From phmartin at phmartin.info Tue Aug 1 04:31:20 2006 From: phmartin at phmartin.info (Philippe MARTIN) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:31:20 +1000 Subject: [Textop] New essay: The New Politics of Knowledge In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:33:47 MST" Message-ID: <200608011131.k71BVLCc030971@pc070372.sci.griffith.edu.au> > I've posted a new essay on my blog, called "The New Politics of Knowledge": > http://www.dufoundation.org/blog/?p=96 Nice article! However, it is based on the implicit assumption that there is a need for each user of an information repository to let other persons than herself "decide who determines what should pass for knowledge or reliable information" and, more generally, arbitrate conflicts that she has with other users (even the "anarchy" system of governance: "People manage themselves and resolve disputes on a piecemeal basis, or not, perhaps with the help of people both parties agree on"). The (sub-)assumption that I question is that a collaboratively-built information repository necessarily implies that conflicts have to occur or have be solved in order to help each user increase her trust in the stored information. The conflicts that occur in current collaboratively-built information repositories have three related causes: - there is no efficient way for each user to filter out information according to her own combination of criteria about (i) the authors of the information (e.g., one user may want to discard information authored by people who do not have a PhD and/or who have authored something that she thinks particularly stupid) and (ii) the information itself (e.g., one user may want to only see a piece of information if it has been argumented with arguments that have not been counter-argumented and/or if it has been voted as "relevant" and "very original" by people who, according to the user, have not so far demonstrated bad taste); - information is very poorly structured (e.g., ideas/facts/sentences are not related by argumentation/specialisation relations) and has very poor metadata (e.g., no associated source and/or source interpreter, no vote on the originality, veracity or relevance of the pieces of information, no ontology for the concepts in each piece of information) and hence adding information is "too cheap" (precision, consistency and deep thinking is neither required nor encouraged) and each addition lead to more redundancies in the repository and hence makes information more difficult to retrieve, compare, organise or filter out; - the only efficient way used for dealing with possibly problematic information (e.g., considered as false, redundant, irrelevant, too technical, offensive, ... by some persons) is either to let a group of proxies decide to delete it or not and thus impose their own criteria to all users, or let each user the possibility to delete anything and thus impose her criteria to all users (which leads to "edit wars"). A collaboratively-built information repository requiring information to be very structured (e.g., by asking each new sentence to be related to an existing one by a semantic relation), permitting votes on various criteria, and permiting personalised knowledge filtering, would permit each user to specify and hopefully see what she wants to see given her current mood, time constraints and applications, and it would encourage the information providers to be more cautious about what they write since their reputations are at stake (the provided "default" procedure for evaluating each bit of information and each author may be used as a guide; in http://www.webkb.org/doc/papers/iccs05/iccs05.html#cooperation I give a template for such a procedure; the only real problem I currently see for this information filtering based approach is to efficiently distinguishing genuine spam from things malevolently voted as spam by "new" users without making the filter too agressive and hence miss out on possibly interesting information). With such an approach, the use of proxies is undesirable for any user and hence the use of a "system of governance" (be it a "constitutional representative democracy", a "pure democracy" or an "anarchy") seems useless and undesirable. Thanks in advance for anyone's rebuttals, they'll help me refine my views or my arguments. Philippe From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 2 20:52:53 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:52:53 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Your help with a DU project requested Message-ID: <001601c6b6b0$4c06c810$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, The Digital Universe Foundation is spearheading a little project to compile a list of the most reliable Web resources of a certain kind. People often ask us, when they hear about what the Digital Universe is up to, "How can I help?" Well, here's our answer: construct this list, please! It's a yeomanly way to help this worthy project get off the ground. And notice, the result will be useful not just to the DU, but to the world in general! We will release the list free to anyone to use, of course; consider it in the public domain. To get involved in this little project, 1. Go to this URL: http://tinyurl.com/o4p7h 2. Continue with the instructions you'll find there. See you on the wiki! --Larry Sanger, DUF Director of Collaborative Projects From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Aug 4 13:21:06 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:21:06 -0700 Subject: [Textop] New proposal for an executive committee (please read) Message-ID: <005501c6b803$843b4f90$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Dear members of the Textop Advisory Committee, and the Textop community at large, I would like a large amount of feedback on the following *important*, *project-changing* proposal. Please read, with these questions in mind: do you think this is a good idea generally? Is it something we should do soon, or defer until, say, the pilot project is further along? Can you think of a useful "twist" on the approach I've suggested? Do you have any comments on the details of the proposal? I will not act on this, e.g., make any calls for applications, for *at least* one week. Please give me your feedback by next Wednesday, August 9, anyway. ========= RATIONALE It seems to me that we could be doing so much more. I am a firm believer in motivating by conferring responsibility. That is why collaborative and self-publishing projects online are thriving: the individual is empowered through responsibility. Well, it occurred to me that we just need to define the right framework for empowering individuals, one in which responsibility is shared among like-minded peers. ======================= THE PROPOSAL IN SUMMARY So here is what I propose: I will appoint, with feedback/approval by the Textop Advisory Committee, a number of people who are given *very broad* authority to work on different aspects of Textop. They become full stakeholders in and essentially co-founders of the project, and become a new Executive Committee. Work then proceeds in parallel on a number of fronts. =================================== GENERAL FEATURES OF EXECUTIVE ROLES The general requirements and features of these roles would be as follows: * This is a nonprofit, knowledge-oriented project. Our brief is to enlighten the world. This should not be expected to be a lucrative hobby. So, while we will attempt to do some innovative kinds of fundraising, these will probably be volunteer positions for the foreseeable future. We ought to consider our involvement as an important hobby, much as the volunteers at work on the Gutenberg Project or Wikipedia do. I assure you that (unlike Wikipedia!) I would still be working on Textop in my spare time even if I didn't get the plum support deal with my employer (thanks Joe). * You agree to commit some significant amount of time to the project, on the order of at least five hours per week. You also agree to let me (or whatever person or body is so designated) replace you if you drop the ball. * In the not-distant future, the governance of Textop will be settled and defined by a Charter, that provides that *all* positions of responsibility, yours and my own included, become electable and governable "by law" so to speak. You will be bound by the requirements of that Charter when it is adopted. * The Charter will include items to the following effect: - The main products of Textop are and will always be *open content*, and the project will always remain under the control of a noncommercial and nonprofit entity. (Just forget about Textop being your personal vehicle to wealth. We are creating something for the world to share.) - Decisionmaking about significant matters of content will be left to subject matter experts. They will not *drive* and *assign* work, but we all agree to respect their authority to *oversee* it. - Nonetheless, the project will adhere to a broad principle of collaboration, i.e., distributed, asynchronous effort, in which all people *who can make a positive contribution* (given the different requirements of different tasks) are enabled to do so. This is a "big tent"; it is "open"; it is generally "flat." Textop is and always will be aggressively opposed to unnecessary, irrational, and/or closed bureaucracy, and strongly in favor of supporting individual initiative. * These positions are "executive" positions in the sense that you will be expected to make plans proactively, get approval for them, and put them into effect. You will also be leaders of workgroups that will have more or less open membership. As with subject matter editors, you will be expected to let work in your area be as "bottom-up" as possible. Your job is *not* to give orders, but to herd cats! Leadership and bold proposing is essential to our success, but tendency to become dictatorial and peremptory will be grounds for dismissal. * These positions will also serve on an Executive Committee that will probably have a fairly regular conference call and/or its own (open archive, exclusive subscription) mailing list, in which *only* the most important decisions affecting the entire project will be vetted. The Executive Committee Will Not Be A Bottleneck! Initially, I will serve as the chair of the Executive Committee, but this will be a temporary, not permanent arrangement, subject to the decision of the committee itself. * Henceforth I will always refer to myself as a "co-founder" of Textop and you will share the billing with me. The project in a very real sense becomes *our* project, and no longer in any meaningful sense *my* project. I'm inclined to call these people "Directors," but tell me if you would prefer another moniker. ======================= SOME POSSIBLE POSITIONS I propose next to recruit for the following positions, to begin with. * Director of Website and Wiki Design. This person is given broad authority to organize the writing, design, and other features of textop.org and the textop wiki. Main brief is to solicit, upload, update, and otherwise manage the documents and other media of Textop. I'll give you a login to the web space and permit you to give logins to others, as necessary. * Director of the Collation Project. This is what I've been doing. I will continue to do this. * Director of the Analytical Dictionary Project. Plans, prototypes, recruits for, and otherwise manages the nascent Analytical Dictionary Project. * Director of the Debate Guide Project. Plans, prototypes, recruits for, and otherwise manages the nascent Debate Guide Project. * Director of the Event Summary Project. Plans, prototypes, recruits for, and otherwise manages the nascent the Event Summary Project. * Director of Software Development. Plans and directs the OSS needed to support the various Textop subprojects. * Director of Oversight. Has two complementary roles: (1) keeps track of a project log, reporting on the latest developments on behalf of everyone; and (2) ensures that work is proceeding apace and according to the plans developed by the other directors on all fronts. Eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy and other such silliness. In other words, a low-key COO. * Director of Innovation. The local solver of deep problems. Drives and moderates a mailing list on which new Textop projects, or radical innovations to existing projects, are discussed. Represents the community that participates in the discussion to the Executive Committee, which vets proposals. * Director of Recruitment. Works with other Directors to determine the most pressing needs for volunteers, and crafts and implements a creative plan to get volunteers on board. Posts on mailing lists, does research into possible volunteers, drafts press releases, does networking, etc. Eventually might help organize a conference. * Director of Finance. Crafts and implements innovative fundraising plans; directs grantwriting as and when appropriate; receives and prioritizes reimbursement and grant requests from project staff. * Architect of the Text Outline Project Charter. A temporary position, devoted solely to crafting Textop's Charter, leading a broadbased discussion of the Charter, and articulating the result to the Executive Committee. This person should be a mature and respected philosopher, political scientist, policy analyst, legal scholar, historian, or other intellectual who can think very deeply about a huge range of issues. (My current thinking is that the Charter is officially adopted after *both* the Advisory Committee *and* the Executive Committee adopt it.) Any other positions you can think of? To be embarrassingly honest, I'm amazed that I was actually considering trying to do all this myself for any length of time at all. Obviously, I should have delegated this sort of managerial authority from the very start. I don't even *want* to do some of this stuff; mainly, I want to work on the Collation Project. And, clearly, there are people out there who would love to step into positions like this. Live and learn. Clearly, if Textop is to get anywhere, we have to view this project not as Larry's project but as **our** project. ===================================== HOW TO LAUNCH THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE While there are strong candidates for many of these positions already with us, I doubt that we will be able to get a full complement of suitable directors. So I want to cast our net widely. I propose to do a press release announcing that we are building an Executive Committee for the Text Outline Project, and that we hope to interest some people who want to lead the construction of some radically innovative new reference works. I would distribute this press release very widely, and encourage you to do the same. (Other ideas about how to get the word out?) ========= FEEDBACK? Well, what do you think? If you want to discuss it with others, do so on the [Textop] list. Otherwise, just e-mail me, and I will summarize the results sometime after next Friday. If anyone wants to upload this proposal to the wiki, feel free to do so. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Sat Aug 5 14:40:35 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 14:40:35 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Variant proposal: working groups (please read) Message-ID: <001b01c6b8d7$c930b610$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, I have heard back from some people about my proposal for an executive committee. One of them expressed gentle skepticism that I would be able to find suitable directors, and another made the very useful point that the people who might be interested in becoming directors need to know that they're not the only ones at work in their area. By contrast, if we can guarantee directors that a quorum of people are interested in participating, that will be much more attractive to them. This means (I think) that before recruiting any directors, we ought to form some workgroups that they can direct. I would like to present prospective directors a list of names and bios of people who are interested in working on some part of the project. So I have two proposals: (1) Please e-mail me your name, e-mail address, short one-paragraph bio, and the name of at least one workgroup you're interested in participating in. (List below.) I will **not** post this information publicly. (2) For Textop's first press release/general announcement, we will call for general participation, mentioning the search for directors as part of a more general recruitment drive. Now what do you think of *that*? Please do (1) in any case! --Larry Workgroups you could join (feel free to suggest others): Collation Project http://www.textop.org/collation_summary.html planning, prototyping, recruiting Analytical Dictionary Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#dictionary planning, prototyping, recruiting Debate Guide Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#debate planning, prototyping, recruiting Event Summary Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#eventsum planning, prototyping, recruiting Software Development Workgroup collecting and articulating technical requirements, writing code, testing Website and Design Workgroup keeping the website up-to-date, graphic design, logo, configuring wiki, etc. Innovation Workgroup discusses new Textop projects, or radical innovations to existing projects, proposes innovative solutions to standing problems Recruitment Workgroup crafts and implements a creative plan to get volunteers on board; osts on mailing lists, does research into possible volunteers, drafts press releases, does networking, etc.; eventually might help organize a conference Finance Workgroup crafts and implements innovative fundraising plans; grantwriting as and when appropriate; when money arrives, prioritize reimbursement and grant requests from project staff Charter Workgroup discuss and draft the project Charter From dwhite at sjfc.edu Sat Aug 5 15:51:44 2006 From: dwhite at sjfc.edu (White, David) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:51:44 -0400 Subject: [Textop] Variant proposal: working groups (please read) Message-ID: <6873EB50C0A41D41ADAB89C3626E49DC06222A96@mail1.academia.sjfc.edu> Dear Larry, For many years, I have had a Bishop Butler website (sun1.sjfc.edu/~dwhite/butler ) My edition of the works of Bishop Butler is due out Sept 1 from the University of Rochester Press. I would be pleased to participate in any project you have going that involves Bishop Butler or the other British philosophers of the 18th century. David ________________________________ From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org on behalf of Larry Sanger Sent: Sat 8/5/2006 5:40 PM To: 'General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project'; 'Textop English Language Philosophy List'; textop-oss at lists.dufoundation.org; textop-avs-ann at lists.dufoundation.org Subject: [Textop] Variant proposal: working groups (please read) All, I have heard back from some people about my proposal for an executive committee. One of them expressed gentle skepticism that I would be able to find suitable directors, and another made the very useful point that the people who might be interested in becoming directors need to know that they're not the only ones at work in their area. By contrast, if we can guarantee directors that a quorum of people are interested in participating, that will be much more attractive to them. This means (I think) that before recruiting any directors, we ought to form some workgroups that they can direct. I would like to present prospective directors a list of names and bios of people who are interested in working on some part of the project. So I have two proposals: (1) Please e-mail me your name, e-mail address, short one-paragraph bio, and the name of at least one workgroup you're interested in participating in. (List below.) I will **not** post this information publicly. (2) For Textop's first press release/general announcement, we will call for general participation, mentioning the search for directors as part of a more general recruitment drive. Now what do you think of *that*? Please do (1) in any case! --Larry Workgroups you could join (feel free to suggest others): Collation Project http://www.textop.org/collation_summary.html planning, prototyping, recruiting Analytical Dictionary Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#dictionary planning, prototyping, recruiting Debate Guide Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#debate planning, prototyping, recruiting Event Summary Project http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#eventsum planning, prototyping, recruiting Software Development Workgroup collecting and articulating technical requirements, writing code, testing Website and Design Workgroup keeping the website up-to-date, graphic design, logo, configuring wiki, etc. Innovation Workgroup discusses new Textop projects, or radical innovations to existing projects, proposes innovative solutions to standing problems Recruitment Workgroup crafts and implements a creative plan to get volunteers on board; osts on mailing lists, does research into possible volunteers, drafts press releases, does networking, etc.; eventually might help organize a conference Finance Workgroup crafts and implements innovative fundraising plans; grantwriting as and when appropriate; when money arrives, prioritize reimbursement and grant requests from project staff Charter Workgroup discuss and draft the project Charter _______________________________________________ Textop mailing list Textop at lists.dufoundation.org http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7140 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dufoundation.org/archive/textop/attachments/20060805/3d2614d2/attachment.bin From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Mon Aug 7 22:42:40 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 22:42:40 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Variant proposal: working groups (please read) In-Reply-To: <6873EB50C0A41D41ADAB89C3626E49DC06222A96@mail1.academia.sjfc.edu> Message-ID: <001301c6baad$76793000$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Dear David, Congratulations on your edition--must be very exciting. Any chance that we will be able to use a digital version of one of the works (to begin with) on Textop? Bishop Butler would be a fine addition, anyway. Please contact me off-list if you have any interest in pursuing this as part of the Collation Project pilot project. In any event, I will duly add your name to the relevant list that I'm compiling. BTW I noticed your own outline: http://sun1.sjfc.edu/~dwhite/butler/argue.html Nice! --Larry -----Original Message----- From: White, David [mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of White, David Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 3:52 PM To: General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project Subject: RE: [Textop] Variant proposal: working groups (please read) Dear Larry, For many years, I have had a Bishop Butler website (sun1.sjfc.edu/~dwhite/butler ) My edition of the works of Bishop Butler is due out Sept 1 from the University of Rochester Press. I would be pleased to participate in any project you have going that involves Bishop Butler or the other British philosophers of the 18th century. David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4440 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dufoundation.org/archive/textop/attachments/20060807/a9c22a41/attachment-0001.bin From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Aug 8 00:06:20 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 00:06:20 -0700 Subject: [Textop] FW: Debate Guide Project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c6bab9$26920e20$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Matthias Brendel posted the following to the [Textop-en-phil] list, but I thought this was the better place for it. My response follows. I'd love to get this rolling, too. Actually it seems that there's at least as much interest in the Debate Guide Project as in the Collation Project, if not more. > -----Original Message----- > From: textop-en-phil-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org > [mailto:textop-en-phil-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On > Behalf Of Brendel Matyas > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:47 AM > To: Textop English Language Philosophy List > Subject: [Textop-en-phil] Debate Guide Project > > > Hi all, > > I was thinking about the debate guide projcect. It is similar to the > Outline project, but it has some additional structure. > > In The Oultine projects some chunks of texts are inserted as > nodes and > they are organized according to topics and according to the source. > > > In the debate projects there are also chunk of texts, whivch may be > organized also according to topics and according to source. Further > there is an argumental structure also. > > There are: > > 1) Question > > 2) thesis nodes. > > 3) Argument nodes. > > (i) For each question there are at least 2 theses, whihc have > a debate. > There may be more. > > (ii) For each thesis there are arguments. An argument is > usually also a > thesis, which can be debated. > > (iii) For each thesis there may be text-chunks, which formulate that > argument. There may be more, since several philosopher could write > the same argument in his/her way repeatedly. An argument may also > be factual, in this case the text chunk may be a reference, which > describes the fact. > > (iv) An argument may belong to more theses. For example one single > fact may support more theses. > > > How do you find this structure? I was also thinking of another > structure, where arguments and counter arguments. Are grouped to > one question, but I found that not so well structured. > > Matthias REPLY: For my own general vision of the Debate Guide Project, see: http://www.textop.org/TextAndCollaboration.html#debate Before I say anything else, let me say that I strongly encourage you, Matthias, or anyone else, if you feel so motivated, to begin prototyping different debate guide entries on the wiki. It's always been my notion that the wiki could be used for that purpose (see http://tinyurl.com/m2tbt). I've been wanting to do this for years. I think my original inspiration must be a combination of reconstructing zillions of arguments in my work teaching and studying philosophy, as well as (and maybe even more) my experience in the high school debate team (my partner and I were ranked #1 in Alaska in our senior year!). The *purpose* of a debate guide is to serve as a *resource* where users--students, teachers, debaters, college bull sessioners, policymakers, lawyers, academics, and in general everyone who cares about the details of arguments--can find a debate summed up correctly, elegantly, and neutrally, for a wide variety of purposes, such as simple learning, decisionmaking, policymaking, and scholarship. There are a lot of ways of doing this, but, just as with encyclopedia articles, unless the desired item is carefully defined against what it is *not*, we will probably end up with garbage. The question, then, is how so many different parties and so many purposes can be best served by a debate summary. What sort of format should the summary take? Let me respond to Matthias now. > In the debate projects there are also chunk of texts, whivch may be > organized also according to topics and according to source. Well, I'm not sure that this is necessary. I grant that to use quotes from actual texts might in fact be the best way to introduce a debate. I have little doubt that the Collation Project might produce huge amounts of source material for the Debate Guide Project (DGP), if that's how we were to organize the latter. However, *if* the purpose of the DGP is to sum up debates for a wide variety of people and purposes, I think it would be better to start from scratch. > Further > there is an argumental structure also. > > There are: > > 1) Question > > 2) thesis nodes. > > 3) Argument nodes. I think I agree with this. I do think that a particular summary should be defined either by a question or by a resolution, and I think I agree with you that a question would be better. But we ought to consider the merits of resolutions (mainly, resolutions are easier to make more definite). > (i) For each question there are at least 2 theses, whihc have > a debate. > There may be more. Again, I think I agree here. > (ii) For each thesis there are arguments. An argument is > usually also a > thesis, which can be debated. Rather, the conclusion of a primary argument is itself the thesis defended. > (iii) For each thesis there may be text-chunks, which formulate that > argument. There may be more, since several philosopher could write > the same argument in his/her way repeatedly. An argument may also > be factual, in this case the text chunk may be a reference, which > describes the fact. This I think would be tedious for most readers. It would be useful for researchers, perhaps, but this particular reference material should be available in the Collation Project. It sounds to me like you are interested in the part of the Collation Project that represents arguments. I am too, but I don't think that that part can really do the work of a finely-crafted Debate Guide. > (iv) An argument may belong to more theses. For example one single > fact may support more theses. This is interesting, and definitely worth considering. But I am inclined to think that, in the long run, transcluding the same arguments in different debate summaries will make the debate summary less interesting and useful as a "narrative" of the debate (see below). > How do you find this structure? I was also thinking of another > structure, where arguments and counter arguments. Are grouped to > one question, but I found that not so well structured. Except as noted, you're thinking about things along the same lines I am. I think that, as a whole, a debate summary should be very *readable*: as much of a clear prose narrative whole as a group of collaborators can possibly put together. In other words, it should *not* be a mere database of structured information. Everything from the question, to what arguments are included, to what rebuttals are included, etc., must be carefully, artfully designed and then written in clear, entertaining, and persuasive--but fair--prose. BRIEF INSTRUCTIONS FOR CRAFTING A DEBATE SUMMARY: first, settle carefully on a question, making sure that it does not subtly favor any one side of the debate. Second, list out arguments on your side in advance. The other side(s) do(es) this at the same time. Match arguments that directly respond to each other (i.e., that argue for contrary claims: the Iraq War increases the global terrorist threat vs. the Iraq War decreases the global terrorist threat). Place these first in a two- or multi-column table, followed by "X side arguments" and "Y side arguments." Set word limits for each side. Third, rather than a "rebuttals" section, as arguments grow, divide them into logical groupings of arguments. The first argument(s) in each grouping should be the most general or fundamental, leading to the more derivative or specialized. Finally, when the debate summary is in good shape, precede the whole with a word-limited summary of the arguments. HOW THIS IS COLLABORATIVE: not only do the sides collaborate among themselves, wiki-style, but the different sides must agree when to split apart or consolidate issues. For instance, in elaborating an argument, a side might bring up a "sub-argument" that supports a key premise. If necessary, the opposing sides must all agree then to elaborate the sub-argument and responses not there, but elsewhere on the page. The sides must also agree that argument on a particular point really belongs under its own debate summary. PERSONNEL CONSIDERATIONS: a debate summary can be initiated only when there are at least two people, one on each side of a debate. (Perhaps four, or six, or even more, will be a *real* quorum. But two, at least, for prototyping.) The persons editing one side must not edit the other side(s). There must also be some sort of moderator: we need to think about how to do that, because there are very many interesting problems to consider there. Ultimately (if not at first), the summaries are to be vetted and edited by experts on each side. The reason for these personnel restrictions is to ensure that partisans of any sort do not "take over" the project. The maximally useful Debate Guide will be as neutral as possible: the sides will state their views as best they can, and it will be up to the reader to decide what to think. In a collaborative debate project, neutrality practically requires getting equal representation. If anyone would like to flesh these various considerations out on the wiki, that would be fantastic. I will certainly contribute as and when I can. There is much more I could say on policy issues; I have a fairly clear idea of what would be most interesting and useful to most audiences. One outcome of a lively and useful prototyping collaboration would be a good sense of how long a debate summary should be. Generally speaking, I don't think a debate summary should run *too* long; it is always possible to create a new question, and new sides, on more specialized questions that inform broader questions. For example, a debate summary on the question "Is the Iraq War [or whatever we'll call it] just?" might go so deeply into Abu Ghraib that we decide to create another debate summary: "What took place at Abu Ghraib and does that demonstrate that the U.S. military engages in war crimes?" (well, we might not want to use that precise question, but you get the idea). Then the first summary could, at the relevant place, simply link to the second one (with a summary, of course). Would anyone like to approach an expert, lively, but polite community of interlocutors to create a prototype? I'm thinking of an academic mailing list, with a broad spectrum of views, that deals with a charged topic in politics or law? This is extremely exciting to me, and I want to make it happen, but I do need your help. And, by the way, we can set up another mailing list for the project if there is sufficient interest. --Larry From phmartin at phmartin.info Tue Aug 8 01:23:48 2006 From: phmartin at phmartin.info (Philippe MARTIN) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:23:48 +1000 Subject: [Textop] FW: Debate Guide Project In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:06:20 MST" Message-ID: <200608080823.k788Nm55011283@pc070372.sci.griffith.edu.au> > Would anyone like to approach an expert, lively, but polite community of > interlocutors to create a prototype? I'm thinking of an academic mailing > list, with a broad spectrum of views, that deals with a charged topic in > politics or law? www.GlobalArgument.net stores various argumentation/debate modeling experiments centered on the justification for the Irag war. None of the results are fine-grained argumentations. None distinguishes the use of an argument/objection relation on a statement from the use of an argument/objection relation on the use of argument/objection relation (i.e., there are no meta-statement and hence none represents debates in a precise/correct way). Philippe From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Aug 8 01:30:12 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 01:30:12 -0700 Subject: [Textop] FW: Debate Guide Project In-Reply-To: <200608080823.k788Nm55011283@pc070372.sci.griffith.edu.au> Message-ID: <004601c6bac4$de3fb030$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Very interesting reference point. The quick answer is: GlobalArgument.net was "an experiment to evaluate different Computer-Supported Argumentation approaches: both the technologies, and the 'craft skill' of using them effectively." That isn't anything like the purpose of the Debate Guide Project. The purpose of the DGP is to create, collaboratively, a *readable reference work* that summarizes debates. I'll give you a thesis I would be willing to defend: a fine-grained argumentation standard is simply not nearly as readable as ordinary prose paragraphs, and thus not as suitable as a standard for the sort of reference work we want to make. This isn't to deny that it has very useful, important purposes, for example in artificial intelligence or creating great educational tools. Furthermore, wouldn't you want to have the dialectic fully mapped out, by mature thinkers thoroughly familiar with the territory and working together to "cover all the bases," *before* you attempt any sort of more careful, fine-grained systematization? If so, then you ought to support the project as conceived, no? You know, everyone, I would like to know if you are interested in this other subproject enough to work a bit on it. If enough of you are, I'm sure we can make a solid "go" of it. I was surprised that the "collection of expert-reviewed resources," even though it is just one page, has turned out so well. http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Collections_of_expert-reviewed_re sources If enough of you are interested in working together on a prototype then I can make a more general call for participation in the larger DU community. So let me know. --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org > [mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of > Philippe MARTIN > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:24 AM > To: General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project > Subject: Re: [Textop] FW: Debate Guide Project > > > > > Would anyone like to approach an expert, lively, but polite > community > > of interlocutors to create a prototype? I'm thinking of an > academic > > mailing list, with a broad spectrum of views, that deals with a > > charged topic in politics or law? > > www.GlobalArgument.net stores various argumentation/debate modeling > experiments centered on the justification for the Irag war. > None of the results are fine-grained argumentations. None > distinguishes > the use of an argument/objection relation on a statement from > the use of an argument/objection relation on the use of > argument/objection relation (i.e., there are no > meta-statement and hence none represents debates > in a precise/correct way). > > Philippe > > > _______________________________________________ > Textop mailing list > Textop at lists.dufoundation.org > http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/textop > From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Aug 8 15:12:51 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 15:12:51 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Constructing workgroup lists Message-ID: <013e01c6bb37$ca6e4ee0$7e02020a@D6WD1391> All, I'm amazed at the amount of mail I've received over the last few months about Textop, and from some very impressive people. Based on these many mails, we (i.e., I and a trusted volunteer...thanks) are now constructing a private, not-to-be-publicized list of people **preliminarily** sorted into these groups: Collation Project Analytical Dictionary Project Debate Guide Project Event Summary Project Software Development Workgroup Website and Design Workgroup Innovation Workgroup Recruitment Workgroup Finance Workgroup Charter Workgroup If you have sent me much e-mail that evinces your interests, we will *tentatively* put your name under the appropriate heading. NOTE: if you haven't been in touch with me about how you want to get involved, or if you think it isn't obvious, now's the time. After constructing a draft of the lists, we'll contact everyone who's on the lists and get their explicit permission to continue to use their name on the lists. Your name on the lists won't require that you *do* anything; it will merely be your declaration that you're *interested* in helping with the area in question. When the lists are finalized, then we'll see what the next step should be: recruiting more rank-and-file members, or recruiting directors, or what. Ultimately, I hope the workgroup lists will be able to be used to recruit and motivate directors, by demonstrating a quorum. It will also help us with more general recruitment: we can tell the world (quite truthfully), "We've got a growing group of excellent people interested in building Textop. Here are some numbers... Come join them!" BTW, to about the half-dozen most active Textop members like Howard and Philippe, of course I'll be contacting you individually. --Larry From math at freemail.hu Wed Aug 9 02:18:01 2006 From: math at freemail.hu (Brendel Matyas) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:18:01 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Textop] Debate Guide Project In-Reply-To: <004601c6bac4$de3fb030$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Message-ID: Larry, So there is one big question for me. Do we do Textop and DGP separatelly or not? Lets see the pros and cons. A) Pro: (i) DGP could use the chunks of Textop and structure it from the perspective of different debates. (ii) I think that the motivation behind DGP is much bigger then behind Textop. If I am right, the DGP could be the motivation engine of Textop. (iii) We do not need to copy, synchronize the text chunks. B) Cons: (i) Maybe the structure gets messy. (ii) Maybe DGP explodes quickly but Textop will be forgotten. i.e. we will get a lot of chunks from different books, but none of the books will be outlined completly. I suggest to make this decision first. If we decide to do the projects separatelly, I suggest to have different prototype projects as well. Let me clarify one detail in my vision: >An argument is > usually also a > thesis, which can be debated. Lets take an example. A big question.:) So there could be for example a question node1: "Does God exist?" thesis node1: "Yes, God exists" argument node1: "The Universe is fine tuned for living." Ok, but this argument is itself also a thesis, which can be debated. So argument node1=thesis node2 and question node2="Is the Universe fine tuned for living?" An argument for thesis node2 could be: argument node2="Life is probably only possible on carbon base." But this is a thesis, which can be debated. And so on. Somewhere at the end there are level nodes. Level nodes may be: - Some kind of fact, which is not debated, it is weel known, there is a consensus on it. For example: "Life on Earth is carbon based". This is a fact, which nobody argues against. We do not need any reference for this. - Some kind of fact, which is not so well known, and needs a reference. For example: "Certain type of amino acids may be formed in meteors spontaneously." Here we may need a reference to a publication. - Simple and weel known analytical truth, which are not factual, but true. For example: "In Euclidean geometry the thesys of Pythagoras is true." Usually we do not need a reference for such old mathematical theses, only for the not so well known new ones. This results in a hierarchical structure of theses. You may prefer to put all this stuff to the first node and do no hierarchy. That is simpler to read until the structure of the argumentation is simple, but it gots messy, when the structure of the argumentation gets complicated. In the case of "Does God exist?" I am sure, we will reach quickly a very messy argumentation.:) I would prefer to keep it explicitly structured. Matthias ________________________________________________________________ Most v?s?roljon [origo] klikk befektet?si alapokat, ?s hossz? t?von mentes?l az ad?fizet?s al?l! http://www.klikkbank.hu/befektetes/index.html From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 9 12:54:47 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:54:47 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Debate Guide Project In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003601c6bbed$aae81ea0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Hi Matthias, Let's do talk about this: > So there is one big question for me. Do we do Textop and DGP > separatelly or not? > > Lets see the pros and cons. Excellent! By the way, I've been using "Textop" as the term for all the subprojects; "Collation Project" (CP) is the name of the one we've been working on on the wiki. But bear in mind that we need to make it clear what "separately" means here. The ways in which I have thought CP and and DGP would be joined, not separate, are that they would have the same management (at some level), and ultimately they would make use of the same outline. (Note that what I mean by "make use of the same outline" needs explaining, which I'll do in my next mail.) > A) Pro: > > (i) DGP could use the chunks of Textop and structure it from the > perspective of different debates. > (ii) I think that the motivation behind DGP is much bigger > then behind > Textop. If I am right, the DGP could be the motivation engine > of Textop. > (iii) We do not need to copy, synchronize the text chunks. I think you are absolutely right about (ii). The interest and motivation in DGP is potentially much greater than in CP. > B) Cons: > (i) Maybe the structure gets messy. > (ii) Maybe DGP explodes quickly but Textop will be forgotten. > i.e. we will > get a lot of chunks from different books, but none of the > books will be > outlined completly. I think the latter is the biggest problem. If we must *first* collate all texts that we use in the DGP, then the DGP will concern only issues that were written about in public domain works, and the amount of raw material we would have for constructing debate summaries would be limited. Think of this: if we write new debate summaries "from scratch," we can then link from particular arguments to the appropriate places in the CP outline. > I suggest to make this decision first. If we decide to do the > projects > separatelly, I suggest to have different prototype projects as well. Well, it depends on what you mean by "separately." We can use the same wiki, but I think we ought to write original debate summaries. > Let me clarify one detail in my vision: > > >An argument is > > usually also a > > thesis, which can be debated. > > Lets take an example. A big question.:) > > So there could be for example a question node1: "Does God exist?" > > thesis node1: "Yes, God exists" > > argument node1: "The Universe is fine tuned for living." > > Ok, but this argument is itself also a thesis, which can be debated. > > So argument node1=thesis node2 > > and question node2="Is the Universe fine tuned for living?" > > > An argument for thesis node2 could be: > > argument node2="Life is probably only possible on carbon base." > > But this is a thesis, which can be debated. This is a good example. Generally speaking (and this happens all the time in philosophy and policy debate), premises of arguments are themselves subject to further debate. This is largely why I have thought that the DGP *could* (eventually) use the CP outline, at least after it's well-developed. But I would like a debate summary to be not too fine-grained. For example, a guide to the question, "Does God exist?" should cover the main arguments for theism, agnosticism, and atheism, as well as for non-monotheistic notions of God. It should not contain just one or two arguments and replies thereto, but more on the order of 20-30 arguments and replies. Two or three of these argument-reply pairs might concern the argument you mention, sometimes called the Argument from Design. But ultimately there ought to be, in addition, a debate summary that concerns the merits of just the Argument from Design (it's not as if philosophers, theologians, and biologists had not written entire books about it). I can see *that* leading to even *more* specialized debates. So I agree entirely with you about the structure of debate guides. > And so on. Somewhere at the end there are level nodes. Level nodes > may be: > > - Some kind of fact, which is not debated, it is weel known, > there is a > consensus on it. For example: "Life on Earth is carbon > based". This is a > fact, which nobody argues against. We do not need any reference for > this. > > - Some kind of fact, which is not so well known, and needs a > reference. > For example: "Certain type of amino acids may be formed in meteors > spontaneously." Here we may need a reference to a publication. > > - Simple and weel known analytical truth, which are not factual, but > true. For example: "In Euclidean geometry the thesys of Pythagoras is > true." Usually we do not need a reference for such old mathematical > theses, only for the not so well known new ones. Well, we need to discuss what are "nodes" or components of the Debate Guide that are placed on separate pages, which are organized "hierarchically." Should the nodes be individual arguments (or even individual statements), or should they be *collections* of arguments (and, no doubt, other relevant material)? I favor the latter, and here is why: the purpose of the Debate Guide is to allow the user to make up his or her own mind about a question, and to do so by presenting (in summary form) all of the relevant arguments. The best way to do that, then, is to craft a summary of the debate not piecemeal, but as a unitary whole. This means that we might state the same argument in several different ways throughout the entire Debate Guide, because what is essentially the same argument can have a different purpose (and, for example, a slightly differently-worded conclusion) in different contexts. Given this, there is no need to designate special nodes that are not debated. Rather, I would say that *if* an argument *is* elaborated at some more in-depth node, *then* we should link to it. There is no need to point out which premises have no support, yet, in the DGP. > This results in a hierarchical structure of theses. Yes, except that, in the DGP, I would say that the components that should exhibit the hierarchical structure, would be *debate summaries*, each being addressed to a question like "Does God exist?" That said, I agree 100% that the logical structure of a debate summary lends itself to the same sort of *outline* (but not the same chunks) as the CP. > You may prefer to put all this stuff to the first node and do > no hierarchy. > That is simpler to read until the structure of the argumentation is > simple, but it gots messy, when the structure of the argumentation > gets complicated. > > In the case of "Does God exist?" I am sure, we will reach > quickly a very > messy argumentation.:) I would prefer to keep it explicitly > structured. I agree, but I think the DGP should be rather more coarse-grained than the CP. That is, there should be a many-to-one mapping from individual debate summaries to Outline nodes. I'm going to explain this in my next mail... --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 9 13:21:17 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:21:17 -0700 Subject: [Textop] How to put the Debate Guide Project into The Outline Message-ID: <003901c6bbf1$5eed99e0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, Here's how I see the Debate Guide being integrated into The Outline under construction for the Collation Project on the wiki. (Again, the use of a wiki is temporary: this would be pursued as part of the more general Textop pilot project.) (1) A debate summary is started on a wiki page. E.g., http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Does_God_exist%3F This means that at least two people (one on each side of the question) and perhaps a "moderator" (?) are willing to get started; they put their names down on the page with suitable titles for their roles (e.g., "Affirmative lead," "agnosticism lead"). This means that "sides" need to be designated in advance. As a convention, to distinguish the CP and DGP, we say that all debate summary page titles are in the form of question, while no Collation Project outline nodes are in the form of a question. (2) The lead debaters (and anyone else who shows up) proceed to lay out arguments on their sides. (3) As this gets started, someone places, in a special font, color, and/or text background, the question directly into The Outline, here: http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Outline For instance, part of the outline right now (woefully underdeveloped) looks like this: * Divinity * The Judeo-Christian God * Arguments for the existence of God * Best argument for the existence of God * The cosmological argument for the existence of God * God personified What I would propose is adding a line to the outline, like this: * Divinity * Debate guide: [[Does God exist?]] * The Judeo-Christian God * Arguments for the existence of God * Best argument for the existence of God * The cosmological argument for the existence of God * God personified What do you think? Is anyone game for actually getting such a thing started? Well, I'm just going to make a proposal on the wiki! I'll link to it from the main page. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 9 13:30:23 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:30:23 -0700 Subject: [Textop] The viral potential of Textop Message-ID: <004301c6bbf2$a43f9d30$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, A short report: I was looking at the search queries that brought people to the Textop wiki, and among them were "causes of insanity" (result #5 on Google), "explanation of religion" (also result #5), and "ought implies can" (#14)--all names of outline nodes. It's clear to me that, just as with Wikipedia, the more nodes we have, the more traffic we get from Google; the more traffic from Google, the more people we get interested in the project; and thus the cycle gets started. Think next of the viral potential of debate summaries. They would be "hot items" to link to from blogs and centers of controversy, thereby driving up traffic. So I think we should get to work on the Debate Guide Project. Join me on the wiki; I'll be drafting some policies for it, which need your review. Then some of us can do some prototypes; and then we can make an announcement. This could be big! --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 9 20:55:26 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:55:26 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Draft finished: how to construct a debate summary Message-ID: <006e01c6bc30$d03e6540$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Please see http://tinyurl.com/kq5dt and offer any comments. It's a guide and introduction to the Debate Guide Project. There are many potentially controversial policy proposals made--discussion very welcome. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Wed Aug 9 21:22:47 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 21:22:47 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Two Debate Guide Project questions posted Message-ID: <000601c6bc34$a2624bb0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Please see http://tinyurl.com/kn6ko if you'd like to help develop a prototype. Both first questions concern philosophical topics. --Larry From math at freemail.hu Thu Aug 10 06:19:45 2006 From: math at freemail.hu (Brendel Matyas) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:19:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Textop] DGP In-Reply-To: <006e01c6bc30$d03e6540$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Message-ID: Larry, It seems that we agree on the structure of DGP. My first plan was a finer grained structure, where the nodes are smaller and the structure is more complex. You convinced me that it is beter is a node is a bigger set of text it is much more readable, enjoyable. So I summarize our plan to see if we really agree. 1) A node in the DGP project is a list of arguments. 2) In the list of the arguments we insert the description of the argument, quotations or a link to the collation project chunk if it exists. 3) If an argument is itself a bigger thesis, which is debated then we create a new node for it. 4) There are nodes for debated questions, which link to at least 2 possible thesis node, which are in the debate for this question. 5) We can create links from each argument to counter arguments to of the other side. I am not sure if you want separate nodes for the question and for the 2 theses, or do you want them all on one node? About the prototype Wiki. We started now work there, but I have 1 concern: The title of the Wiki is Text Outline Project. The current content is also oriented to the Collation Project. You can not see that there are 2 projects inside. Matthias _________________________________________________________________ Most m?g jobban meg?ri takar?koskodni! ?llami t?mogat?s ?s kedvez? hitel az [origo] lak?skassz?ban! http://lakaskassza.origo.hu/index.html From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Thu Aug 10 15:18:30 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:18:30 -0700 Subject: [Textop] DGP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c6bcca$e90c4930$7e02020a@D6WD1391> Matthias and all, I'm quite excited, really, that the pilot project for the DGP is now starting up. > You convinced me that it is beter is a node is a bigger set > of text it is > much more readable, enjoyable. So I summarize our plan to see if we > really agree. Glad to hear it! > 1) A node in the DGP project is a list of arguments. Yes. > 2) In the list of the arguments we insert the description of the > argument, quotations or a link to the collation project chunk > if it exists. Well, the node, or "debate summary" as I have been calling it (feel free to propose a pithier name), is primarily made up of arguments. So the summary contains arguments, not (if this is different) *descriptions* of arguments. As to quotations--I'd prefer not to have them. Let us be focused. Again, as with Wikipedia, it is very important that we focus on the precise requirements of the resource. Quotations would be nice, but if we add quotations, we'll start adding all sorts of other things. Maybe we'll add them later, but first let's get the core of the debate summaries correctly prototyped. Also, links to collation project nodes are in order. That's pretty unobtrusive, and helpful, too. I can easily see a list of resources at the bottom of a debate summary, as well as footnotes (see my latest version of the footnote policy, which I updated this morning in light of your remarks on the wiki). > 3) If an argument is itself a bigger thesis, which is debated then we > create a new node for it. Yes, if I understand you correctly. > 4) There are nodes for debated questions, which link to at least 2 > possible thesis node, which are in the debate for this question. I'm not sure quite what you mean here. If you are saying that there should be separate pages for each position on a question (as you suggested on the wiki), then I disagree. It is better that we have competing arguments set side-by-side. This enables the user to compare arguments more easily. > 5) We can create links from each argument to counter arguments to of > the other side. Well, such links are not necessary if the arguments are actually sitting right next to each other on the page. There are other essential aspects of the project (e.g., active debate summaries should be placed in the outline), but these are mostly correct in my opinion. > I am not sure if you want separate nodes for the question and > for the 2 > theses, or do you want them all on one node? So, one node. > About the prototype Wiki. We started now work there, but I have 1 > concern: The title of the Wiki is Text Outline Project. The > current content > is also oriented to the Collation Project. You can not see > that there are > 2 projects inside. I will add some more introductory text to the front page of the wiki. Tell me what you think of the changes. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Thu Aug 10 15:18:39 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:18:39 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Reflections on success conditions Message-ID: <000101c6bcca$ee412420$7e02020a@D6WD1391> As an interesting aside, I direct your attention to this other wiki "debate guide" project that was started a few years ago: http://www.philowiki.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page I found it for the first time yesterday. It appears, from a glance at the Main Page history, that the project got started December 13, 2004. It also appears to have been a dud. Why? Why is it the case that the person who started it is the only person who is still working on it? It's the same reason that *most* collaborative community projects ultimately fail: the *concept* behind the project, and the set of guidelines that implemented the concept, was not compelling to enough people to generate "critical mass." To be blunt, the organizer (no offense intended to him in particular--I'm using his project as an example) appears not to have really thought through what he is trying to do. As with the case of Wikipedia, I put *enormous* amounts of thought into designing a project. I try to think about every aspect of it. But it is a relatively simple vision that drives every policy I recommend. In the case of the Debate Guide Project, the vision may be summarized this way: "I want to 'get to the bottom' of some matter of controversy. I want to make up my mind in as rational a way as possible. So I want to read a neutral summary of the debate, a summary that is *credible*, i.e., that represents the best thinking of each side. I want to see competing arguments side-by-side so that I can compare their merits. I want to have the whole dialectic, with replies, and rebuttals, and replies to rebuttals, at my disposal. But I do not want to have endless rehashing of the same issues, as one often sees on Internet forums. Nor do I want to see relatively idiosyncratic nonsense; again, I want to see the *strongest* thinking on each side. I want it to be a comparatively static (though updatable) *summary* of the debate." >From that general vision flows the requirements of the Debate Guide Project (http://tinyurl.com/kq5dt). Once thinking things through at least preliminarily, I then take the crucial extra step of asking you, the community, to give me your best critical feedback. I *always* adjust, add to, and occasionally scrap ideas based on feedback I get. If I cannot motivate enough other people to work on a project with me, I know I have failed, and I take that as evidence that I need to change something. My job is to make things work. So that's why I always ask "What do you think?" and even if I do not always agree with you, I really mean it--I *need* your feedback. And the more feedback you give, and the more involved you become, the less it becomes "my" project and the more it becomes "our" project--and the better chance our collective creation has a chance of "independent survival." As in the case of Wikipedia, the ability of the project to survive without me is evidence of my success in getting it started. --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Sun Aug 13 13:33:51 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:33:51 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Shall we make DGP more open and less controlled? Message-ID: <000501c6bf17$c996e3e0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, I'm looking at the scant progress we have made on a prototype debate dummary http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Is_knowledge_possible%3F and while we *are* making progress, and I am grateful to the three other guys who have been involved, on second thought I am not sure that it represents the best editorial model for the project. It seems to me that if this were the best model, then others would find it inviting and easy to join in--but I doubt they do. In particular, I think the dynamic for many people works like this: "Henry" (as we'll call an example potential contributor) goes to the page, and the first thing he sees is a list of contributors. Right off, he sees that the work is "proprietary" in the admittedly weak sense that some people are claiming at least some control over it. Henry *might* see, at the end of the "Contributors" section, the note that says "We welcome more participation in this summary!" Even then, Henry might wonder how welcome he really is. There are "lead summarists" and a "moderator" already. How open, really, are these people to more participation? It's hard to say. Henry doesn't know. And suppose Henry knows a lot about this topic--evidently more than anyone else participating. Well, then, if he wants to get involved, it's probably going to be a bit of a "power struggle." He certainly doesn't know that it won't be; and given the way so many Internet projects are, it probably *will* be. So, Henry asks himself, should he spend his valuable time pursuing the risky possibility that people will step aside and let him work up to his potential? He will probably conclude "No." (It is very important, when planning out projects like this, to try to put yourselves in the shoes of your potential contributors. *They* often won't tell you what the problem is: you've got to have the imagination and judgment to figure it out for yourself.) As you can probably tell, I am now leaning *against* having moderators and lead summarists, and even against *named* contributors at all, for the Debate Guide Project. (We can just use the page history, as Wikipedia does.) The question then is how we can manage to "keep things in line" in the Debate Guide Project. Let me clarify and propose the following: (1) Real names will have to be used on the wiki, by convention. This will eliminate at least some of the potential troublemakers that plague Wikipedia. (2) You may edit either side of a debate, but what you may *not* do is edit a position's arguments so as to make them *weaker*. (3) There *will* be rules and standards developed, and as with Wikipedia the entire community working on DGP will help enforce them. Furthermore, I (and future DGP directors) will remove troublemakers "with prejudice." (4) In time and as necessary we will select editors to help resolve disputes in ways that are authoritative and stable. These will be selected from among participants. But these editors will not be officially assigned to any one article and will be interchangeable. (5) There will not be any official Debate Guide development process, as there is now on "How to construct a debate summary." Each summary develops as and when people want to develop it. This scheme would make *me* feel freer about and more comfortable with the whole project. I'm sure I would feel much more motivated to do stuff, and the project would get a lot more out of me. I suspect you all would feel the same--but tell me if you feel otherwise. What do you say: shall we make DGP participation more open and less controlled than originally proposed? --Larry From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Mon Aug 14 00:34:29 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:34:29 -0700 Subject: [Textop] FW: open systems Message-ID: <000401c6bf74$14085600$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> An excellent and relevant analogy worth our consideration (forwarded from a closed list...): Our faulty intuition about open systems Jamie Boyle's latest Financial Times column points up a cognitive bias we seem to have against open systems -- on their face, open networks, encyclopedias, and software projects seem unlikely, even doomed. Our intuition about closed-vs-open is often wrong: Studying intellectual property and the internet has convinced me that we have another cognitive bias. Call it the openness aversion. We are likely to undervalue the importance, viability and productive power of open systems, open networks and non-proprietary production. Test yourself on the following questions. In each case, it is 1991 and I have removed from you all knowledge of the past 15 years. You have to design a global computer network. One group of scientists describes a system that is fundamentally open - open protocols and systems so anyone could connect to it and offer information or products to the world. Another group - scholars, businessmen, bureaucrats - points out the problems. Anyone could connect to it. They could do anything. There would be porn, piracy, viruses and spam. Terrorists could put up videos glorifying themselves. Your activist neighbour could compete with The New York Times in documenting the Iraq war. Better to have a well-managed system, in which official approval is required to put up a site; where only a few actions are permitted; where most of us are merely recipients of information; where spam, viruses, piracy (and innovation and anonymous speech) are impossible. Which would you have picked? Link http://www.ft.com/cms/s/64167124-263d-11db-afa1-0000779e2340.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.dufoundation.org/archive/textop/attachments/20060814/d3ab84ea/attachment.htm From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Tue Aug 15 15:05:48 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:05:48 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Shall we make DGP more open and less controlled? In-Reply-To: <000501c6bf17$c996e3e0$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> Message-ID: <000b01c6c0b6$f6e0db30$7e02020a@D6WD1391> All, Well, there was no discussion *whatsoever* of the mail below--which I interpret as a negative reaction (along with a goodly helping of "why is he trying to interrupt my summer vacation *again*?"). So for the time being I hope that we (Matthias, Howard, and Jon) will have interest enough to forge ahead under the previously articulated rules, i.e., the ones here: http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_sum mary I hope we'll make some progress with our prototype in the next few weeks, but in any event, my plan now is (with Brittney's enormously helpful assistance) to locate appropriate venues to publicize Textop generally and the DGP in particular. We have 40 people on the Textop mailing list, and most of those are just interested spectators, so we just need "more blood" if we want to achieve a quorum. We might review the "more open and less controlled" suggestion after more people arrive. That's also when we might start thinking more seriously about appointing project directors. This week I'm going to be very busy with DU stuff, so I probably won't be sending much to the list or working very much on the wiki. I will do *some* simply because I don't want to get out of the habit and I want to make progress editing The Outline. --Larry > -----Original Message----- > From: textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org > [mailto:textop-bounces at lists.dufoundation.org] On Behalf Of > Larry Sanger > Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 1:34 PM > To: 'General Discussion List for the Text Outline Project' > Subject: [Textop] Shall we make DGP more open and less controlled? > > > All, > > I'm looking at the scant progress we have made on a prototype > debate dummary > > http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=Is_knowledge_possible%3F > > and while we *are* making progress, and I am grateful to the > three other guys who have been involved, on second thought I > am not sure that it represents the best editorial model for > the project. It seems to me that if this were the best > model, then others would find it inviting and easy to join > in--but I doubt they do. > > In particular, I think the dynamic for many people works like > this: "Henry" (as we'll call an example potential > contributor) goes to the page, and the first thing he sees is > a list of contributors. Right off, he sees that the work is > "proprietary" in the admittedly weak sense that some people > are claiming at least some control over it. Henry *might* > see, at the end of the "Contributors" section, the note that > says "We welcome more participation in this summary!" Even > then, Henry might wonder how welcome he really is. There are > "lead summarists" and a "moderator" already. How open, > really, are these people to more participation? It's hard to > say. Henry doesn't know. And suppose Henry knows a lot about > this topic--evidently more than anyone else participating. > Well, then, if he wants to get involved, it's probably going > to be a bit of a "power struggle." He certainly doesn't know > that it won't be; and given the way so many Internet projects > are, it probably *will* be. So, Henry asks himself, should > he spend his valuable time pursuing the risky possibility > that people will step aside and let him work up to his > potential? He will probably conclude "No." > > (It is very important, when planning out projects like this, > to try to put yourselves in the shoes of your potential > contributors. *They* often won't tell you what the problem > is: you've got to have the imagination and judgment to figure > it out for yourself.) > > As you can probably tell, I am now leaning *against* having > moderators and lead summarists, and even against *named* > contributors at all, for the Debate Guide Project. (We can > just use the page history, as Wikipedia > does.) > > The question then is how we can manage to "keep things in > line" in the Debate Guide Project. Let me clarify and > propose the following: > > (1) Real names will have to be used on the wiki, by > convention. This will eliminate at least some of the > potential troublemakers that plague Wikipedia. > > (2) You may edit either side of a debate, but what you may > *not* do is edit a position's arguments so as to make them *weaker*. > > (3) There *will* be rules and standards developed, and as > with Wikipedia the entire community working on DGP will help > enforce them. Furthermore, I (and future DGP directors) will > remove troublemakers "with prejudice." > > (4) In time and as necessary we will select editors to help > resolve disputes in ways that are authoritative and stable. > These will be selected from among participants. But these > editors will not be officially assigned to any one article > and will be interchangeable. > > (5) There will not be any official Debate Guide development > process, as there is now on "How to construct a debate > summary." Each summary develops as and when people want to > develop it. > > This scheme would make *me* feel freer about and more > comfortable with the whole project. I'm sure I would feel > much more motivated to do stuff, and the project would get a > lot more out of me. > > I suspect you all would feel the same--but tell me if you > feel otherwise. What do you say: shall we make DGP > participation more open and less controlled than originally proposed? > > --Larry > > _______________________________________________ > Textop mailing list > Textop at lists.dufoundation.org > http://lists.dufoundation.org/mailman/listinfo> /textop > From larry.sanger at dufoundation.org Fri Aug 18 12:10:31 2006 From: larry.sanger at dufoundation.org (Larry Sanger) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:10:31 -0700 Subject: [Textop] Vacation Message-ID: <000001c6c2f9$fa441950$a0f5fea9@D7WRQ591> All, I haven't had a vacation since starting at the DUF, excepting the time off spent with the new baby, and that wasn't exactly a vacation. So I'll be taking next week off. I still might try to put in some time each day on the wiki, though. --Larry