Thanks, Rich. I've looked at IBIS, and it also takes the divide-and-conquor approach to problem solving, which I think is one of this tool's greatest advantages. Being able to divide an issue into subissues allows people to identify what they're really disagreeing about instead of arguing over things that are really differences in definition.

Unfortunately, IBIS is a managed system, which is to say that there is no automated method for identifying when a particular conjecture has enough evidence for most of the participants to accept or disclaim its truth. That process seems to be done via an occasional vote, kind of like for parlimentary procedure.

Since it lacks "degree of relevance" measures, it fails the casual arguer in identifying the most important sub-points behind a conjecture. Also, the lack of a "one person, one statement" structure means that all discussions occur in a linear nature, which falls prey to the hostile arguer.

In short, while IBIS has an excellent structure, it lacks the specific implementation details that I've designed into this tool that taylor it for use in the massively diverse, unmoderated, ad-hoc environment that Wikipedia exists in.

On 3/31/06, Rich Morin rdm@cfcl.com wrote:

IBIS (Issue-Based Information System) can be used to structure discussions and cut down on repetition, while allowing everyone to have their say.

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/elab/hfl0104.html http://www-iurd.ced.berkeley.edu/pub/WP-131.pdf

-r

http://www.cfcl.com/rdm Rich Morin http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/resume rdm@cfcl.com http://www.cfcl.com/rdm/weblog +1 650-873-7841

Technical editing and writing, programming, and web development _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l