On 3/31/06, Robert Rapplean <mythobeast(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I couldn't agree with you more. I've actually
gone through many iterations
of descriptive words for the elements, including changing the structure so
that a conjecture was actually a question (because some people think it's
impossible to improve on socratic method). The current set of words are
specifically for describing the idea to people who might be able to actually
implement it, not for describing it to people who might want to use it.
They most specifically convey the meaning. For a working version, I expect
things to be described by people who know how to teach ideas to people, not
those who know how to implement them.
Perhaps the best idea for the end product would use no words at
all...it would be totally intuitive. I'm having trouble visualising
this in a wiki environment though. Sort of seems like anyone
sophisticated enough to use such a tool is probably capable of arguing
coherently in the first place :) Also, for your "hostile debaters",
they would probably attack the credibility of such a tool. And for the
"casual debaters", perhaps they would just look at it, go "too
complicated", and move on.
I wish I did. For the past two years I've had so
much on my plate that the
edges of the plate have been cracking off. I've started and stalled the
project several times in the past five years, and I just had to admit that
I'll never get it done on my own. However, I continue to have great faith
in this tool's ability to help people achieve greater harmony, so I continue
to look around for others who might be able to help.
Pity, a concrete prototype would be great. Personally I find Wiki very
badly suited to the sort of discussion that has to happen at WP. Very
frequently, I find that someone makes a point, and the first person to
respond pretty much monopolises the conversation. If anyone else
attempts to respond to the initial point, they get lost in the flow.
For example, this sort of structure:
Point
:Response1
::SubResponse
::SubSubResponse
...
Now, where does Response2 go? Immediately below "Point", or where the
... are? Perhaps it would be helpful if the age of each response could
be shown (newest stuff highlighted) or something, but as it stands,
Response2 will rarely attract a reply. Similar problems surround
signing, and the lack of a convenient, coherent way of replying
individually to points made by a single person. Once a third person
joins in, it becomes an unmanageable mess.
By contrast, email allows the focus of the conversation to be
constantly redefined. Each email, by quoting selectively, draws the
reader's attention to a single part of the dialogue. However email
lacks permanence - all the replies that will ever be made to an email
will be made within a week or so. Whereas it's not uncommon to see
replies on wiki made a year or more after the original post, with the
presumption that some time later someone else will take up the
original viewpoint.
Ok, enough rambling, this is the tech list after all. :)
Steve