Q : I thought Wiki wasn't very good to record arguments because :
a) you can't trust the position argued against to be the one originially put forward
b) disagreements tend to get erased
A : I respect the structure of argument as something which is itself informative. It represents the
dynamics of how people came to certain ideas through the consideration and rejection of others.
I think it's a useful structure to see.
So like all good content of a wiki I hope we as a community preserve it.
(that sounds a bit pompous right? but you know what I mean)
More on the ValueOfArguing
I think a trickier problem than disagreements being erased (which doesn't happen a great deal in my Wiki experience) is disagreements being refactored into separate ProFoo and AntFoo pages. The supporters go off to their respective pages and never interact with each other again, removing any chance of something useful appearing from the debate. -- AdrianHoward
: Good point, let's keep those arguments on the same page. -- PhilJones
: There is, of course, also an argument for keeping things separate. A point of view can often be more coherently presented when its not interrupted every five lines. Context is everything. -- AdrianHoward
: See also TypedThreadedDiscussion
Is arguing a waste of time? I mean, why argue when YouCanSay what you think, and others, including yourself, make their minds up..
Nope. Argument/debate/discussion is one of the places new ideas come from. -- AdrianHoward
Some ideas have been bounced around on meatball about that : Meatball:WikiForDebate, Meatball:DoubleWiki, Meatball:DebateTool, Meatball:CollaborativeCriticism --EmileKroeger, trying to link ideas together.
See also AnyoneCanEditIt