Hi,
Media Wiki is a great democratic tool, allowing anyone to easily create beautiful content. But it has the potential to also become an important tool *for* a democracy, by allowing complex disputed cases to be closely argued and clearly explained.
To best support this, it would appear that a new mode needs to be added to Media Wiki that displays a pair of hierarchically- expandable wiki streams side-by-side.
An example of what I'm suggesting can be seen at makethecase.net, a site I created over five years ago using a now obsolete system (and some rather primitive HTML skills). Though I'm now a proficient Ruby on Rails programmer, I think it would be better to create an updated system using Media Wiki, the premier modern CMS. However I don't know much about PHP, so am looking for anyone who would like to work alone, with me, or with others, to make this a reality.
To this end, I've created a bug report for this enhancement: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15423
I really think this would be a useful tool that would complement Wikipedia, as I argued here: http://makethecase.net/why.html .
Regards,
Mark
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.
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?
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --The ElectronicMe project (http://electronic-me.org) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG) --Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com) --Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)
Mark Reginald James wrote:
Hi,
Media Wiki is a great democratic tool, allowing anyone to easily create beautiful content. But it has the potential to also become an important tool *for* a democracy, by allowing complex disputed cases to be closely argued and clearly explained.
To best support this, it would appear that a new mode needs to be added to Media Wiki that displays a pair of hierarchically- expandable wiki streams side-by-side.
An example of what I'm suggesting can be seen at makethecase.net, a site I created over five years ago using a now obsolete system (and some rather primitive HTML skills). Though I'm now a proficient Ruby on Rails programmer, I think it would be better to create an updated system using Media Wiki, the premier modern CMS. However I don't know much about PHP, so am looking for anyone who would like to work alone, with me, or with others, to make this a reality.
To this end, I've created a bug report for this enhancement: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15423
I really think this would be a useful tool that would complement Wikipedia, as I argued here: http://makethecase.net/why.html .
Regards,
Mark
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
Mark Reginald James wrote:
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.
MediaWiki is meant to be completely open, and so it really doesn't support per-page permissions for different groups. So the permissions part doesn't matter to much.
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
The muti-page format is probably the best method, especially for the discussion format.
Well, I do often jump into new projects. But now, I really need to concentrate on finding a project that actually constitutes as a Job, or a contract.
~Daniel Friesen(Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) of: -The Nadir-Point Group (http://nadir-point.com) --It's Wiki-Tools subgroup (http://wiki-tools.com) --The ElectronicMe project (http://electronic-me.org) --Games-G.P.S. (http://ggps.org) -And Wikia ACG on Wikia.com (http://wikia.com/wiki/Wikia_ACG) --Animepedia (http://anime.wikia.com) --Narutopedia (http://naruto.wikia.com)
Daniel Friesen schreef:
Mark Reginald James wrote:
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.
MediaWiki is meant to be completely open, and so it really doesn't support per-page permissions for different groups. So the permissions part doesn't matter to much.
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Roan Kattouw wrote:
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be? And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
Mark
Mark Reginald James schreef:
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
All you can really do is say: you must have right X to be able to edit this page, and you must have right Y to be able to move this page. X and Y may be the same, and multiple user groups can have the same right.
And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
If you want to enable certain users to rebut points but not edit the points themselves, you need to put them on different pages (because you can only restrict editing per-page, not on a more fine-grained basis such as per-section), which may cause some awkwardness when displaying the whole thing.
I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
That's the wiki way, after all.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Roan Kattouw wrote:
Mark Reginald James schreef:
We do have per-page edit restrictions, though. Traditionally, you'd solve this by creating two pages (one with pros, one with cons), which you can place different edit restrictions on, and jam them together using transclusion. But of course that doesn't really allow for cleanly rebutting points when you can't edit the point itself.
Roan, how specific can per-page edit restrictions be?
All you can really do is say: you must have right X to be able to edit this page, and you must have right Y to be able to move this page. X and Y may be the same, and multiple user groups can have the same right.
And could you explain the meaning of your last sentence.
If you want to enable certain users to rebut points but not edit the points themselves, you need to put them on different pages (because you can only restrict editing per-page, not on a more fine-grained basis such as per-section), which may cause some awkwardness when displaying the whole thing.
I'm beginning to think that even though debate topics are more contentious than the average Wikipedia article, it may indeed be OK to have totally open editing, relying on the reversion mechanism.
That's the wiki way, after all.
Thanks Roan.
Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page structure.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Mark Reginald James wrote:
Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page structure.
My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start points.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 02:09:31AM +1000, Mark Reginald James wrote:
Looks like the it's best then to start with a simple extension that forms and maintains two columns of paired blocks, and provides support for creating and navigating a tree-like page structure.
My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start points.
Jay, I wasn't able to find a definition of a graf. Could you explain your suggestion further?
I want two columns of sections, each one like those created by a heading on Wikipedia, but preferably without the need to display a heading. Whenever a section on one side is created, another section is created beside it, containing some text like "No rebuttal at present".
Mark
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
My snap reaction is that you need one column, with a stack of two-column grafs floating in it: you want subjects to stay together in their start points.
I ended up introducing <debate>, <contended>, and <rebuttal> tags that allow an editor to control the appearance of the rebuttal column. A page without any rebuttals is just a normal full-width page. This would allow these tags to be used on other wikis -- wherever it is useful to allow sections of text to be prominently disputed.
I was trying to do away with the <debate> tag, allowing abutting <contended> sections to be automatically detected, but this required some hacking of the core parser to give the required context information.
The resulting extension is here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Debate
Thanks to everyone for getting me kick-started with PHP and MW development.
Mark
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org