The Precision Universal Debating Project

Towards Improved Constructive Thinking and Greater Holistic Objectivity and Clarity in a Complex World. This Blog is a Resource of Articles on the Thinking Process from Education, Information Science, Philosophy, Science, Linguistics, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Sociology, Media Studies, Statistics, Behavioural Sciences, and Other Sources. The Development of the Precision Universal Debating Project acts as the Basic Backdrop to the Whole Subject.

Showing posts with label universal debating project. Show all posts

Friday, 22 July 2022

Point Plans

Just as pro and con presentations can be very important in presenting data as indicated by the Precision Universal Debating Project...Point Plans can also be vital in giving a clear and brief understanding of some branch of knowledge. Indeed "all" forms of data could be presented in this manner giving vital amount of details in the quickest and shortest manner possible and be backed up with references and could be independently checked and double checked..and even checked again ideally on on a 24/7 basis. Such precision may to some be tiresome but it is an also an attempt to get people to think more objectively and sensibly as possible. Here are some examples of point plans below from a google search. See link

Point Plan Examples

Thursday, 17 November 2016

Updated Entry on the Universal Debating Project

Basic Proposal by Robert Searle

The Universal Debating Project (or UDP) is an extremely ambitious proposal for an ongoing programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any topic of human knowledge could be presented in the clearest, and shortest possible form. It would also include an online "encyclopedia"(like Wikipedia) for the pros, and cons of any debate which could be continually updated in Real-Time on the internet. It would naturally adopt the Networking P2P approach, and hence, be an Open Source of structured data emanating from laymen, experts, NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, web feeds, aggregators (ie.feed readers, or news readers), et al.
Ofcourse, articles such as those on Wikipedia do try to present arguments for, and against particular subjects. But how "complete," and how unbiased are they? Moreover, they deal probably with mainly major arguments, and to a lesser extent "minor" arguments. In effect, what is needed is the most objective presentation of "all" possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human knowledge.
Ideally, the Universal Debating Project should be publicly seen as being the most reliable, and the most credible central global source of such structured data in the world. Its aim is to achieve improved constructive reasoning, and greater holistic objectivity. It should become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGOs, businesses, et al.

The Problem of Complexity

As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital to....
a) ...reduce most, if not "all" introductory information on a topic into clear, and manageable levels of data (ie. Text Simplification)...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to notes, or "good" powerpoint presentations, and as short comprehensive summaries consisting of one, or more paragraph)
b) ...reduce "all" major, and "minor" resulting arguments for, and against of topic in the most lucid manner possible....again ideally using the least number of words...
c) ....a whole series of links to various sources could ofcourse be included at the click of a button. Ofcourse, the relevant sentences in many cases could be cached, or highlighted.
Special editors could do the above work notably in connection with a), and b). This would mean that any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least numbers of words, and be free of emotional language. These could be emailed to those in a debate to see if the participants opinions are presented accurately.
Apart from Wikipedia mentioned earlier there are ofcourse on the internet any number of forums, and discussion groups. These are fine as far as they go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a certain topic? Naturally enough, such arguments are continually repeated again, and again. This is where the UDP becomes all-important.
A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become "instant experts." In other words, they should be able to become reasonably "expert" in the shortest space of time in say some aspect of economics, biology, or physics, or whatever. Thus, there is an element here of Anti-Credentialism in which essentially good arguments rely on good "objective" thinking rather than relying on the credibility of experts all the time.
Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the UDP. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead in certain instances to "quality" online global "brainstorming", or more precisely "brainwriting" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world. Hence, Collective Intelligence at work.
It should be added here too that technical subjects such as physics, and the processes involved in mathematics could be presented verbally, and clearly. In the latter instance, a individual may have little, or no training. But with "simple" verbal step by step presentations he, or she could reach levels of "mathematical understanding."

The Importance of "Rationality"

The structured data of the UDP should be like the Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook edited by Trevor Sather which went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con arguments. This along with a brief lucid presentation of an issue, or topic should ofcourse become ultimately universally standardized for the entire world, and act as a truly comprehensive compliment to any number of "decentralized" sources of information.
An intriguing aspect of the Universal Debating Project is that we could have what is termed a "Rationality Count"(RC). This would be the electronic tracking of peoples decision-making processes for, and against a specific topic. This could give us valuable insight as to the degrees of rationality people may have. For instance, 2,000 people may select pro argument a for topic C via the internet. Then, a con argument b could be presented online for the same topic C, and 1,500 decide to agree with it, and ofcourse, press the right button on their computers to transmit their decision...and so on. We may well find interesting patterns if RCs are used. In other words, a "mapping out" of the "thinking processes" of participants in the UDP.
If the "Global Brain", or Universal Debating Project were ever set up, its initial concern would probably be with major issues notably social matters, economics, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up, and it could even have a motto such as "Fair Thinking, Fair World".

Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not.

More Information

Links
The following list of links may have direct, and indirect relevance to the above p2pfoundation entry. Yet, they are worthy of inclusion here. They also give us an idea of the immensity of the subject of debating, rationality, and thinking......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking A book by the parapsychologist Robert Thouless,(pronounced Tooliss) and one in which he gave a "simplistic" presentation of the different forms of argument.
There are naturally enough a number of debating "organizations" on the internet. However, the scale, and indeed, scope of the UDP is far greater, and "infinitely" comprehensive.

http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia%21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
http://idebate.org/debatabase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain The UDP could play a "central" role in the Global Brain proposal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_(summary)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Applied_data_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
A key problem with policy making is that unforeseen consequences can often happen. Hence, the need for good thought through planning to reduce future problems. Such policy making could be aided with the structured data approach of the UDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy
http://p2pfoundation.net/Anti-Credentialism
http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Facilitation This has a list of links of great interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy (The UDP could play a critical role in this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
http://theeconomicrealms.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=maria+popova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-game_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_language
The link below deals with games that have serious educational value, and could in certain situations even affect socio-economic change. Ofcourse, a pro, and con project such as the above could be presented in an attractive, and stimulating manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_game
Mind Maps are another way of presenting issues other than the pro, and con approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics
Semantics can have relevance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_technology
http://gelookahead.economist.com/data-lake/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
There are variety of ways for developing greater creativity. One such approach is lateral Thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review
https://www.ted.com/talks/noreena_hertz_how_to_use_experts_and_when_not_to
The following deals with Upstream Engagement in which people can have informed dialogue about subjects (notably in connection with "controversial" scientific innovation)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l06z0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatics_(academic_field)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management
Another area of likely relevance is media bias. If undertaken correctly, the Universal Debating Project should be able to present the most "objective" presentation in the world of various topics notably on emotive issues such as genetically modified food, and global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
A link of links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory
Big Data could play a big role in the all this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_data
http://freespeechdebate.com/en/the-project/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
The following link is concerned with the idea(!) of Ideonomy which would probably be of great relevance to UDP.
http://ideonomy.mit.edu/intro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_visualization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootropic (ie.Smart Drugs)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-based_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Legal_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/542715/Yes-and-No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor (This could be seen as a complete contradiction to the UDP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_machine_learning_concepts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

http://flynn.debating.net/amazon.htm (an interesting list of book references on debating, etc)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_reasoner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infographic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_PowerPoint
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda (a classic example of the "misuse" of data)
An important area of enquiry is how accurate, and authentic statistics are. With the aid of the UDP a set of them could be scrutinized rigorously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
There is an important radio programme which questions statistics...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_or_Less_(radio_programme)
Some interesting info can be found on the discussion section of this page/subject entry.
http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Universal_Debating_Project
IMPORTANT.
Finally, a blog has been set up. http://universaldebatingproject.blogspot.co.uk/ Other "relevant" subject matters not included as links in the above may also exist on the blog itself, and maybe included at the P2P Foundation site.
R.S.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

Some Criticism...

Wikipedia Genesis/Reason entry

In a free society it is good to see debates going on..such as this one. But we should also at the same time try, and develop a far more advanced, and “objective” way of improving our thinking on any issue. Hence, the possible future emergence of the Universal Debating Project. See http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Universal_Debating_Project

Reply Dave Hansell says: November 21 2015 at 3:44 pm

Looking through the write up on this link I see two issues which would impact on the efficacy of such a project. The first issue relates to the potential impact or otherwise found in the worthy statement in italics at the end of the introduction which states “It SHOULD become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGO’s, businesses et al.” As with everything concerning human interaction, no matter how “objective” the presentation of any particular issue the key point is not the “objective” facts (whatever they are) but what they mean to different actors and, more important, different contexts. It does not take much imagination to see that different interests will still interpret anything produced to suit their case. Moreover, the observation attributed to Karl Rove kicks in, in which such a project, grounded in the “reality based community”, ends up merely as a discussion shop reacting to the decisions made by elite power groups who merely ignore it or interpret what it produces according to the dictates of their own interests, at best distorting the projects purpose, at worst making it effectively redundant. Secondly, and more problematically, the methodology is fundamentally flawed. It’s not as if reducing complexities to simplicities has never ever been standard practice in the way human beings think and try to deal with the world. The problem with this simplifying everything with a power point presentation, reducing complex ideas, processes, phenomena etc to a three bullet point package is that it simply results in using brain puns as a substitute for thinking, missing Key features of the world such as context, meaning higher level features etc.

The mathematician Ian Stewart and the reproductive biologist Jack Cohen covered this ground, identifying the limitations of reductionist thinking and methodologies, over twenty years ago in their book “The Collapse of Chaos.” Still relevant agony well worth a gone read, particularly when designing agony worthwhile new initiative.

Reply DavidB says: November 22 2015 at 3:45 pm

The UDP has some resemblances with Bernard Lonergan’s notion of a universal viewpoint.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5Q1VpNwaPhcC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=Lonergan+universal+viewpoint&source=bl&ots=UvFAMmJcwC&sig=eXA5pmvEUCxGWxH1klqCQnoS8RI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJkvWIp6LJAhUGuhoKHaO4DjMQ6AEIJTAE#v=onepage&q=Lonergan%20universal%20viewpoint&f=false

1. There is a criterion of objectivity. Differences of interpretation can be handled by the universal viewpoint by keeping all such differences of opinion in view.

2. The process of reducing all arguments to two or three bullet points is like mapping it to human cognitional activity. Since nobody can deny their use of cognitional activity when framing an argument, this is the correct context. Lonergan envisaged such a project in his conception of unified metaphysics, but realised there would be stages in its implementation. The first is implicit, because everyone uses their minds when engaged in debate, or they are not worth engaging with. The second stage is problematic, when we try to reconcile the multitude of departments of knowledge with their corresponding cognitional activity.

The third and final stage is an explicit metaphysics, when our mental processes are known, understood and acknowledged. It is indeed an ambitious project, and may be difficult to persuade people we can move beyond stage 2. - See

Source Reference
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/20/when-will-they-learn-that-austerity-is-causing-our-deficit/

Thursday, 13 August 2015

The Universal Debating Project

Basic Proposal by Robert Searle

Towards the Global Development of an Open Democratic "Super Brain" using Structured Data

The Universal Debating Project (or UDP) is an extremely ambitious proposal for an ongoing programme in which "all", or most arguments for, or against any topic of human knowledge could be presented in the clearest, and shortest possible form. It would also include an online "encyclopedia"(like Wikipedia) for the pros, and cons of any debate which could be continually updated in Real-Time on the internet. It would naturally adopt the Networking P2P approach, and hence, be an Open Source of structured data emanating from laymen, experts, NGOs, scholarly papers, popular articles, documentaries, web feeds, aggregators (ie.feed readers, or news readers), et al.
Ofcourse, articles such as those on Wikipedia do try to present arguments for, and against particular subjects. But how "complete," and how unbiased are they? Moreover, they deal probably with mainly major arguments, and to a lesser extent "minor" arguments. In effect, what is needed is the most objective presentation of "all" possible pros, and cons on most, if not "all" kinds of human knowledge.
Ideally, the Universal Debating Project should be publicly seen as being the most reliable, and the most credible central global source of such structured data in the world. Its aim is to achieve improved constructive reasoning, and greater holistic objectivity. It should become of great practical value for educators, citizens, governments, NGOs, businesses, et al.

Discussion

The Problem of Complexity

As the world becomes increasingly complex it becomes more, and more vital to....
a) ...reduce most, if not "all" introductory information on a topic into clear, and manageable levels of data (ie. Text Simplification)...ideally using the least number of words..(similiar to notes, or "good" powerpoint presentations, and as short comprehensive summaries consisting of one, or more paragraph)
b) ...reduce "all" major, and "minor" resulting arguments for, and against of topic in the most lucid manner possible....again ideally using the least number of words...
c) ....a whole series of links to various sources could ofcourse be included at the click of a button. Ofcourse, the relevant sentences in many cases could be cached, or highlighted.
Special editors could do the above work notably in connection with a), and b). This would mean that any pro, and con arguments which are repeated could be "quickly" reduced into the least numbers of words, and be free of emotional language. These could be emailed to those in a debate to see if the participants opinions are presented accurately.
Apart from Wikipedia mentioned earlier there are ofcourse on the internet any number of forums, and discussion groups. These are fine as far as they go. But as said before how complete are their arguments for, and against a certain topic? Naturally enough, such arguments are continually repeated again, and again. This is where the UDP becomes all-important.
A vital aspect of all this is that it should be possible for people to become "instant experts." In other words, they should be able to become reasonably "expert" in the shortest space of time in say some aspect of economics, biology, or physics, or whatever. Thus, there is an element here of Anti-Credentialism in which essentially good arguments rely on good "objective" thinking rather than relying on the credibility of experts all the time.
Ofcourse, those who have formal qualifications, and training still play a vital role, but they must be prepared to submit their ideas, and discoveries onto the UDP. Thus, they could be "fully" scrutinised by other experts, and by the public without relevant credentials. This could all lead in certain instances to "quality" online global "brainstorming", or more precisely "brainwriting" sessions leading to "new" ideas that may have value in society, and the world. Hence, Collective Intelligence at work.
It should be added here too that technical subjects such as physics, and the processes involved in mathematics could be presented verbally, and clearly. In the latter instance, a individual may have little, or no training. But with "simple" verbal step by step presentations he, or she could reach levels of "mathematical understanding."

Basic Systemization of Presentation on the Universal Debating Project

The structured data of the UDP could be like the Pros, and Cons, a Debaters Handbook edited by Trevor Sather which went through a number of editions since 1896. Here, two columns are presented, one of which is for pro arguments, and the other for con arguments. This along with a brief lucid presentation of an issue, or topic should ofcourse become ultimately universally standardized for the entire world, and act as a truly comprehensive compliment to any number of "decentralized" sources of information.
An intriguing aspect of the Universal Debating Project is that we could have what is termed a "Rationality Count"(RC). This would be the electronic tracking of peoples decision-making processes for, and against a specific topic. This could give us valuable insight as to the degrees of rationality people may have. For instance, 2,000 people may select pro argument a for topic C via the internet. Then, a con argument b could be presented online for the same topic C, and 1,500 decide to agree with it, and ofcourse, press the right button on their computers to transmit their decision...and so on. We may well find interesting patterns if RCs are used. In other words, a "mapping out" of the "thinking processes" of participants in the UDP.
If the "Global Brain", or Universal Debating Project were ever set up, its initial concern would probably be with major issues notably social matters, economics, politics, and climate change/global warming. A site could be set up, and it could even have a motto such as "Fair Thinking, Fair World".

Also, it should be added that it is as yet unclear how such a proposal could be funded. It could use the Wikipedia model, or maybe not.

More Information

Retrieved from "http://p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Universal_Debating_Project&oldid=94551"

Category:

Facilitation

Friday, 5 June 2015

Microsoft PowerPoint

Power Point can play a valuable role in the understanding, and development of the Universal Debating Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia/ http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Universal_Debating_Project

Microsoft PowerPoint


Developer(s)	Microsoft
Stable release	2013 (15.0.4420.1017) / October 2, 2012; 2 years ago (2012-10-02)
Written in	C++^[1]
Operating system	Microsoft Windows
Type	Presentation program
License	Trialware
Website	office.microsoft.com/powerpoint

Microsoft PowerPoint for Mac

Microsoft PowerPoint for Mac 2011 running on Mac OS X Snow Leopard
Developer(s)	Microsoft
Stable release	2011 (14.1.2.110505 SP1) / June 14, 2011; 3 years ago (2011-06-14)
Operating system	Mac OS X
Type	Presentation program
License	Proprietary commercial software
Website	www.microsoft.com/mac/powerpoint

Microsoft PowerPoint is a slide show presentation program developed by Microsoft. It was officially launched on May 22, 1990, as a part of the Microsoft Office suite.

[hide]

History[edit]

Originally designed for the Macintosh computer, the initial release was called "Presenter", developed by Dennis Austin and Thomas Rudkin^[2] of Forethought, Inc.^[3] In 1987, it was renamed to "PowerPoint" due to problems with trademarks, the idea for the name coming from Robert Gaskins.^[4] In August of the same year, Forethought was bought by Microsoft for $14 million USD ($29.1 million in present-day terms^[5]), and became Microsoft's Graphics Business Unit, which continued to develop the software further. PowerPoint was officially launched on May 22, 1990, the same day that Microsoft released Windows 3.0.
PowerPoint introduced many new changes with the release of PowerPoint 97. PowerPoint 97 incorporated the Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) language, underlying all macro generation in Office 97.
PowerPoint 2000 (and the rest of the Office 2000 suite) introduced a clipboard that could hold multiple objects at once. Another change was that the Office Assistant was changed to be less intrusive.^[6]
PowerPoint 2002 massively overhauled the animation engine, allowing users to create more advanced and custom animations.^[7]
As of 2012, various versions of PowerPoint claim ~95% of the presentation software market share, with installations on at least 1 billion computers. Among presenters world-wide, this program is used at an estimated frequency of 350 times per second.^[8]

Operation[edit]

PowerPoint presentations consist of a number of individual pages or "slides". The "slide" analogy is a reference to the slide projector. A better analogy would be the "foils" (or transparencies/plastic sheets) that are shown with an overhead projector, although they are in decline now. Slides may contain text, graphics, sound, movies, and other objects, which may be arranged freely. The presentation can be printed, displayed live on a computer, or navigated through at the command of the presenter. For larger audiences the computer display is often projected using a video projector. Slides can also form the basis of webcasts.
PowerPoint provides three types of movements:

Entrance, emphasis, and exit of elements on a slide itself are controlled by what PowerPoint calls Custom Animations.
Transitions, on the other hand, are movements between slides. These can be animated in a variety of ways.
Custom animation can be used to create small story boards by animating pictures to enter, exit or move.

PowerPoint provides numerous features that offer flexibility and the ability to create a professional presentation. One of the features provides the ability to create a presentation that includes music which plays throughout the entire presentation or sound effects for particular slides. In addition to the ability to add sound files, the presentation can be designed to run, like a movie, on its own. PowerPoint allows the user to record the slide show with narration and a laser pointer. The user may customize slide shows to show the slides in a different order than originally designed and to have slides appear multiple times. Microsoft also offers the ability to broadcast the presentation to specific users via a link and Windows Live.

Cultural impact[edit]

A PowerPoint presentation in progress.

Supporters say that^[9]^[10]^[11] the ease of use of presentation software can save a lot of time for people who otherwise would have used other types of visual aid—hand-drawn or mechanically typeset slides, blackboards or whiteboards, or overhead projections. Ease of use also encourages those who otherwise would not have used visual aids, or would not have given a presentation at all, to make presentations. As PowerPoint's style, animation, and multimedia abilities have become more sophisticated, and as the application has generally made it easier to produce presentations (even to the point of having an "AutoContent Wizard" that was discontinued in PowerPoint 2007, suggesting a structure for a presentation), the difference in needs and desires of presenters and audiences has become more noticeable.^[12] Experienced PowerPoint designers point out that the "AutoContent Wizard" caused a glitch which contributed greatly to on-screen freezing of slides. Many designers opt to use the "blank slide layout" in lieu of the other layout choices for this reason. Nevertheless, in normal business use, most presentations created using PowerPoint are based on its default layout and font choices.^[13]
The benefit of PowerPoint is continually debated, though most people believe that the benefit may be to present structural presentations to business workers, such as Raytheon Elcan does.^[14] Its use in classroom lectures has influenced investigations of PowerPoint's effects on student performance in comparison to lectures based on overhead projectors, traditional lectures, and online lectures. There are no compelling results to prove or disprove that PowerPoint is more effective for learner retention than traditional presentation methods.^[15]

Military excess[edit]

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with USA and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (March 2015)

A "PowerPoint Ranger" is a military member who relies heavily on presentation software to the point of excess. Some junior officers spend the majority of their time preparing PowerPoint slides.^[16] Because of its usefulness for presenting mission briefings, it has become part of the culture of the military,^[17]^[18] but is regarded as a poor decision-making tool.^[19] As a result some generals, such as Brigadier-General Herbert McMaster, have banned the use of PowerPoint in their operations.^[16] In September 2010, Colonel Lawrence Sellin was fired from his post at the ISAF for publishing a piece critical of the over-dependence of military staffs on the presentation method and bloated bureaucracy.^[20]

Artistic medium[edit]

Musician David Byrne has been using PowerPoint as a medium for art for years, producing a book and DVD and showing at galleries his PowerPoint based artwork.^[21] The expressions "PowerPoint Art" or "pptArt" are used to define a contemporary Italian artistic movement which believes that the corporate world can be a unique and exceptional source of inspiration for the artist.

PowerPoint Viewer[edit]

Microsoft Office PowerPoint Viewer is a program used to run presentations on computers that do not have PowerPoint installed. Office PowerPoint Viewer (or in PowerPoint 2007 and later, a link to a viewer download) is added by default to the same disk or network location that contains one or more presentations packaged by using the Package for CD feature.
PowerPoint Viewer is installed by default with a Microsoft Office 2003 installation for use with the Package for CD feature. The PowerPoint Viewer file is also available for download from the Microsoft Office Online Web site.^[22]
Presentations password-protected for opening or modifying can be opened by PowerPoint Viewer. The Package for CD feature allows packaging any password-protected file or setting a new password for all packaged presentations. PowerPoint Viewer prompts for a password if the file is open password-protected.
PowerPoint Viewer supports opening presentations created using PowerPoint 97 and later. In addition, it supports all file content except OLE objects and scripting. PowerPoint Viewer is currently only available for computers running on Microsoft Windows.

Versions[edit]

Microsoft PowerPoint 2010 running on Windows 7

Versions for Microsoft Windows include:

1990 PowerPoint 2.0 for Windows 3.0
1992 PowerPoint 3.0 for Windows 3.1
1993 PowerPoint 4.0 (Office 4.x)
1995 PowerPoint for Windows 95 (version 7.0; Office 95)
1997 PowerPoint 97 (version 8.0; Office 97)
1999 PowerPoint 2000 (version 9.0; Office 2000)
2001 PowerPoint 2002 (version 10; Office XP)
2003 Office PowerPoint 2003 (version 11; Office 2003)
2007 Office PowerPoint 2007 (version 12; Office 2007)
2010 PowerPoint 2010 (version 14; Office 2010)
2013 PowerPoint 2013 (version 15; Office 2013)

Note: There is no PowerPoint version 5.0 or 6.0, because the Windows 95 version was launched with Word 7.0. All Office 95 products have OLE 2 capacity—moving data automatically from various programs—and PowerPoint 7.0 shows that it was contemporary with Word 7.0.

Note 2: Version number 13 was skipped due to superstition.

Icon for PowerPoint for Mac 2008

Versions for the Mac OS include:

1987 PowerPoint 1.0 for Mac OS classic
1988 PowerPoint 2.0 for Mac OS classic
1992 PowerPoint 3.0 for Mac OS classic
1994 PowerPoint 4.0 for Mac OS classic
1998 PowerPoint 98 (8.0) for Mac OS classic (Office 1998 for Mac)
2000 PowerPoint 2001 (9.0) for Mac OS classic (Office 2001 for Mac)
2001 PowerPoint v. X (10.0) for Mac OS X (Office:Mac v. X)
2004 PowerPoint 2004 (11.0) for Mac OS X Office:Mac 2004
2008 PowerPoint 2008 (12.0) for Mac OS X Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac
2010 PowerPoint 2011 (14.0) for Mac OS X Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac

Note: There is no PowerPoint 5.0, 6.0 or 7.0 for Mac. There is no version 5.0 or 6.0 because the Windows 95 version was launched with Word 7. All of the Office 95 products have OLE 2 capacity—moving data automatically from various programs—and PowerPoint 7 shows that it was contemporary with Word 7. There was no version 7.0 made for Mac to coincide with either version 7.0 for Windows or PowerPoint 97.^[23]^[24]

Microsoft PowerPoint 2011[edit]

In PowerPoint 2011, several key features have been added. Screen Capturing allows for taking a screenshot and adding it into the document. It is now possible to remove image backgrounds, and there are additional special effects that can be used with pictures, such as 'Pencil effects'. Additional transitions are also available. However, the ability to apply certain text effects directly onto existing text, as seen in Microsoft Word is not available; a separate WordArt text box is still required.

File formats[edit]

PowerPoint Presentation
Filename extension	`.ppt, .pptx, .pps, or .ppsx`
Internet media type	`application/vnd.ms-powerpoint`
Developed by	Microsoft
Type of format	Presentation

The binary format specification has been available from Microsoft on request, but since February 2008 the .ppt format specification can be freely downloaded.^[25]
In Microsoft Office 2007 the binary file formats were replaced as the default format by the new XML based Office Open XML formats, which are published as an open standard.^{[citation needed]} Nevertheless, they are not complete as there are binary blobs inside of the XML files, and several pieces of behaviour are not specified but refer to the observed behaviour of specific versions of Microsoft product.^{[citation needed]}