Contrast with WikiDebateBase, which is mostly about how to use a wiki focused around one worldview, to support debate that happens elsewhere.
There is an actual wiki called [[Debatepedia?]] where participants map out debates. (2007-02-21)
Of course, the CommunityExpectations is not to reach consensus. It is a place to AgreeToDisagree. You expect to live with DeepDisagreements. This means you may not have that much PolarizationProblem or GroupThink about the topic at hand, but there will be less trust and feeling of unity.
You can’t count on having PointsOfUnity - or rather, these points should only be on how to cary debate, what behaviour is acceptable and what is not.
This would mean that nearly any opinion is acceptable. Does this mean RadicalInclusiveness ? Well, not necessarily : certain behaviours can be frowned upon - sabotaging your “own side”, being rude or just stupid, etc. And the discussion may be restricted to certain topics - discussing all points of views on web standards or text editors, for example, but shunning politics and religion.
Some things that may work:
The RadicalInclusiveness section bothers me, in “Community Expectations.”
I think that if someone doesn’t “argue right,” then they’ll be kicked out. If they make wild statements, if they are duplicious, if they sabotage their “own side,” if they are rude, if they are not respectful, then they will likely (I think) be kicked out.
The wiki will have boundaries of discussion, but in this case, it is not the subject matter that sets the boundaries, but the method of debate that will form the boundaries.
So, I think we should clarify this in the section on “CommunityExpectations.”
BTW, how I got to be back here:
I was reading Beyond Voting: New Tools of Democracy, a page in an interesting wiki about E-Democracy efforts in New York! See also the connected Queens Community Board 3 site.
I don’t know why they don’t show up in the referrers list for this page, though..?
(Oh, and Beyond Voting wiki looks neat !)
Well, there is now, very clearly, a Debatepedia ..!
It’s only two months old, and most of the pages are stubs, but it already has some interesting content and issues are well presented. It doesn’t seem to have much when it comes to meta or talk pages, unfortunately – I wonder if that’s intentional? (It probably is).
I can imagine this being cross-linked with wikipedia the way the “official” mediawiki sites (wikibooks,wikiquote, etc.) are. The split “quotes only” format is better than the convoluted “defenders of XXX answer that …” on Wikipedia.