[Foundation-l] Proposal for new Wikimedia project (Chains of Reason)

Sat Oct 27 11:50:46 UTC 2007

I missed-out an important point: another reason to consider this proposal
despite the failure of the Wikireason proposal is that Chains of Reason uses
a different format for presenting reasoning.

On 10/27/07, Derrick Farnell <derrick.farnell at 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
>