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(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l