Talk:Online deliberation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UWCLStudentSpring2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reorganized content
Hi, I did a pretty significant reorganization of this page. I used the "Proposed Article Outline" mentioned below (from 2015), as a guide. That was much more streamlined than the original organization.

There was extraneous content that I removed. Some of it belonged in the Deliberation page, since that content didn't focus on "Online Deliberation". I noted it in that Talk page.

Other extraneous content I removed completely. Much of it was focused purely on the topic of "Online Political Deliberation". Perhaps that could be its own separate page.

Likewise there was a significant amount of unverified content in those sections. Thus, there was a warning on this page that the article needed more verification. Since I eliminated that content, I also removed that warning.

This looks like it was the most significant update to this article that has been made in quite sometime. UWCLStudentSpring2021 (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

December 2014 deletion

 * I disagree with deleting this article. The whole world demands participation in all aspects of life. But massive participation is NOT easy. This article contributes significantly towards strengthening the discussion about the development of tools exploiting technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.123.9.170 (talk • contribs)
 * Page has been restored. Needs some work, though. ;-) (Tbonnema: talk & contribs)
 * 2015/01/24: First few edits have been made, first source added. This is actually quite a bit of work (surprise) so will take a few more weeks to complete further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonnema (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is important but needs work. I think the "Ratings System" section specifically needs citations as currently it doesn't have any. Perhaps the beginning definition could also be simplified for readers who aren't familiar with the subject. Mjohn55 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed article outline
Not sure if there's a general template, but something along the lines of:


 * General definition
 * More detailed definition or background (if necessary)
 * Maybe something on design choices, challenges and trade-offs
 * History and related disciplines
 * Notable examples
 * Clean list of references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbonnema (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

ReasonRank
Should we include this?

A suggested approach to crowdsourcing government policy analysis incorporates techniques from conflict resolution, formal logic, cost-benefit analysis, and the now public-domain Google Page Rank algorithm. The Harvard Negotiation Project, as well as books such as Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, propose a framework that avoids bargaining over positions, separates people from problems, focuses on interests rather than positions, invents options for mutual gain, and insists on objective criteria.

This framework is geared towards analyzing the pros and cons of each issue. Pro/con arguments would be categorized by the community as either arguments or evidence (or data), with further classification based on truth, relevance, or importance agreement or disagreement. This formal logic would also be used to crowdsource costs and benefits, with reasons to agree or disagree on the likelihood or significance of each.

Building upon the concept of Google's Pagerank algorithm, which evaluates a webpage's strength based on the number and quality of its links, a similar mathematical approach could be used. This approach, called 'ReasonRank', would measure the strength of reasons for agreement or disagreement, considering the quantity and quality of supporting evidence and arguments. This methodology ties the strength of findings to the strength of the evidence supporting them. Reasons backed by more robust evidence would, therefore, carry greater weight when supporting other conclusions. To ensure accurate measurements, a separate algorithm would be employed to group similar statements expressing the same idea, thereby avoiding the issue of double-counting. Myclob (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)