|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
| |
|
| ==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 [https://github.com/Reardon7/Wikimedia-Counterpoint-Sidebar] with more specific details in a [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lljcU5gftxmR9fqBlhS5Buceksh49LqP0JuNrBrWWb8/edit?usp=sharing 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.
| |
|
| |
| [[Image:Counterpoint|thumb|middle||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,[[Image:Counterpoint Example|thumb|850px|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'''
| |