[Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts

[Greg Schnippel]

On 7/6/06, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
> I disagree. Forum posts, even with moderation, encourage grandstanding
> and platitudes because those sound cool/smart/funny and constitute an
> easy way to collect moderation points. It is much harder (and better?)
> to achieve the consensus on a wiki page. Of course, an individual
> controversial opinion can be more valuable than a consensus opinion,
> but my guess is that usually only happens if that individual is
> well-informed on the topic at hand.

I agree with Chris here -- we would need to develop a more
sophisticated kind of rating system than whats out there already if we
want to allow users to assess an argument in a debate. The rating
systems on sites like slashdot or digg often devolve into snarkoffs
with the funniest comments rising to the top (especially on
non-technical topics). Fun to read but we have to guide other users in
how to properly evaluate a statment to get the outcome we want.

I like the 'actionforum' system used by MoveOn but I'm not sure its
useful for evaluating arguments:

Example:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/?forum_id=266

Not sure if there is a good way to collaboratively assess an argument..

- Greg