor.

We may want to be in communication with the Wikimedia} staff in charge of [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Parsoid parsing and VisualEditor since we want our extensions to work with both.

Using "Counterpoint" Image

An alternative is to simply use a "counterpoint" image. The advantage of this approach is that it is already supported by Visual Editor.

Wikimedia-Counterpoint-Sidebar

The preliminary specification for a Wikimedia extension to do this is stored at [1] with more specific details in a shared google spreadsheet

As indicated in the github document, my goal is to create a web site for collaborative debating of any political, philosophical or theological issue.

File:Counterpoint

This box shows how a counterargument would appear next to this third paragraph. It includes a hyperlink to a longer counterargument

To carefully narrow the scope of each, each page would have a proposition being defended by the proponents of that proposition.

Opponents, or questioners, would leave the main article alone (allowing it to evolve as proponents see fit) but would be able to insert their counter point arguments (length limited, but hyperlinks allowed to direct interested readers to more details). The history of how specific propositions evolve or abandoned would itself be a helpful lesson in identifying the facts and arguments that are most successfully defended.

The core idea is that good debaters help each other to focus and improve their arguments. By providing a website that encourages collaborative debate, while also providing a release valve for people to create a link to their favorite/stupid arguments, overtime the best arguments and presentations of fact should receive the most support.

In addition, by allowing both sides (or more, if there are more than two sides) an opportunity to provide links to their own preferred propositions on "competing" pages,

File:Counterpoint Example

For this mockup page, I'm actually just using the Image function in wikitext. But I'm not referencing a real image and am just just using the image label for the text

we can give reader/investigators/students a better opportunity to find resources and references that address all sides of an issue (or their own preferred world view). That would be a huge step forward from Wikipedia "consensus" approach. Another Other features I envision are ways for people to publicly vote on which propositions they support, oppose, or partially support or partially oppose. That way, I could go look up a specific theologian who is active on the site and see which propositions he favors or disfavors.

References