-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 07:00 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
on 10/11/07 8:38 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert(a)gmail.com wrote:
There are aspects of our decisionmaking process that suck. Dealing
with strongly divisive polarizing issues is one of them.
You're right, George. Sounds like a good argument for the "sandbox"
idea I
proposed yesterday. A space where you could practice you're communication
skills; where no real "decisions" are expected to be made; and where nothing
is at stake (except your egos, perhaps ;-). Kind of like war games using
blanks.
Marc
on 10/11/07 9:17 PM, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info at fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
Actually, that's what this is. An policy
discussion would have to take place
on the pages of an actual proposal. Which the Arbitration Committee would like
to see happen. There has been way too much weight attached to an arbitration
decision based on extreme facts. Applying it to situations with much different
facts has not worked out well.
What I'm talking about, Fred, is an exercise space where the focus is on the
skills of discussion and debate, not the subject. Where two or more persons
would get together; a subject would be chosen at random, and sides taken.
Then, at some point, the sides would be switched. Observing would be persons
not involved in the subject of the discussion, but there to offer input to
the participants about their individual techniques. Call it "Debate Camp".
Marc