Debate map
From Lumeniki
A debate map is a group of (common) arguments and rebuttals, that is refined and organized.
A debate map could be in the format of a Wikipedia talk page, but staying on topic is "enforced" by moving comments around. If something is learned that makes the older information, obsolete, the obsolete comments are replaced with the updated info.
The organization method may include the common MediaWiki talk page format, outlines, flow charts, tables, or whatever means is most suitable to the goal of making the various arguments and rebuttals, easiest to navigate and understand.
There are a few forms:
- The final editing of a sympathetic debate map is done by only one side in the debate, although anyone may collaborate to form it.
- A multiview debate map (MDM) is the ultimate goal of a true wikibrawl, in the hitherto tradition of lumenism (-; following the lumenikilu policy of multiple points of view (as opposed to a neutral point of view or a sympathetic point of view). To be a true multiview debate map, all sides must agree that the debate map accurately represents their point of view, and no point of view caries undue weight, in comparison to the others.
- A certified multiview debate map (CMDM) is one in which all major contributors to the debate map, have placed their signatures, stating that their point of view is fairly represented.
- In a wiki with an edit history an CMDM may be created by all parties signing a particular version, and this version either being locked or all the names struck out, so that it is clear that they are not agreeing with the next edit which may be made to the debate map. The version that everyone signed, remains in the edit history and thus can be linked to, for reference to it as a CMDM.
[edit] Debate craps
Debate craps are "debate maps" that have either gone horribly wrong, and/or everyone has lost interest in them. They're basically incomplete debate maps.
[edit] Nx and Lumenos collaborate to make a big debate crap
Debate craps are what happens when you expect certain people to read (or respect) a message at the top of a section, saying that comments would be relocated and reorganized. Some examples. Nx posted off the stated topic, instead of starting a new section. Ey and a few other members of the RationalWiki mafia, objected to any further editing of the incomplete debate maps. Some sections are well organized but in the first one, I made some confused arguments which would ordinarily be removed or relocated. They could, for example, be relocated to my talk page to show what a duffas I am. Lumenos 21:38, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
[edit] When the articles were moved to talk pages
User:Michaeldsuarez apparently deleted the entire edit history, so to explain what happened I will quote the end here. (See this is important so you know that Lumenos is not crazy):
"
- It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. Nx 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as your claim? Lumenos 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- I do not understand why it even has to be in the article. Nx 17:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Dude, are you sitting down, cause I'm gonna blow your mind right now. This is the article!!!....er wait okay no, perhaps this particular example is not notable as to the itty bitty articles y'all prefer to make, but it was more of a uhhh proof of concept. Maybe later I will find a better example. Lumenos 18:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Okay I just wanna nip this in the butt. Before anybody says, "Oh my Gosh! Lumenos is a prophet! Or ey must have been in on the whole thing! Let me assure you this is uuh as far as I know, just a coincidence. 08:16, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
- Dude, are you sitting down, cause I'm gonna blow your mind right now. This is the article!!!....er wait okay no, perhaps this particular example is not notable as to the itty bitty articles y'all prefer to make, but it was more of a uhhh proof of concept. Maybe later I will find a better example. Lumenos 18:31, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- I do not understand why it even has to be in the article. Nx 17:46, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- Well don't you think it important that your claim of "no one objects" be noted as your claim? Lumenos 17:41, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
- It depends on the implementation of the review system. I'd prefer to have my "review" incorporated into the article though (it already is to some extent: "While Conservapedia continues to be a major focus of RationalWiki, they have branched out into many areas of skepticism.") instead of having a mess of multiple, possibly redundant opinions in the article. Nx 17:28, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
"
Between my last two comments above, the RationalWiki article was moved to the talk page and the article page was locked by user:MarkDilley. So this was something Lumenos "predicted" and explains the little smileygasm there. Lumenos 06:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
