About the Wikidebates project, the encyclopedia of debates
Wikidebates is not the only site which offers to regroup arguments or to summarise debates. Other sites, often in english, have a variety of ways of presenting different positions within a debate.
Some of these will have a table with two columns (“pro” and “con” arguments). Others use maps, boxes, or tree-like diagrams. Some debating platforms and sites such as Carneades, Truthsift, Debate and Dialoguea, similarly to Wikidebates' format, present arguments in a "linear" manner, grouping these in two separate categories : one for "pro/FOR" arguments, and a second for "con/AGAINST" arguments.
Such different interfaces allow for different possibilities. Depending on the site, arguments and claims may be regrouped by “family”, or be organised in main and sub-claims; they might be summarised by a title or be expanded upon in a dedicated page, or with quotations. Moreover, debates may or may not be interconnected, or offer links to outer ressources, in order to access extra information.
Different interfaces each have both their strengths and shortcomings, which impact the variety and resourcefulness of their presented debates. Some of these differences are detailed in the chart below.
Strengths and weaknesses
| Name of the site | Language | Format | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kialo | en | Tree-like tables |
|
|
| Hyperdébat | fr | List |
|
|
| DebateGraph | en | Card-based presentation |
|
|
| Proversi | it | Table |
|
|
| Debatepedia | en | Table |
|
|
| Wikidebate | en | Box-based presentation |
|
|
| Idebate | en | Table |
|
|
| Debatewise | en | Table |
|
|
| Riyarchy | en | Arborescent chart |
|
|
| Argüman | en, es, fr, tr | Arborescent chart |
|
|
| Procon | en | Table |
|
|
| Argumentrix | en | Lists |
|
|
Main problems
As detailed in the previous chart, existing encyclopaedias do have shortcomings, some of which can be explored here.
Arguments that are not grouped
One of the main things lacking in some of these encyclopaedias is that arguments are listed one after the other, without it being possible to group them by “family” when their content is similar. We end up with lists of ten to twenty (or more) arguments all presented at the same level. Grouping by family allows for more clarity and readability.
Single-level arguments
Very similarly, because arguments require being confirmed or completed by others, it is smarter to present then in arguments and sub-arguments (and even sub-sub arguments), each corresponding to different levels of the argumentative structure. Which is impossible for a majority of encyclopaedias which only present two things: the pro and con arguments, and for each their objections.
Arguments without objections
Some encyclopaedias don’t even show objections to an argument. An argument can always be countered or criticised. The lack of such a feature make such encyclopedias much less interesting.
Arguments that lack in depth or in detail
Likewise an argument’s description can’t always be stated in a couple of lines. Those based on examples or facts may, to be presented, require a long introduction or an ensemble of numbers or figures, without which the argument may be too broad, simple or unconvincing.
Arguments without quotations
To better understand an argument, or to better understand a point of view defending it, it is helpful to add quotations of references and figures of reference. Most encyclopedias do not allow this.
- An example of an exception.
Arguments with no advocates
Knowing the names of the main proponents of a point of view, even having a short description of them, can help to better understand the arguments, and the debate. This is only the case in few encyclopaedias, and only one offers short biographies of referred proponents.
- Some exceptions.
Arguments with no titles
Giving an argument a title means summarising it in a few words, allowing to grasp an immediate idea even after a quick overview. Some sites do not offer this possibility.
Debates which are not interlinked
A debate is always an ensemble of debates, because each argument builds on a set of considerations which themselves can be the object of a debate. One must usually dig-in to the sub-debates to form an opinion, and often switch from one debate to another. Hypertext architecture is useful to present briefly the complexity of the interweaving of debates. Only two sites make use of it.
- One notable exception
Debates with little or no further information
Internet allows to interlink a vast amount of knowledge. Most encyclopedias offer links to further information. But these are often poor or lacking in quantity.
- Les bonnes idées de Procon
Copyrighted content and technology
Even though they are user-provided, a lot of contents and arguments become propriety of these websites and are thus not fully exploitable. Safe for Wikidebates, Debatepedia, Argumentrix and HyperDébat, of which the content is available through a Creative Commons licensing, all the work provided by the users on these websites is limited in its sharing and usage.
Overall Review
| Family-grouped arguments | Titled arguments | Objections to arguments | Sub-levels to arguments | Detailed arguments | Quotes and citations | Ability to defend an argument | Interlinking between different arguments | Additional information and resources | Copyright-free content | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wikidébats | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Kialo | x | x | x | x | ||||||
| Hyperdébat | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| DebateGraph | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Proversi | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Debatepedia | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Wikidebate | x | x | x | x | ||||||
| Idebate | x | x | x | |||||||
| Debatewise | x | x | x | x | x | |||||
| Riyarchy | x | x | x | |||||||
| Argüman | x | x | ||||||||
| Procon | x | x | ||||||||
| Argumentrix | x | x | x | x | x | x |
Learn more about these websites
| Name | Self-description | Year of launch | Current status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wikidébats | « L'encyclopédie des débats » | 2016 | Active |
| Kialo | "A debate platform powered by reason" | 2017 | Active |
| Hyperdébat | « Débattre avec méthode » | 2002 | Available for reading only since January 2017 |
| DebateGraph | "An award-winning web-platform for visualizing and sharing networks of thought" | 2008 | Active |
| Proversi | « Une plateforme web de débat public »[1] | 2015 | Active |
| Debatepedia | "The Wikipedia of debates - an encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and quotes on critical issues" | 2007 | Available for reading only since November 2011 |
| Wikidebate | "A collaborative project to develop structured debates and compute their conclusions using the dialectic algorithm" | 2016 | Active |
| Idebate | "Debatabase" | 2011 | Active |
| Debatewise | 2007 | No longer updated | |
| Riyarchy | "A collaborative argument tree to which anyone can contribute" | 2012 | Closed in 2016 |
| Argüman | « Une plateforme d’argumentation » | 2015 | Active |
| Procon | "Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues" | 2004 | Active |
| Argumentrix | "A wiki of claims and rebuttals" | 2011 | Not updated since 2013 |
Your comments
More about Wikidebates
- About Wikidebates
- Wikidebates, the Democracy's Missing Link
- What Wikidebates is
- What Wikidebates is not
- Aims
- Why
- Founding Principles
- Laboratory of Methodical Debate
- Comparison of Existing Debate Encyclopedias
- FAQ
References
- ↑ "Una piattaforma web di dibattito pubblico"
