This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UWCLStudentSpring2021.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I did a pretty significant reorganization of this page. I used the "Proposed Article Outline" mentioned below (from 2015), as a guide. That was much more streamlined than the original organization.
There was extraneous content that I removed. Some of it belonged in the Deliberation page, since that content didn't focus on "Online Deliberation". I noted it in that Talk page.
Other extraneous content I removed completely. Much of it was focused purely on the topic of "Online Political Deliberation". Perhaps that could be its own separate page.
Likewise there was a significant amount of unverified content in those sections. Thus, there was a warning on this page that the article needed more verification. Since I eliminated that content, I also removed that warning.
This looks like it was the most significant update to this article that has been made in quite sometime. UWCLStudentSpring2021 ( talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a general template, but something along the lines of:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonnema ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Should we include this?
A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm [1]. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria [2].
This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.
Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting. Myclob ( talk) 18:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UWCLStudentSpring2021.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I did a pretty significant reorganization of this page. I used the "Proposed Article Outline" mentioned below (from 2015), as a guide. That was much more streamlined than the original organization.
There was extraneous content that I removed. Some of it belonged in the Deliberation page, since that content didn't focus on "Online Deliberation". I noted it in that Talk page.
Other extraneous content I removed completely. Much of it was focused purely on the topic of "Online Political Deliberation". Perhaps that could be its own separate page.
Likewise there was a significant amount of unverified content in those sections. Thus, there was a warning on this page that the article needed more verification. Since I eliminated that content, I also removed that warning.
This looks like it was the most significant update to this article that has been made in quite sometime. UWCLStudentSpring2021 ( talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a general template, but something along the lines of:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonnema ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Should we include this?
A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm [1]. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria [2].
This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.
Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting. Myclob ( talk) 18:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
References