Difference between revisions of "Discussion method"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(more technical stuff from Discussion moved here)
 
(restructured and instructions about changing statements)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{method}}
+
[[Category:Open assessment]]
 +
{{method|moderator=Jouni}}
  
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.
+
==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.
 
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.
  
==Discussion rules==
+
==Result==
 +
 
 +
===Procedure===
  
 
# Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the ''content'' of Opasnet pages.
 
# Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the ''content'' of Opasnet pages.
Line 19: Line 34:
 
:d) if someone attacks your argument ({{attack| || }} ), you should defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
 
:d) if someone attacks your argument ({{attack| || }} ), you should defend it ({{defend| || }} ).
  
===Discussion format===
 
  
For discussing, the discussion format 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:
+
'''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:
  
 
{{discussion  
 
{{discussion  
Line 44: Line 74:
  
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory]
 +
* [[Discussion structure]]

Revision as of 07:58, 10 August 2009



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

  1. Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the content of Opasnet pages.
  2. 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.)
  3. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must be related to the topic of the Opasnet page.
  4. Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
  5. Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
  6. 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:

How to read discussions

Statements: This is either
  • a single statement made in the Opasnet page content upon which someone cast doubt, or
  • a statement opposing a statement within the Opasnet page content, i.e. an anti-thesis to a thesis

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.

2: This green arrow represents a defending argument.
3: This red arrow represents an offending argument.


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.

See also