Discussion method
This page is a method.
The page identifier is Op_en2976 |
|---|
| Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
Give your opinion to the peer rating of the content of this page. |
| Upload data
|
Contents
Scope
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well as rules for editing discussions.
Definition
Input
Output
Rationale
Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It can change the outcome of an assessment; it will improve it and make the assessment better understandable for decision makers and other stakeholders. The discussions will show the reasoning behind the work done in an assessment; it will indicate the objective and normative aspects in the assessment. In this way, decision makers and stakeholders can judge themselves whether they agree on our normative weighting. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, it is appreciated if you follow the discussion rules and apply the discussion format.
Result
Procedure
- Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the content of Opasnet pages.
- State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks on the discussion tab of the page whose content you wish to criticize and sign it. (Discussion tab can be found on top of every Opasnet page, signature can be added using the signature button in the toolbar on top of the edit window.)
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must be related to the topic of the Opasnet page.
- Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
- You are supposed to be committed to your statements, that is:
- a) if someone doubts on your statement (-- : ), you must explain it (edit or defend ← : ).
- b) if someone attacks your statement (⇤ : ), you must defend it (← : ).
- c) if someone doubts on your argument (-- : ), you should explain it (edit or defend ← : ).
- d) if someone attacks your argument (⇤ : ), you should defend it (← : ).
Colours of arguments
Each argument is either an attack (red) or a defence (green) towards another argument or a statement. The nature of the argument is shown with its colour. The same argument may also attack or defend another argument, with possibly a different colour. This is because the colour is actually not the colour of the argument itself, but it is the colour of the relationship between two arguments. There are a few possibilities to avoid confusion with these differing colours.
- The argument is written once in one place, and then a copy of it (with only the arrow and the identifying number) is made to all other relevant places, with a proper colour for that place.
- With several statements, the colour should always reflect the relationship to the first (i.e., primary) statement. If the primary statement changes, the colours should be changed respectively.
Changing statements
When a discussion goes on, there is often a need to improve a statement to make it better reflect the truth and discussants' opinions. Within a small group of actively involved discussant, the statement can be changed with a mutual agreement. However, usually some of the original discussants are not following the discussion any more, and therefore changing the statement afterwards would change the original meaning of some arguments of the discussants.
Instead of changing an existing statement, a new statement should be created to better reflect the current thinking. If the discussion develops in such a way that the focus turns to the validity of the new statement, it can be raised to the primary statement, which determines the colours of the first-level arguments (ie. whether they are "red" attacks or "green" defends).
Management
For discussing, the discussion structure should be used. Click the blue capital D in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:
Statements: This is either
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
--1: The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for comments and remarks.
|
Active and resolved discussions
On the main page, you should make links at the relevant points to the respective discussions. There are two possibilities:
Because all discussions can be re-activated, the difference between the two is not whether people are likely to participate in the discussion in the future or not. Instead, R↻ means that the current outcome of the discussion, whether a resolution or a continuing dispute, has been transferred to the main page, i.e. the contents of the main page reflect the current status of the discussion. In contrats, D↷ means that in the discussion itself, there is some information that is not yet reflected on the main page; therefore, the reader should read the discussion as well to be fully aware of the status of the page. This way, there is not a need to constantly update the main page during an active discussion. The updating can be done when the outcome of the discussion has stabilised.
Furthermore:
- If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (clicj the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
- Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
- If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at resolution.
In order to contribute to the discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.
