# DoubleWiki

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories

This is a possibility of WikiForDebate (see also: DebateTool). Assuming you have a debate that can more or less be devided into pro- and con- sides (like creation/evolution, bomb Iraq/don't). Maybe using one wiki for each side -- a DoubleWiki?

The point is simply to add automatic linking to the equivalent page presented by the other side. You wouldn't get the whole debate on one page, but you'd get a presentation by each side that takes what the other says into account, and it should tend to reach a state of equilibrum. Each side would have to present its view intelligently and augment the SignalToNoiseRatio. And unanswered questions would stick out like a sore thumb.

Eventually one side could be filled by "devil's advocate", in case it isn't represented enough (I'm on side A, hardly anybody is present on side B, so I go and get arguments from bulletin boards and suchlike, giving more flesh to the debate).

I don't know what this is worth, it would be interesting to test it. Another possibility is to allow for more than two sides. On one issue, you would have pages by every "worldview" that takes a stand on that issue. This could make an interesting giant opinion and debate wiki (and doesn't require any special technology ... CamelCase words as concatenations of the worldview name and the issue name would work, and the linking side can be done manually).

DoubleWiki is using a wiki somewhere between ThreadMode and DocumentMode. Or maybe it's just DocumentMode, but used for debate.

A test was implemented on PeriPeri, see PeriPeri:PeriPeriForDebate and PeriPeri:NaturalismVersusSupernatural for an idea of what it can look like.

The ideas presented above are close to my original goals for "ViewPoint". ViewPointComments also has more text explaining the ViewPoint ideas. --CliffordAdams

The difference I see with ViewPoint is that this system could technically work with wikis as they are now. I may even launch a test-debate just for a try. The goal is also a bit different - reaching pseudo-consensus on a topic where there is not enough agreement to reach a NeutralPointOfView (as is done with WikiPedia). I see it as an possibly interesting tool for presenting both sides of a topic. Of course, maybe it has already been tried but failed completely. Maybe it's just not interesting enough -- EmileKroeger

Maybe this type this is a good to debate a yes or no question. What if one doesn't have a manichean point of view about the subject? -- PierreGaston

The point is simply to add automatic linking to the equivalent page presented by the other side.
Perhaps just making the wikis TwinWikis (obsolete term: SisterSites) would accomplish that quite easily?

I tried something like this on Wiki -- Wiki:ItDepends and Wiki:ItDoesntDepend. Except on each page the con issues were copied out to the other opposite page, after a period of time. It points out the interesting fact that people seem to be more directed and persuasive when posting something against the view presented by the page topic. When the transfer is made to the opposing page, it becomes a posting for the view of that page. --DonaldNoyes

Maybe this is why TransClusion is important here - if both views are presented on the same page, but seperately, you don't get crossposting, though experiments with PeriPeri showed that people may still answer next to the text being commented, instead of using the other side ... see also Wiki:SplitByTopicNotByOpinion

DoubleWiki and PeriPeri



Original discussion :

I don't know if this is of interest, but with a small addition to PeriPeri this could be supported - add an "aye" and a "nay" half to a page (probably a "Consent" and "Object" facet). The addition is simply to format the page so the two viewpoints are side-by-side. I would be happy to make this change if you want to try DoubleWiki out. -- ChrisPurcell

Hmm, PeriPeri does look *quite* interesting. I haven't got through reading all about FacetWikis?, but it seems there are some some of the ideas I had about using a DoubleWiki for debate.

I had wondered about how to describe the two viewpoints, for example for a religious debate you could get ChristianPascalsWager and AtheistPascalsWager for both viewpoints on Pascal's wager, but maybe something like Atheist:PascalsWager and Christian:PascalsWager would be more sensible - a title like ChristianYouAreGoingToHell would lead to confusion, since it mixes the category/prefix with the CamelCase title of the page.

So maybe the PeriPeri system for that is better. The one thing I'm not sure about yet is to what extent the PeriPeri:PageFacets are supposed to be mutually exclusive ... for DoubleWiki, each "Aye" page would have to point to the equivalent "Nay" page, and vice-versa - the debate would be created by the confrontation of these two pages. Wouldn't these cross-references pollute the shatter algorithm? Maybe it'd just be a minor change, maybe it depends of how you use the facets. I didn't dig deep enough in there yet.

Oh and I also have to test vertical division with /left and /right, that seems more appropriate for a two-sided debate, one doesn't feel "inferior" (maybe it could all be brought to simply Aye/nay positions on every page, but that would break down the "double community" aspect of it ... So I'll be testing this form of transclusion (I'm afraid it might be ugly). --EmileKroeger

No problem, experiment away, just don't go over the pages already there :)

Shatter would not polluted by Christians:PascalsWager? as the first word is not a wiki-word. ReligionChristianity?:PascalsWager? would be a problem.

As to /left and /right, they're there to make lists of links and are too small to hold real text. I'll patch in a better couple of commands.

Addendum: Right, they're in, use \first and \second followed by a single capitalized word.

wow cool thanks, I'll go test em right away, I just figured out that \left doesn't seem to work, and \right is ugly ... see PeriPeri:TransclusedSandBox

Tested it ... I don't really see the difference between \first, \second and \follow, apart from the fact that \follow doesn't change the order .... I was expecting a left/right splittting, but it's only top bottom, on PeriPeri:SplittedSandBox. Oh and maybe this isn't really the PeriPeri feature request place, but it'd be nice if after editing a "sub-page" (transcluded page), there was a way of getting directly back to the "father" page where you were when you first edited (oh and as an afterthought : PeriPeri and the facet system look great, I'm looking forwards to the third (or is it forth now?) spike being implemented on UseMod, and though I haven't got to read through everything. It looks awfully interesting and powerful ... lotsa good ideas. -- EmileKroeger

Don't they sit side-by-side on your machine? They do on mine. I set it up with CSS, perhaps that's the problem. I've had another hack at it, maybe that's fixed it for you? -- ChrisPurcell

Oh yeah nice, it works now! Thanks a lot, I'll go play with it a bit. I do wonder if the text won't be, well, ugly in a narrow half-page, but I think getting both viewpoints on a single page is better --EmileKroeger

OK Just created PeriPeri:PeriPeriForDebate, and an example page ... I'll try to put more meat in it later, I find that this is an interesting way of understanding about PeriPeri and FacetWiki ...

I will be taking the DoubleWiki project off PeriPeri soon, unless anyone objects. The only hits I have seen to them are from people Googling for something more "canonical"; I therefore conclude their utility is negative. I will keep the pages somewhere in case anyone desires to resurrect them at a later date. -- ChrisPurcell

AaronSwartz? blogged about something slightly similar he calls WikiCourt? at http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001175

On CommunityWiki there's an interesting piece about how debate works in that community and others : CommunityWiki:WikiDebateLimits (Does NearLinking? work both ways here ?)

It points out the importance of refactoring in debate. In DoubleWiki, the main mechanism that encourages refactoring is that you want *your* side of the argument to be presented best. So, you try to keep it clear and understandable. Refactoring comes from a spirit of competition and not from GoodWill?. And keeping the two pages seperate keeps that spirit of competition from damaging the good will (You don't want people refactoring the other side's arguments, unless they're severely unrepresented). -- EmileKroeger

Pro TwinBall

Why not generalizing/implementing/using an extendable holistic TwinBall instead of a static dualistic DoubleWiki = TwinWiki. Offering a TwinBall has the following benefits: e.g. additional TwinWikis for

1. introducing a mediator viewpoint, to overcome the (sometimes dangerous) polarization of pros and cons of one page (DefendAgainstPassion)
2. translating it into another natural (or formal) language
3. giving graphical illustrations, cartoons, music, videos
4. using it for metacommunication, discussing the style and strategies of the participants of the other wikis (on demand using even a meta-meta wiki :-)
5. sourcing out topical promotions and advertising
6. giving space for automatic generated addenda by artificial agents (Hey we are on the way to TheSingularity)
7. easy to implement
8. ...

Contra TwinBall

1. wikizens might be overwhelmed
2. ...

## Discussion

MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | Categories