Talk:Are wikidebates a good thing?
Latest comment: 9 days ago by Prototyperspective in topic Kialo
Kialo
edit@User:Prototyperspective: Can you expand the argument you made about Kialo to make it exceedingly clear that Kialo publishes its arguments only after peer review? It was not clear to me from reading your argument. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, made it clearer and will also add a source now. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Prototyperspective: Thank you, it is now better. It now reads: "The user interface is not advanced but very basic and lacks features of Kialo (active) and Argüman (open source but defunct) such as collective impact rating of arguments and sorting or navigable argument trees that make large complex debates more overseeable and so on. Unlike on Kialo,[1] there also is no prior-publication peer-review which may have resulted in content quality issues of arguments without both supporting source and explanation." Still, what makes you think this is one argument instead of two? It seems like two arguments to me, one stating something like "Kialo is better for reason R1" and the other stating something like "Kialo is better for reason R2". Each of these arguments can be objected to separately, doesn't it? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't think the full quote is needed here. My thinking was that it's one argument because what you see as two separate points are two subpoints of the one argument that Kialo is better and thus Wikidebates not so good. Unlike on Kialo, sub-Pros can't be made here so I put it into one Con rather than having a brief Con and then these two as separate sub-Pros. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: But the summarizing point "Kialo is better" is not even stated, right? More importantly, does it follow from "Kialo is better" that "Wikidebates are not a good thing?" --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well good point – the explanation why Wikidebates are argued not to be a good thing was missing or was too implicit so I'll make it clearer. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: But the summarizing point "Kialo is better" is not even stated, right? More importantly, does it follow from "Kialo is better" that "Wikidebates are not a good thing?" --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't think the full quote is needed here. My thinking was that it's one argument because what you see as two separate points are two subpoints of the one argument that Kialo is better and thus Wikidebates not so good. Unlike on Kialo, sub-Pros can't be made here so I put it into one Con rather than having a brief Con and then these two as separate sub-Pros. Prototyperspective (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Prototyperspective: Thank you, it is now better. It now reads: "The user interface is not advanced but very basic and lacks features of Kialo (active) and Argüman (open source but defunct) such as collective impact rating of arguments and sorting or navigable argument trees that make large complex debates more overseeable and so on. Unlike on Kialo,[1] there also is no prior-publication peer-review which may have resulted in content quality issues of arguments without both supporting source and explanation." Still, what makes you think this is one argument instead of two? It seems like two arguments to me, one stating something like "Kialo is better for reason R1" and the other stating something like "Kialo is better for reason R2". Each of these arguments can be objected to separately, doesn't it? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)