Wikireason/similar

These were previously seen on Talk:Proposals for new projects, and deemed to be covered by the Wikibate proposal.

WikideaEdit

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidea

WikifictionEdit

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikifiction

WikiLawmakerEdit

There is already a wiki for this. You are given the oppurtunity to do one better. You can flesh out an entire policy. http://en.constitution.wikicities.com/

As Wikipedia is to the Encyclopædia Britannica, so WikiLawmaker is to the constitution of the United States (or similar). Visitors will be invited to participate in the writing of articles of law that declare rights and attempt to foster a stable society. However they will have to do so with logical argument and a pragmatic state of mind - laws have to be realistic and be able to work, to the desired effect, in the real world (this is WikiLawmaker's version of the neutral point of view). You can find a more detailed proposal on the WikiLawmaker Proposal page.

GJLawmaker 18:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the concept in itself is very interesting, but what exactly would be the purpose of WikiLaw? A by the people, for the people sort of thing? Foeke 15:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see the purpose of WikiLawmaker as fourfold:
  • to create a resource that details the arguments for and against particular real life laws and the history behind them
  • to give people experience at the process of writing laws and having them exposed to others and the imperfect world - an experience of the concept of law as something you own rather than something that is placed upon you
  • to give people an arena to experiment with their own political ideas
  • to inspire people to get more involved in real life politics, by exposure to ideas they may not have encountered before and by the support that comes from logical argument
I have updated the proposal page with these points.
GJLawmaker 08:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It sounds interesting, and I think it would be interesting to have a WikiLawmaker, especially the first of the fourfold purpose. Foeke 10:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I haven't checked in on this topic for quite some time. What's the word on the street? Is WestLaw still showing promise in their endeavors at redirecting the best of about a thousand or so years of our fine brittish forebearers' intentions' momentum? Who, indeed, does own the law now? :)Ozzyslovechild 04:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent proposal. However, if America's reputation as being the free country is justified, then it will probably be more useful in other countries. Brianjd 05:37, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I don't really know why, but i like the idea. nice --83.64.122.86 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This sounds brilliant.

This could go at Wikicities:c:Legal.

Check out Wikibate. AdamRetchless 22:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TheorikiEdit

There is already a Wiki for this.. http://academia.wikicities.com/

I propose to set up a database of theories. Anyon who has a theory, in any field, will be able to publish it on Theoriki. Other users will then be asked to disprove the theory. A theory that has been disproved will be marked so. If a user disproves an article that disproved a theory, the article is marked disproved, the thoery is marke undisproved, and so on. A user can attempt to disprove any article related to a theory, or the theory itself, regardless of the number of disproving articles already added.

Theories like "Aliens kidnapped Elvis" will not be published.

Theoriki will be a reservoir of ideas.

It's a nice idea that could encapsulate the information age nicely, but the nature of wiki would make it important to allow "Aliens kidnapped Elvis" articles (and counter-articles). Binary prove/disprove will likely fall over though. And has wiki concepts and community familiarity matured to a point to allow wiki on creative concepts them selves? - Jul7 6 2004
What would be the benefit of a wiki here? Wouldn't a forum suffice since you wouldn't want to edit someone else's theory - just to disprove it on a separate page? Angela 02:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This could be a subset of Wikibate. I expect to have some strong arguments over evolutionary theory. AdamRetchless 22:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiDebateEdit

There is already two Wikis for this.. http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php , http://wikireason.org/ and Wikibate as well.

This is my proposal to hopefully help vent some of the POV that shouldn't be in encylopedia articles. Resolutions are created and each side makes an argument in essay form which goes back and forth as points are made and refuted. en:User:Vacuum

  • I was also thinking about this. There wouldn't be a resolution. Let's take the issue of Iraq. The debate question is, was the invasion of Iraq jusitied/the right thing to do? You have the pro short essay, then a rebuttal. and then the con essay, with a pro rebuttal. There's no resolution. People read each side and come up with their own decision.
This exists! Read the talk page archives on most Wikipedia articles :) (seriously!) --Alterego 05:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Sister project for POV essays and debatesEdit

See also Talk:Proposals_for_new_projects#WikiDebate

What do you guys think of the idea of creating a sister project with a more relaxed NPOV policy (but still with antivandalism "weeding" and the correction of blantant errors as well as fact which can be "objectively" shown to be false) where users can "collaborate" or debate their way into writing opinionated essays (we could have different essays for different opinions) and debate articles? It's more than just putting up a web site, or a usenet forum or a message board because it would still be a Wiki where anyone can edit anything. For essays, we could have a more "rhetorical"/personal/expository style than an encyclopedia.

What is your opinion on the matter?

CommentsEdit

I agree that some place to put original research needs to be created. Jrincayc 18:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about Wikisource? (For research, that is, not for POV essays). -- Jimregan 02:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand how this could be of any use. How can we have people writing subjective material and yet let anyone edit it. The reason wiki works for an encylopaedia is because there is one definite version of events. If I write an article about how Israel have done bad things (just a topical wikipedia example), then how can the comunity as a whole edit this piece considering it was written with one particular slant.
Blogger already offers the ability for people to put their opinions online for free, and you can, if you wish, have a team of people editing your site. The proposed idea just cannot be both "personal" and "anyone can edit anything" without it just being a slow versionof a chat room. User:Tompagenet Tompagenet 08:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Have you ever read a book and gone, thats not right. Ever wanted to edit the book (If you have you are probably well on your way to being a wikiaholic.)? Blogger is not the same because things never stabalize. The right tools are not there. You can't edit the original unless you are one of the team of people (and possibly not even then). Plus, blogs have short time before effectively editing stops (how many blogs continue to improve the articles years after the article is posted?). Some questions take decades to answer and require hundreds of people's input. For example, will humanity cause earths systems to degrade? Limits to growth written in the late 1960s gave this initial question. It has not been answered satisfactorily to my knowledge. I have read books on both sides of this question and they all make me wish that I could edit the books, because each of them misses points that the others make. Wikipedia bounces up against the current limits of knowledge already. In a decade or so, it will probably have documented many areas of knowledge up to the limit that is known. Wikipedia does not allow original research, so there needs to be some place that the original research can be done, and I firmly believe that a wiki can be a better collaberation environment than traditional research has been. (Edit this comment at will, just add your name to it) Jrincayc 18:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"The reason wiki works for an encylopaedia is because there is one definite version of events."
Hmm... are you that sure? Only one definite version that we all know for sure? I'm definitely not a relativist, but do we really have one definite uncontrovertial version of everything that is definitely right? And of course, you're free to right another article with your own slant (evidence and convincing arguments would be very much welcome in all articles, by the way). Or you could start a debate by writing down your criticisms and rebuttals and then someone else would counter with a counterrebuttal, etc...
Otherwise, the NPOV policy would only encourage orthodoxy and an avoidence of controversial topics...
Isn't this what Fred Bauder's project is for? (It was Internet Encyclopedia, but I think there was a name change). AFAIR, the guiding principle there is to have a Sympathetic POV, and to have multiple articles representing opposing POVs. -- Jimregan 02:02, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes though, you have to wonder if we are like a kid discovering lego or playdoh because we do try to apply the wiki concept to just about everything. The problem is where does wiki end and the rest of the internet begin (possibly there is no line :) )? POV articles are what many sites on the internet store - so in a sense the problem has already been solved. Of course what we want is for POV articles, like NPOVs, to be able to evolve in thought as our (assumed) understanding of issues improve. You can't do that in a POV internet scenario. If you want to have a refined or different POV article you need to create your own web page with it. The POV articles (what most articles honestly are) don't get to grow. Are we in a sense trying to find a WikiDebate? The interesting thing about POV is that a person's Point of View can change; people are not static. If POVs can change then what distigushes one POV from another POV? You can (to a degree) nail down NPOV articles, but if you nail down POVs then the value of applying wiki and growth to POV articles is lost. The ability of Wiki to handle subjective thoughts with out strangling or sidelining them is part of the solution to the objectives of wiki's about ideas or theories or wiki-fiction. The problems and solutions of Subjective Collaborativism lie at the heart of democratic governance, diplomancy, multi-culturalism and Wiki. Who knows? Perhaps solving POV Wiki's could help far more than we know. - July 6 2004

Sounds like w:WikiInfo or Wikibate. There are active sites exploring both concepts. AdamRetchless 01:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Join/start XPOV wikis: I think the problem with this is that 'a site for POV articles' is too broad. I think the solution might joining/creating separate wikis that themselves have a particular POV; people who more or less share that POV can edit or write articles there. E.g. Anarchopedia presumably has "APOV"; Libertarianwiki we can guess; SourceWatch/Disinfopedia has a sort of PR/corporation-skeptical POV. I admit this might not be completely satisfying, since many of these kinds of sites may still be looking for encyclopedia-style articles, rather than essays. Zach 15:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Voting GuideEdit

I had an idea that's a spin-off of another idea I had ("WikiCivicActivator"): Why not have a community-generated voting guide to be created in advance of elections to fully describe and discuss candidates as well as ballot initiatives (and the like) at all levels of polities around the world? I note that many communities and regions don't currently supply NPOV voting guides to the electorates before votes take place, so we're left with situations where many voters don't really know who or what they're voting for. I recognize that this voting guide could be susceptible to edit wars under a Wikipedia-like NPOV approach, so I would modify the approach to expressly cordon off proponents to their page (or section), and opponents will get theirs. But overall, NPOV standards would apply. Stevietheman 02:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

We are thinking of handling this with Wikibate. Check out our demo site at http://forum.for-pgh.org/wiki. There is also an attempt to handle this at WikiBooks. AdamRetchless 14:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I can see how Wikibate could stretch to handle that... and you've done a great job with it so far. However, I'm concerned that voters might rather expect a site dedicated to being a voting guide only, instead of having to sift through other material. A voting guide would have to provide "debates" based on geographic location and the appropriate upcoming election. It just has to be easily navigable for the average voter, not just us "wiki nuts." :) Stevietheman 20:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Check out what user:Tuf-Kat has done, specifically with the [Voter's Guide] over at WikiBooks. We are discussing this project at the Wikibate demo site and aren't sure how we will integrate it with the issue discussions that Wikibate focuses on. I believe that Tuf-Kat would like the voter's guide to become a full project in its own right, but now he's trying to develop it wherever he can. AdamRetchless 09:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

WikiCivicActivatorEdit

From the proposal:

WikiCivicActivator would be a project that attempts to create a repository of all ongoing and past civic efforts and organization techniques used at all polity levels around the world related to progressive change. Alternative names could include WikiCivicMotivator and WikiActiveCommons. Unlike the Wikipedia, this project could also include theories and original research into ideas for new efforts and yet-to-be-tried techniques.

Go to the above link for more details. Please leave suggestions for changes on the proposal's talk page. Thanks! Stevietheman 04:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikicracyEdit

Wikicracy Scope: Unlike almost all the projects here, this project is not about special contents that couldn't be included into wikipedia. The purpose is to adapt the magic of wiki philosophy and software (a powerfull cooperation online tool, which is used for building knowledge) to make it a powerfull cooperation online in organizing : to allow constructive debates and democratically based decision making. It would be a very usefull tool for all association/organisation/working group/etc, and of course could therefore be helpfull for wikimedia community in organising its debates, votes, and elections.