Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 1, 2008, 10:18 AM

Post #1 of 11 (472 views)
Permalink

Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode?

Hi,

Media Wiki is a great democratic tool, allowing anyone to
easily create beautiful content. But it has the potential to
also become an important tool *for* a democracy, by allowing
complex disputed cases to be closely argued and clearly
explained.

To best support this, it would appear that a new mode needs to
be added to Media Wiki that displays a pair of hierarchically-
expandable wiki streams side-by-side.

An example of what I'm suggesting can be seen at makethecase.net,
a site I created over five years ago using a now obsolete
system (and some rather primitive HTML skills). Though I'm now
a proficient Ruby on Rails programmer, I think it would be
better to create an updated system using Media Wiki, the premier
modern CMS. However I don't know much about PHP, so am looking
for anyone who would like to work alone, with me, or with others,
to make this a reality.

To this end, I've created a bug report for this enhancement:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15423

I really think this would be a useful tool that would complement
Wikipedia, as I argued here: http://makethecase.net/why.html .

Regards,

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

dan_the_man at telus

Sep 1, 2008, 10:53 AM

Post #2 of 11 (451 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

You do have an interesting idea. However, it's not something that would
work as a built in to MediaWiki.
MediaWiki internally has a hardwired one title, to one active revison,
which contains one blob of text.

Though I do often get involved in alternative editing ideas. Typically
this kind of thing is either done by creating a special interface (or
altering the normal interface) to merge multiple pages together. Or
using some syntax inside the page to break up the content.

What kind of features would the proposal offer.
Listing out the small features normally helps pick out the best method
of implementation.

Firstly, should each point have an area where it can be discussed?
Should that be limited to a case point/rebutal pair?
Or should there only be one discussion for an entire full case?

~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of:
-The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com)
--It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com)
--The ElectronicMe project (http://electronic-me.org)
--Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org)
-And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
--Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com)
--Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)

Mark Reginald James wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Media Wiki is a great democratic tool, allowing anyone to
> easily create beautiful content. But it has the potential to
> also become an important tool *for* a democracy, by allowing
> complex disputed cases to be closely argued and clearly
> explained.
>
> To best support this, it would appear that a new mode needs to
> be added to Media Wiki that displays a pair of hierarchically-
> expandable wiki streams side-by-side.
>
> An example of what I'm suggesting can be seen at makethecase.net,
> a site I created over five years ago using a now obsolete
> system (and some rather primitive HTML skills). Though I'm now
> a proficient Ruby on Rails programmer, I think it would be
> better to create an updated system using Media Wiki, the premier
> modern CMS. However I don't know much about PHP, so am looking
> for anyone who would like to work alone, with me, or with others,
> to make this a reality.
>
> To this end, I've created a bug report for this enhancement:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15423
>
> I really think this would be a useful tool that would complement
> Wikipedia, as I argued here: http://makethecase.net/why.html .
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 2, 2008, 2:38 AM

Post #3 of 11 (451 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Daniel Friesen wrote:
> You do have an interesting idea. However, it's not something that would
> work as a built in to MediaWiki.
> MediaWiki internally has a hardwired one title, to one active revison,
> which contains one blob of text.

Daniel, I'd assumed that some new core support would be required.
But my bug has now been re-classified as an extension request, so
perhaps it can instead be accommodated as an extension.

The concept may indeed be compatible with one title, one revision,
and one text. The only thing that may not be supported is the ability
to have separate permissions for changing the pro and con texts
on pages that are not freely editable. Perhaps this does in fact
require separate revisions, meaning that a single point-counterpoint
page would actually require the fusion of two wiki pages.

> Though I do often get involved in alternative editing ideas. Typically
> this kind of thing is either done by creating a special interface (or
> altering the normal interface) to merge multiple pages together. Or
> using some syntax inside the page to break up the content.
>
> What kind of features would the proposal offer.
> Listing out the small features normally helps pick out the best method
> of implementation.
>
> Firstly, should each point have an area where it can be discussed?
> Should that be limited to a case point/rebutal pair?
> Or should there only be one discussion for an entire full case?

It's an interesting issue whether to have separate discussion forums
for the pro and con cases. My original concept was a separate forum
for each side. But perhaps a single discussion page for each point,
linked to a central discussion page that's associated with the top-level
case summaries, would be a good idea. Points could be competitively
thrashed-out before being reflected in the case texts, and undecided
participants wouldn't feel that they have to take sides. Private forums
can always be advertised on discussion pages.

Each page would normally display the opposing cases for just one
point. On each page the text of each case would comprise one or more
sections, each a place where a particular sub-point is made. If the
opposing side chooses to respond to a section, the text of that
response would sit beside it.

On each page, below the case texts, would be a list of links to
pages that carry a finer discussion of particular points that
have been discussed.

That matches well with Media Wiki's usual format.

So, other than the permissions issue, you'd only need an extension that:

-- Automatically created and managed the two-column format, and

-- Allowed the point hierarchy to be easily navigated,
displayed, and printed.

You say however that page merging has been used on other alternative
editing ideas, so perhaps this would be the best way to allow
separate pro and con editing of each point. All that would be needed
would be a mechanism that aligned text sections that represent opposing
sub-points across the columns. There would also then be a separate
discussion page for each combination of point and side, but they
would be visible to all.

Remember the two main aims are:

-- To make it easy to research and debate a topic at multiple
levels of detail, from summary to the finer points, and

-- To place opposing viewpoints beside one another so they
are mutually exposed, so they can be interactively studied,
refined, and sometimes resolved, and so there's no place
for lies and spin to hide.

So do you think the two-page-fusion approach is the only feasible
solution in the Media Wiki framework?

Are there any MW hackers interested in shaking up the political
world by bringing this democratic resource into existence?

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

dan_the_man at telus

Sep 2, 2008, 3:40 AM

Post #4 of 11 (453 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Mark Reginald James wrote:
> Daniel Friesen wrote:
>
>> You do have an interesting idea. However, it's not something that would
>> work as a built in to MediaWiki.
>> MediaWiki internally has a hardwired one title, to one active revison,
>> which contains one blob of text.
>>
>
> Daniel, I'd assumed that some new core support would be required.
> But my bug has now been re-classified as an extension request, so
> perhaps it can instead be accommodated as an extension.
>
> The concept may indeed be compatible with one title, one revision,
> and one text. The only thing that may not be supported is the ability
> to have separate permissions for changing the pro and con texts
> on pages that are not freely editable. Perhaps this does in fact
> require separate revisions, meaning that a single point-counterpoint
> page would actually require the fusion of two wiki pages.
>
MediaWiki is meant to be completely open, and so it really doesn't
support per-page permissions for different groups. So the permissions
part doesn't matter to much.
>> Though I do often get involved in alternative editing ideas. Typically
>> this kind of thing is either done by creating a special interface (or
>> altering the normal interface) to merge multiple pages together. Or
>> using some syntax inside the page to break up the content.
>>
>> What kind of features would the proposal offer.
>> Listing out the small features normally helps pick out the best method
>> of implementation.
>>
>> Firstly, should each point have an area where it can be discussed?
>> Should that be limited to a case point/rebutal pair?
>> Or should there only be one discussion for an entire full case?
>>
>
> It's an interesting issue whether to have separate discussion forums
> for the pro and con cases. My original concept was a separate forum
> for each side. But perhaps a single discussion page for each point,
> linked to a central discussion page that's associated with the top-level
> case summaries, would be a good idea. Points could be competitively
> thrashed-out before being reflected in the case texts, and undecided
> participants wouldn't feel that they have to take sides. Private forums
> can always be advertised on discussion pages.
>
> Each page would normally display the opposing cases for just one
> point. On each page the text of each case would comprise one or more
> sections, each a place where a particular sub-point is made. If the
> opposing side chooses to respond to a section, the text of that
> response would sit beside it.
>
> On each page, below the case texts, would be a list of links to
> pages that carry a finer discussion of particular points that
> have been discussed.
>
> That matches well with Media Wiki's usual format.
>
> So, other than the permissions issue, you'd only need an extension that:
>
> -- Automatically created and managed the two-column format, and
>
> -- Allowed the point hierarchy to be easily navigated,
> displayed, and printed.
>
> You say however that page merging has been used on other alternative
> editing ideas, so perhaps this would be the best way to allow
> separate pro and con editing of each point. All that would be needed
> would be a mechanism that aligned text sections that represent opposing
> sub-points across the columns. There would also then be a separate
> discussion page for each combination of point and side, but they
> would be visible to all.
>
> Remember the two main aims are:
>
> -- To make it easy to research and debate a topic at multiple
> levels of detail, from summary to the finer points, and
>
> -- To place opposing viewpoints beside one another so they
> are mutually exposed, so they can be interactively studied,
> refined, and sometimes resolved, and so there's no place
> for lies and spin to hide.
>
> So do you think the two-page-fusion approach is the only feasible
> solution in the Media Wiki framework?
>
> Are there any MW hackers interested in shaking up the political
> world by bringing this democratic resource into existence?
>
> Mark
>
The muti-page format is probably the best method, especially for the
discussion format.

Well, I do often jump into new projects. But now, I really need to
concentrate on finding a project that actually constitutes as a Job, or
a contract.

~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of:
-The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com)
--It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com)
--The ElectronicMe project (http://electronic-me.org)
--Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org)
-And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG)
--Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com)
--Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

roan.kattouw at home

Sep 2, 2008, 5:12 AM

Post #5 of 11 (451 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Daniel Friesen schreef:
> Mark Reginald James wrote:
>
>> Daniel Friesen wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You do have an interesting idea. However, it's not something that would
>>> work as a built in to MediaWiki.
>>> MediaWiki internally has a hardwired one title, to one active revison,
>>> which contains one blob of text.
>>>
>>>
>> Daniel, I'd assumed that some new core support would be required.
>> But my bug has now been re-classified as an extension request, so
>> perhaps it can instead be accommodated as an extension.
>>
>> The concept may indeed be compatible with one title, one revision,
>> and one text. The only thing that may not be supported is the ability
>> to have separate permissions for changing the pro and con texts
>> on pages that are not freely editable. Perhaps this does in fact
>> require separate revisions, meaning that a single point-counterpoint
>> page would actually require the fusion of two wiki pages.
>>
>>
> MediaWiki is meant to be completely open, and so it really doesn't
> support per-page permissions for different groups. So the permissions
> part doesn't matter to much.
>
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd
solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which
you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together
using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly
rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.

Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 3, 2008, 8:14 AM

Post #6 of 11 (438 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Roan Kattouw wrote:

> We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd
> solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which
> you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together
> using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly
> rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.

Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.

I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more
contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be
OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

roan.kattouw at home

Sep 3, 2008, 8:21 AM

Post #7 of 11 (437 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Mark Reginald James schreef:
>> We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd
>> solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which
>> you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together
>> using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly
>> rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
>>
>
> Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
>
All you can really do is say: you must have right X to be able to edit
this page, and you must have right Y to be able to move this page. X and
Y may be the same, and multiple user groups can have the same right.
> And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
>
If you want to enable certain users to rebut points but not edit the
points themselves, you need to put them on different pages (because you
can only restrict editing per-page, not on a more fine-grained basis
such as per-section), which may cause some awkwardness when displaying
the whole thing.
> I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more
> contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be
> OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
That's the wiki way, after all.

Roan Kattouw (Catrope)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 3, 2008, 9:09 AM

Post #8 of 11 (437 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Roan Kattouw wrote:
> Mark Reginald James schreef:
>>> We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd
>>> solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which
>>> you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together
>>> using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly
>>> rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
>>>
>> Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
>>
> All you can really do is say: you must have right X to be able to edit
> this page, and you must have right Y to be able to move this page. X and
> Y may be the same, and multiple user groups can have the same right.
>> And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
>>
> If you want to enable certain users to rebut points but not edit the
> points themselves, you need to put them on different pages (because you
> can only restrict editing per-page, not on a more fine-grained basis
> such as per-section), which may cause some awkwardness when displaying
> the whole thing.
>> I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more
>> contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be
>> OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
> That's the wiki way, after all.

Thanks Roan.

Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension
that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and
provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page
structure.

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

jra at baylink

Sep 4, 2008, 5:20 PM

Post #9 of 11 (429 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Mark Reginald James wrote:
> Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension
> that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and
> provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page
> structure.

My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column
grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start
points.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra[at]baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Those who cast the vote decide nothing.
Those who count the vote decide everything.
-- (Josef Stalin)

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 4, 2008, 11:23 PM

Post #10 of 11 (425 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Mark Reginald James wrote:
>> Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension
>> that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and
>> provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page
>> structure.
>
> My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column
> grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start
> points.

Jay, I wasn't able to find a definition of a graf. Could
you explain your suggestion further?

I want two columns of sections, each one like those created
by a heading on Wikipedia, but preferably without the need to
display a heading. Whenever a section on one side is created,
another section is created beside it, containing some text
like "No rebuttal at present".

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

mrj at advancedcontrols

Sep 15, 2008, 11:18 AM

Post #11 of 11 (297 views)
Permalink

Re: Anyone interested in developing a point-counterpoint mode? [In reply to]

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

> My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column
> grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start
> points.

I ended up introducing <debate>, <contended>, and <rebuttal> tags
that allow an editor to control the appearance of the rebuttal
column. A page without any rebuttals is just a normal full-width
page. This would allow these tags to be used on other wikis --
wherever it is useful to allow sections of text to be prominently
disputed.

I was trying to do away with the <debate> tag, allowing abutting
<contended> sections to be automatically detected, but this
required some hacking of the core parser to give the required
context information.

The resulting extension is here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Debate

Thanks to everyone for getting me kick-started with PHP and MW
development.

Mark

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com