Pros and Cons...........

  Maybe of interest along with the following Google listings   Pros and Cons Google Listings

Wikinews interviews Brooks Lindsay, founder of Debatepedia

 The basic ideas of Precision Universal Debate were developed independantly of Debatepedia whose objective is the same as the former. However PUD goes beyond the limits of the latter towards a more "scientific" understanding of how knowledge is presented. RS

The following comes from the P2P Foundation 

Debatepedia is the new "wiki" encyclopedia of arguments and debates.

URL = http://debatepedia.org/

Google listings in connection with the above subject

More Google listings/Debatepedia

Description

"It allows users to objectively frame public debates as they exist (not how they would like them to exist) in the public sphere between the relevant players. It enables the public to present the pro and con arguments that have been by scholars, experts, leaders, etc. It also empowers editors to present the overall positions of politicians, think-tanks, interest and activist groups, foreign leaders, etc. It does not allow users to present their own arguments. Debatepedia helps resolve an outstanding question: how can "wiki" technology be successfully applied to politics (divisive by nature), when "wikis" are a medium of consensus. The important insight and bridge is that a public debate and its public arguments can be treated as documentable facts, and that the public can arrive at a consensus in the framing of these facts. It is also important to note that Debatepedia enables the public to present all of the information necessary for an individual to develop a rational position." (Founder Brooks Lindsay)

Categories: 

• Facilitation
• Resources
• Education
• Governance
• Policy

FB site

Jump to navigationJump to search

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Brooks Lindsay, founder of Debatepedia
Image:Brooks Lindsay from Debatepedia

Internet

Related stories

• Albania blames Iran for cyberattacks
• Ransomware attack hits over 200 US companies, forces Swedish grocery chain to close
• "Avast ye scurvy file sharers!": Interview with Swedish Pirate Party leader Rickard Falkvinge
• European Court of Justice says Facebook must remove 'illegal' posts globally
• Millions don't turn up to 'storm' US airbase for extraterrestrial evidence

More information at Wikipedia:

• Internet portal
• Internet
• History of the Internet
• Internet censorship
• Internet Protocol
• World Wide Web

A reporter from Wikinews recently interviewed Brooks Lindsay, who is the founder of the online wiki Debatepedia, which claims to be the 'Wikipedia of Debates.'

Brooks told Wikinews that "Debatepedia is a non-profit, free wiki encyclopedia of debates, pro and con arguments, and supporting evidence and quotes from scholars, experts, and op-ed writers (those figures that are actively engaged in these public debates)." He continued with "some people have called it the 'Wikipedia of debate', which is a pretty accurate description of what we are trying to do."

He finished by stating that the site is "trying to cover all of the pro and con arguments in any public debate, on any topic from a global to a local level, from any region in the world, and hopefully, in the future, in any language. The objective is to frame debates in a pro/con structure - when they appropriately belong in a pro/con structure - so that people can effectively "weigh" the "sides" in a debate, deliberate, draw conclusions, and take a stand. "

The second question asked why he founded Debatepedia. He replied by saying that "With arguments, evidence, and quotes being scattered across the Internet, it is currently too difficult for citizens to view all the pros and cons, quotes, and supporting evidence in debates, deliberate and take a stand. We are trying to fill this void, on a global scale, and by open-sourcing the effort over MediaWiki software."

When asked how Debatepedia will develop in the future Brooks said that he expects "the community of editors to grow to a much greater extent." He also said that he hoped to be able to "clean up some of the software elements," of the site.

When questioned about the importance of Debatepedia, Mr. Lindsay said that "Debatepedia is important for the reader and citizen as a tool to deliberate more effectively, develop greater conviction in what is righteous and what is not, and to generally increase citizen-engagement in debates, issues, and advocacy, across the world. For the writer, it is a way to have a greater voice and impact on other people, and other people's thinking; it's a great public service to help edit on Debatepedia, like on Wikipedia. Finally, there is the potential that Debatepedia will be used by leaders and representatives as a way to deliberate through a topic that they have to vote on, or as a destination to direct constituents to deliberate." He said it was "perhaps a lofty goal, but real nevertheless."

Have an opinion on this story? Share it!

Sources

This exclusive interview features first-hand journalism by a Wikinews reporter. See the collaboration page for more details.

Too Much Information: Understanding What You Don't Want to Know

 

 

by Cass R. Sunstein  (Author)

How much information is too much? Do we need to know how many calories are in the giant vat of popcorn that we bought on our way into the movie theater? Do we want to know if we are genetically predisposed to a certain disease? Can we do anything useful with next week's weather forecast for Paris if we are not in Paris? In Too Much Information, Cass Sunstein examines the effects of information on our lives. Policymakers emphasize "the right to know," but Sunstein takes a different perspective, arguing that the focus should be on human well-being and what information contributes to it. Government should require companies, employers, hospitals, and others to disclose information not because of a general "right to know" but when the information in question would significantly improve people's lives.

Sunstein argues that the information on warnings and mandatory labels is often confusing or irrelevant, yielding no benefit. He finds that people avoid information if they think it will make them sad (and seek information they think will make them happy). Our information avoidance and information seeking is notably heterogeneous--some of us do want to know the popcorn calorie count, others do not. Of course, says Sunstein, we are better off with stop signs, warnings on prescriptions drugs, and reminders about payment due dates. But sometimes less is more. What we need is more clarity about what information is actually doing or achieving. Ref Amazon

Cass R Sunstein (Video of the author giving a brief talk)

Wikipedia bio of Cass Sunstein whose work has some relevance to Precision Universal Debate (one of his books Infotopia was featured on another page of this blog