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

Sat Oct 27 20:36:26 UTC 2007

Oldak:

You're of course right that Wikipedia articles can outline reasoning, but
the difference is the format. If you visit the demo (
http://www.chainsofreason.org), you'll see that the way reasoning is
presented on Chains of Reason is radically different from the normal
paragraph format used on Wikipedia. I believe that the CoR format, along
with the explicit requirement for users to break-down reasoning into baby
steps, leads (if done properly) to a clearer presentation of reasoning than
writing in paragraphs can ever achieve. And it also forces users to 'cut to
the chase', which is, in addition to clarity, what you want if you are
simply wanting to look-up the reasoning behind a particular belief.

In short, I'd say that the overlap between the two projects would be no
greater than that between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Wikipedia can be used to
look-up the meaning of most words, but the different, dictionary, format of
Wiktionary is better suited to providing definitions, and so there is a
place for Wiktionary in the Wikimedia family.

Best, Derrick

On 10/27/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 27/10/2007, 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
>
> Surely this is within the scope of Wikipedia? An article about a
> belief or belief system should describe the reasoning involved in
> reaching those conclusions. There are also (or there is the potential
> for) articles which describe different belief systems' views of a
> particular thing and their reasoning behind their view.
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>