The idea I keep coming back to is something that works basically the same as how the Transhumanist Wiki’s Scenarios Map currently works, but expanded to include a few more features.
The way it is set up now:
Each claim in the argument would have its own node in the graph.
Each connection between claims would have its own node in the graph.
Each node in the graph would have its own wiki page.
Each wiki page contains all of the information about the node, including tags that specify how it connects to the other nodes.
Nodes for claims would include a description of the claim, any debate about the claim, links to supporting, opposing, supported, and opposed claims, and any other relevant information.
Nodes for connections between claims would include an explanation of why the claims are connected, debate about whether the connection is valid, and any other relevant information.
The graph is automatically generated by a PHP script that scans all of the wiki pages, and parses the tags.
Clicking on any node in the graph loads that node’s wiki page, which shows a graph of nearby nodes.
A BETA VERSION OF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR MONTHS!
But noone has shown any interest in this at all.
And I don’t know why noone is showing any interest.
Is it because the core idea of the system is so unworkable that it would be best to just abandon the whole project?
Is it because noone has any use at all for any system even remotely like this?
Is it because noone has heard about it?
Is it because hoone who heard about it actually checked it out?
Is it because I’ve just done a really bad job of explaining what the system could do?
Is it because the current interface is so ugly that everyone’s first reaction is to turn away in disgust?
Or is it because of something else I haven’t thought of?
Please… I need feedback on this.
If this comment is so long that you’re not going to bother reading the rest of it, please post a comment here saying so.
If you think that something like this may be a good idea, but don’t feel like bothering to check out how the system works so far, please post a comment here saying so.
If you tried to check it out, but got lost because the interface is confusing, please post a comment here saying what you got confused by.
If you think this system is a bad idea, please post a comment here explaining why.
If you think the system is a good idea, but don’t plan to try to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.
If you think the system is a good idea, and you do plan to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.
I had considered posting each of those suggestions as separate subcomments, to make the comments thread less tangled, but I’m not expecting many people to even read this comment, so that seemed a bit too ambitious, and seemed like downvote-bait.
If you upvote this comment, please post a comment here saying why you upvoted.
I suppose that even a downvote would be of at least some use as feedback, but if you downvote this comment, please at least post a comment here saying why you’re downvoting it.
Though I suspect that I’ll end up getting some downvotes just because of the tone of this comment, or some other social/signaling/memetic thing.
Ok, I’m done being angry and insecure now. On to more useful things.
More details about how the system currently works:
There are plenty of nodes already set up that you can browse through to get an idea of how the system works.
More details about how the system would work, if revised to be used for argument maps:
There are a few changes that would need to be made in order to use this system for argument maps, but I think the same core system would still basically do what we want.
All of these arguments would be stored on the wiki, so points from one argument can easily be used in another argument.
We would need to add more node types:
Claim
more?
And we would need to add more connection types:
supports
opposes
requires
more?
Many of the existing node types would be useful for argument maps:
groups
people
scenarios
actions
more?
And many existing connection types would be useful for argument maps:
We would need a method for naming the nodes. One option is to just number them, but then that would make it hard to reuse nodes in later arguments. A better way to name the nodes would be to give a summary of the claim in a few words. Connections between nodes would be automatically named according to the nodes they connect, and the type of the connection.
We would also want a script to automatically generate the wikipages for all the nodes, given the annotated text of the argument, like in this experiment
Specifically: Probabilities! We need a way for the system to work with probabilities!
Footnotes:
I chose PHP because MediaWiki is written in PHP, and I am likely going to want to add these scripts into the MediaWiki code itself.
If this all ends up actually working, and being useful, then eventually it might be worth checking if it would be possible to do all this using Google Wave, or something else, so that the collaborative editing can be done in real time.
Question: Should I tidy up this comment some more, and post it as a top-level post?
It is my humble opinion that these tools need to start with user interface design. If it looks like a Steve Jobs Apple product and it has the right features, then it has a good chance of succeeding.
I’d love this not to be the case.
This is of interest to me. I haven’t expressed interest because I didn’t know about it.
Previously (pre-LW in fact) I’ve had an interest in using Semantic Wikis for the purpose of controversy mapping. Basing this type of work on a wiki makes sense to me, either in the context of controversy mapping a la MACOSPOL or in the context of trying to clarify my own thinking about cryonics.
Although (perhaps because) I used to love programming for fun, I have become a strong skeptic of just going off and implementing features on the off chance that the result will be somewhat useful. The code that’s easiest to debug is the code you never write. My default move when thinking about doing something with technology is, “What can we possibly do that doesn’t require implementing anything new?”
So, I would gladly volunteer to start “porting” my map of the cryonics debate to a Scenarios Map format, and report back with any issues I encounter. Offhand I feel that creating Wiki pages “by hand” might be the bottleneck, but I’m up to testing that.
Before I started the Scenarios project, I checked out the semantic wikis that were available, and concluded that none of them were able to do what I was trying to do with the scenarios project.
Though I might as well admit that part of the reason why I went ahead and started coding this was just for fun.
Thanks for offering to help try this out!
My Skype ID is PeerInfinity, please feel free to contact me any time I’m online.
Though we shouldn’t need to make all of the wiki pages by hand. We should have some sort of automated tool that generates most of the content on the wiki pages from an annotated chat log, like that experiment I tried.
I think the way this tool should work is that it should scan a wiki page containing the annotated conversation, and generate an XML file in the format used by MediaWiki’s import tool. Then someone with admin access to the wiki can import the XML file using the import tool, or a regular user can manually copy the data from the XML file to the wiki.
Have you used PHP before?
...
And as for posting this idea as an actual post...
Maybe before I do that, I should make some of the changes I mentioned to the project, and actually try using it on an example argument or two.
Thinking about this project some more, it seems like these argument maps will fit in nicely with the scenarios map. Maps of arguments that a scenario will happen will fit in nicely with maps of things that could cause or prevent the scenario.
Or maybe if there are too many links, then everything will look all tangled… I guess one way to find out is to try it and see what happens...
Maybe before I try to post this comment as an actual post, I should make some of the changes I mentioned to the project, and actually try using it on an example argument or two.
The idea I keep coming back to is something that works basically the same as how the Transhumanist Wiki’s Scenarios Map currently works, but expanded to include a few more features.
The way it is set up now:
Each claim in the argument would have its own node in the graph.
Each connection between claims would have its own node in the graph.
Each node in the graph would have its own wiki page.
Each wiki page contains all of the information about the node, including tags that specify how it connects to the other nodes.
Nodes for claims would include a description of the claim, any debate about the claim, links to supporting, opposing, supported, and opposed claims, and any other relevant information.
Nodes for connections between claims would include an explanation of why the claims are connected, debate about whether the connection is valid, and any other relevant information.
The graph is automatically generated by a PHP script that scans all of the wiki pages, and parses the tags.
Clicking on any node in the graph loads that node’s wiki page, which shows a graph of nearby nodes.
A BETA VERSION OF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR MONTHS!
But noone has shown any interest in this at all.
And I don’t know why noone is showing any interest.
Is it because the core idea of the system is so unworkable that it would be best to just abandon the whole project?
Is it because noone has any use at all for any system even remotely like this?
Is it because noone has heard about it?
Is it because hoone who heard about it actually checked it out?
Is it because I’ve just done a really bad job of explaining what the system could do?
Is it because the current interface is so ugly that everyone’s first reaction is to turn away in disgust?
Or is it because of something else I haven’t thought of?
Please… I need feedback on this.
If this comment is so long that you’re not going to bother reading the rest of it, please post a comment here saying so.
If you think that something like this may be a good idea, but don’t feel like bothering to check out how the system works so far, please post a comment here saying so.
If you tried to check it out, but got lost because the interface is confusing, please post a comment here saying what you got confused by.
If you think this system is a bad idea, please post a comment here explaining why.
If you think the system is a good idea, but don’t plan to try to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.
If you think the system is a good idea, and you do plan to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.
I had considered posting each of those suggestions as separate subcomments, to make the comments thread less tangled, but I’m not expecting many people to even read this comment, so that seemed a bit too ambitious, and seemed like downvote-bait.
If you upvote this comment, please post a comment here saying why you upvoted.
I suppose that even a downvote would be of at least some use as feedback, but if you downvote this comment, please at least post a comment here saying why you’re downvoting it.
Though I suspect that I’ll end up getting some downvotes just because of the tone of this comment, or some other social/signaling/memetic thing.
Ok, I’m done being angry and insecure now. On to more useful things.
More details about how the system currently works:
Documentation on how the system works is available at the main page for the Scenarios Project.
There are plenty of nodes already set up that you can browse through to get an idea of how the system works.
More details about how the system would work, if revised to be used for argument maps:
There are a few changes that would need to be made in order to use this system for argument maps, but I think the same core system would still basically do what we want.
All of these arguments would be stored on the wiki, so points from one argument can easily be used in another argument.
We would need to add more node types:
Claim
more?
And we would need to add more connection types:
supports
opposes
requires
more?
Many of the existing node types would be useful for argument maps:
groups
people
scenarios
actions
more?
And many existing connection types would be useful for argument maps:
is a necessary condition for
increases the probability of
decreases the probability of
is in favour of
is opposed to
more?
We would need a method for naming the nodes. One option is to just number them, but then that would make it hard to reuse nodes in later arguments. A better way to name the nodes would be to give a summary of the claim in a few words. Connections between nodes would be automatically named according to the nodes they connect, and the type of the connection.
We would also want a script to automatically generate the wikipages for all the nodes, given the annotated text of the argument, like in this experiment
We would also want to implement some of the other features listed in the Debate tools wiki page
Specifically: Probabilities! We need a way for the system to work with probabilities!
Footnotes:
I chose PHP because MediaWiki is written in PHP, and I am likely going to want to add these scripts into the MediaWiki code itself.
If this all ends up actually working, and being useful, then eventually it might be worth checking if it would be possible to do all this using Google Wave, or something else, so that the collaborative editing can be done in real time.
Question: Should I tidy up this comment some more, and post it as a top-level post?
It is my humble opinion that these tools need to start with user interface design. If it looks like a Steve Jobs Apple product and it has the right features, then it has a good chance of succeeding. I’d love this not to be the case.
Tidy up: in favor. :)
This is of interest to me. I haven’t expressed interest because I didn’t know about it.
Previously (pre-LW in fact) I’ve had an interest in using Semantic Wikis for the purpose of controversy mapping. Basing this type of work on a wiki makes sense to me, either in the context of controversy mapping a la MACOSPOL or in the context of trying to clarify my own thinking about cryonics.
Although (perhaps because) I used to love programming for fun, I have become a strong skeptic of just going off and implementing features on the off chance that the result will be somewhat useful. The code that’s easiest to debug is the code you never write. My default move when thinking about doing something with technology is, “What can we possibly do that doesn’t require implementing anything new?”
So, I would gladly volunteer to start “porting” my map of the cryonics debate to a Scenarios Map format, and report back with any issues I encounter. Offhand I feel that creating Wiki pages “by hand” might be the bottleneck, but I’m up to testing that.
Yay, finally some feedback!
Thanks :)
Before I started the Scenarios project, I checked out the semantic wikis that were available, and concluded that none of them were able to do what I was trying to do with the scenarios project.
Though I might as well admit that part of the reason why I went ahead and started coding this was just for fun.
Thanks for offering to help try this out!
My Skype ID is PeerInfinity, please feel free to contact me any time I’m online.
Though we shouldn’t need to make all of the wiki pages by hand. We should have some sort of automated tool that generates most of the content on the wiki pages from an annotated chat log, like that experiment I tried.
I think the way this tool should work is that it should scan a wiki page containing the annotated conversation, and generate an XML file in the format used by MediaWiki’s import tool. Then someone with admin access to the wiki can import the XML file using the import tool, or a regular user can manually copy the data from the XML file to the wiki.
Have you used PHP before?
...
And as for posting this idea as an actual post...
Maybe before I do that, I should make some of the changes I mentioned to the project, and actually try using it on an example argument or two.
I guess I’ll use your cryonics argument and that other example argument.
...
Thinking about this project some more, it seems like these argument maps will fit in nicely with the scenarios map. Maps of arguments that a scenario will happen will fit in nicely with maps of things that could cause or prevent the scenario.
Or maybe if there are too many links, then everything will look all tangled… I guess one way to find out is to try it and see what happens...
Maybe before I try to post this comment as an actual post, I should make some of the changes I mentioned to the project, and actually try using it on an example argument or two.
I guess I’ll use your cryonics argument and that other example argument.