Oldak:
You're of course right that Wikipedia articles can outline reasoning, but
the difference is the format. If you visit the demo (
), you'll see that the way reasoning is
presented on Chains of Reason is radically different from the normal
paragraph format used on Wikipedia. I believe that the CoR format, along
with the explicit requirement for users to break-down reasoning into baby
steps, leads (if done properly) to a clearer presentation of reasoning than
writing in paragraphs can ever achieve. And it also forces users to 'cut to
the chase', which is, in addition to clarity, what you want if you are
simply wanting to look-up the reasoning behind a particular belief.
In short, I'd say that the overlap between the two projects would be no
greater than that between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Wikipedia can be used to
look-up the meaning of most words, but the different, dictionary, format of
Wiktionary is better suited to providing definitions, and so there is a
place for Wiktionary in the Wikimedia family.
Best, Derrick
On 10/27/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/10/2007, Derrick Farnell <derrick.farnell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hello all
I've just posted a proposal for a new Wikimedia project, Chains of
Reason,
at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chains_of_Reason
Any feedback, and perhaps even support, would be greatly appreciated -
please either reply to this message, or post on the above proposal's
talk
page.
There is a demo site at
http://www.chainsofreason.org
The following text is from the proposal page:
==What is this wiki for?==
In a nutshell, Chains of Reason aims to be for reasoning what Wikipedia
is
for knowledge. Of course, Wikimedia projects are
about spreading and
promoting knowledge, but Chains of Reason is compatible with this goal
because the site aims to be an encyclopedia of reasoning. That is, it
aims
to be a reference for people who simply want to
learn about the
reasoning
behind particular beliefs - moral, political,
scientific, religious, or
whatever. As explained below, Chains of Reason is *not* a forum for
debating
particular beliefs.
I'm aware that a wiki for presenting reasoning has already been proposed
here (Wikireason, in 2005). However, most of what I want to say in this
proposal is different from what is on that original, and long inactive,
proposal page, and I didn't think it would be appropriate to just
replace
everything there with what I want to say, so
I've created this separate
proposal (which also has a different demo site). Perhaps it would be a
good
idea to close that original proposal? Also, I
explain below why I think
the
concept of a wiki for reasoning is worth a second
chance despite the
failure
of the original proposal.
==Why should Wikimedia host this wiki?==
Jimmy Wales once famously said about Wikipedia: 'Imagine a world in
which
every single person on the planet is given free
access to the sum of all
human knowledge. That's what we're doing.' In an interview earlier this
year
he was pressed on why this was desirable, and he
replied that a major
cause
of most war and poverty was ignorance. Of course,
another major cause is
another 'i': irrationality. It will ultimately only be through a
combination
of knowledge and the application of sound
reasoning that we will be able
to
significantly reduce, if not cure, the
world's ills, including poverty,
disease, illiteracy, injustice, violence, and environmental damage.
While
Wikipedia aims to spread knowledge, Chains of
Reason aims to spread
sound
reasoning. I therefore believe that Chains of
Reason would make a
natural
sister project to Wikipedia.
It is true that a wiki for presenting reasoning has been tried before
(see
the proposal for Wikireason), and failed to take
off. However, from
discussions I've had with the creator of that wiki, I think this was
simply
due to him not having enough free time available
to establish a
community. I
suspect that, because of the unfamiliarity of the
concept of a wiki for
presenting reasoning, compared with that of a wiki for presenting
knowledge
(which has as a reference the familiar concept of
the traditional
encyclopedia), such a wiki will require a much larger community of
dedicated
users than Wikipedia did in order to reach the
critical mass required
for
the site to take off. And I think being a
Wikimedia project would
quickly
provide Chains of Reason with that critical mass
of users.
==How does it work?==
Users present the reasoning behind particular beliefs as a chain of very
simple arguments, with the conclusion of each such link in the chain
becoming a premise of the next, and with the conclusion of the final
link
being the belief which the whole chain attempts
to justify. Users then
work
together to ensure that the chain of reasoning is
as clear as possible,
with
people left to decide for themselves whether they
think the chain is
sound.
See the demo at
http://www.chainsofreason.org.
==Why this format?==
The Chains of Reason format was chosen over the current, traditional
format
of writing in paragraphs for two main reasons:
- Clarity
A founding belief of Chains of Reason is that anyone is capable of
understanding any reasoning - however 'advanced', 'sophisticated',
'difficult', etc. - as long as that reasoning is presented with
sufficient
clarity. One of the main aims of Chains of Reason
is to provide a place
for
people to present reasoning on any topic in a
format which helps
maximise
clarity. The format used on Chains of Reason does
this by requiring
users to
break-down reasoning into a sequence of baby
steps, with each argument
in
the chain always consisting of only two
single-sentence premises
followed by
a single-sentence conclusion.
Universal understandability of reasoning is perhaps most obviously
important
with respect to the reasoning used to justify
beliefs expressed in
current
political and moral debates. But it is ultimately
just as important with
respect to scientific, philosophical and religious reasoning in general,
given that such reasoning underlies various beliefs about the world and
how
to live one's life in it. However, the
current main arena for reasoning
on
such subjects is of course academia, and the
often inaccessible nature
of
academic writings on these areas, from the point
of view of the general
public, often creates the false impression amongst the general public
that
the reasoning set-out in such writings must
itself be inaccessible to
them,
that it must simply be beyond their intellectual
reach. And because such
reasoning is therefore not part of their everyday lives, this in turn
creates the false impression that it is not relevant to their everyday
lives.
Of course, universal understandability of reasoning is desirable not
just
because it enables people to enter into debates
which they currently
feel
are inaccessible to them, but also because that
wider participation can
only
lead to an increase in the quality of reasoning
itself.
- Brevity
Another advantage of the format used on Chains of Reason is that it
forces
the authors of chains to 'cut to the
chase'. The format ensures that
only
the bare bones of the reasoning is presented,
which means that people
can
learn about the reasoning behind particular
beliefs in as efficient a
way as
possible.
- Further, unexpected, advantages of this format?
Given that the format used on Chains of Reason is so different from the
current, traditional format of writing in paragraphs, and has not been
widely used before, it is possible that there may be other, unexpected
advantages to presenting reasoning in this way.
==Chains of Reason is *not* a forum for debating particular beliefs==
Chains of Reason is *not* a wiki version of the web forums, and
electronic
mailing lists, where people debate particular
beliefs - moral,
political,
scientific, religious, etc. Contributing to
Chains of Reason is not
about
defending one's beliefs and challenging
contrary beliefs of other users.
It
is not even about working with other users to
objectively try to
determine
whether the reasoning behind particular beliefs
is sound or unsound, and
therefore whether those beliefs are right or wrong.
==Chains of Reason is a new form of intellectual discourse==
In addition to being a reference, Chains of Reason is a place where
people
work together to objectively try to determine
*how best to present* the
reasoning behind particular beliefs, with the aim of enabling anyone who
studies the reasoning presented here to make *for themselves* as
informed an
assessment as possible of the soundness of that
reasoning. This is in
contrast to the current, traditional form of intellectual discourse,
where
different individuals or camps compete, rather
than collaborate, and do
so
in order to try to convince others that their
beliefs are right, and
that
contrary beliefs are wrong.
==How you can help==
- Contribute to the discussion on this proposal's talk page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chains_of_Reason
- Add your username to the proposal summary if you are interested in
being
involved:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects#Chains_of_Reason
- Direct others who you think might be interested
in this project to the
proposal page.
- Subscribe to the Chains of Reason mailing list to receive updates on
the
progress of this proposal. The list is located at
the Chains of Reason
group
at Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/chainsofreason/topicsChains of Reason
group at Google Groups
- Contribute to Chains of Reason!
With best wishes
Derrick
Surely this is within the scope of Wikipedia? An article about a
belief or belief system should describe the reasoning involved in
reaching those conclusions. There are also (or there is the potential
for) articles which describe different belief systems' views of a
particular thing and their reasoning behind their view.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l