[Campaigns-l] Some Thoughts

[Chris Chiasson]

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

I thought most of the comments in that thread were one-sided and
resorted to name-calling without much proof to back it up... and I
lean to the left. A right winger would not even make it past the
second comment.

This is interesting to me because the comments were highly rated.

On 7/6/06, Greg Schnippel <schnippy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Campaigns-l mailing list
> Campaigns-l at wikia.com
> http://lists.wikia.com/mailman/listinfo/campaigns-l
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/