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