You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants. Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.
Sophivorus (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) has put for a lot of effort to build out the Wikidebate learning project, including the Category:Wikidebate templates, etc. He has also been more-or-less personally responsible for Wikidebate/Guidelines. This page mostly contains formal or stylistic guidelines about what makes a stronger or weaker argument, avoiding personal pronouns, etc. What it does not discuss is the kind of things that can or should be debated in the first place. I am not asking are wikidebates a good thing?, but we need to have stronger guidelines on what is a topic of debate and I think that lacking some of our existing wikidebates are inappropriate. Just asking questions like "Can slaves feel pain when whipped?" or "Should women be considered persons?" are not matters of a discussion of values or abstract issues that we can discuss in a rational way. Similarly, Is slavery good? is not an open debate that I think we should host. Similarly, factual questions like Was 9/11 an inside job? or Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? are not fruitful debates that are actually learning exercises but are matters of crackpottery and idle speculation. I guess I'm pleasantly surprised that Do vaccines cause autism? and Does Hilary Clinton eat children? are redlinks for now, but I'd like to formalize it so that they will remain that way and that outrageous and non-factual debate topics are not given free hosting space from the WMF.
Do others see a problem with the guidelines only containing stylistic advice and nothing about the actual content of the debates?
If so, what kind of things are acceptable and not acceptable for debate?
I'm inclined that for the latter, we could agree that simple questions of fact are not open for debate, so vaccines causing autism, gravity existing, subluxations causing deafness, etc. are not actual debates and they do not qualify for being hosted here as a Wikidebate. As for the more deranged wingnut debates, I think we should have an aggressive application of the Universal Code of Conduct that stops us from asking if it's cool to enslave humans or if Jews have rights, etc. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I share these concerns, and I'd add that an unfortunate number of the currently extant Wikidebates fall into one or more of the following problematic categories:
Perhaps a good starting point would be: what would we consider a good Wikidebate? (Are there any?) What are the characteristics which make it that way? What makes this presentation superior to an encyclopedic treatment of a contested topic?
In addition, I would strongly recommend that the {{Vote}} template (e.g. Was 9/11 an inside job?#Votes) be deprecated and removed. If the goal of a debate is to compile arguments, then those arguments should stand on their own - soliciting the "votes" of readers is, at best, a distraction.
Hi! I think we should be very careful about guidelines that prevent debates only because the answer may seem obvious to us. If an idea is absurd, evil or insane, I'd rather just let it get brutally demolished by piles of arguments. Some of the debates being questioned here are also some of the most consulted, which reminds us that some of our readers are wildly different from us. I personally know people who believe that vaccines are dangerous, that the Catholic Apostolic religion is superior, that the COVID pandemic was a conspiracy, that we never reached the moon, and many other things I consider absurd. Even I was once sympathetic with 9/11 conspiracy theories and with the efforts to colonize Mars, but have slowly changed my mind thanks to the debates. Other people may go through a similar process while reading a debate about something they are interested in. I think there lies much of the value of this project, and that sets it apart from Wikipedia, where original content is not allowed and everything must be given due weight (thankfully). We should not silence false, insane, absurd or evil ideas. Quite the contrary, we should write exhaustively about all the reasons why they are so. @Koavf As to the Universal Code of Conduct, I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps point 3.3.3? Surely having debates about offensive topics is not the same as being offensive. Even Wikipedia has articles about Proslavery thought, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Child euthanasia, etc. That being said, we should definitely strive to edit arguments and rename debates to make their language ever more neutral, clear and sober.
@Omphalographer I agree about the Votes section. It was an experiment and it failed, so I just removed it from all wikidebates. The Template:Vote may still be useful elsewhere on Wikiversity, I think.
Ping to @Dan Polansky who contributed a lot to the project and may want to be aware of this conversation or voice an opinion.
Perhaps we should start a Wikidebate about whether or not to enforce some content guidelines?
I generally agree with Sophivorus for the reasons he presented. I stand by all the debates I created. I do not see a need for debate content policy at this point, except perhaps such obvious things such as that a debate should not be created if there is nothing to be debated. I will make some initial notes and perhaps write more later.
I considered the possible dangers of debates in Are wikidebates a good thing?; however, some of the arguments would be more fit for a more specific debate, like Should topics for wikidebates be censored? or something of the sort. Since, I felt rather uncomfortable when writing some of the debates; I remember feeling vaguely horrified when writing Is aggressive war of territorial expansion good?. In Are wikidebates a good thing? and during creation of debates, I convinced myself that the debates provide a fascinating window into human mind and the argument spaces, and that the risk of harm, if any, is no greater than the likely benefit. In the debates, bad arguments are countered with counterarguments. To be countered, the bad arguments need to be stated. The debates can act as a form of cognitive psychotherapy: things people all too often think are stated rather than being censored and then countered with some of the best arguments one can find. Let me make one quote from that debate: "In Sea-Wolf, Jack London presents the philosophy of Wolf Larsen, a captain who sees no value in human life except to serve his needs and whims and explains why he thinks so. It is not a defense of that kind of philosophy but an implicit criticism of it. This is one more little confirmation that evil ideas and arguments are easily found and authors are not afraid of exposing them."
As for Should infanticide be legal?, there is philosopher Peter Singer who argues that it should be legal in some rare cases if I understand him correctly; I did not know that before I created the debate. Moreover, the debate can be an attempt to understand cultures that do approve of infanticide: what are possibly the arguments that they use to justify such practice? And if a person does kill a newborn, what is it that can be going on in their head? The page could even serve as a form of therapy for someone considering to kill a newborn, by providing counterarguments that the person would not come up with on their own. Moreover, it is interesting to compare the arguments found in Should infanticide be legal? and in Should abortion be legal? and ask: what is it that makes the event of birth morally significant? I for one think to have learned something by having created the debate, and the hope is that the readers also learn something of value.
As for Is the 2022 Russian military operation in Ukraine justified?, I don't see how it "inherently favor a specific point of view". Both implied motions, the affirmative and the negative, are equally represented: there is a support section and an oppose section and the sections have the same features, none being given an advantage over the other. If well done and translated into Russian, such a debate could perhaps serve as a counter-propaganda. The debate also makes it very clear that the West is for the most part not like Russia in that open debate is allowed in the West rather than being censored.
As for Does God exist? (not created by me), I do not see a problem. It does not matter all that much whether someone thinks it cannot be answered; what matters is the exploration of the argument space. If there were no interesting arguments in that space, the debate would be no good, but there are in fact interesting arguments, whether conclusive or less conclusive. Paradoxically, questions that do have clear and unequivocal answers that are not culturally relative are less suited for a debate.
As for Are metaphors a good thing?, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be. I like what I have discovered while creating the debate. There is some criticism of the use of metaphor in the English-speaking philosophy that I am vaguely aware of yet failed to find online, and I would wish to add it to the debate after I find it. I do not see any harm the debate could make. If someone finds the topic uninteresting, they will not read the debate. It is true that "good" is somewhat vague and can be relativized ("good" for what?), but it does not seem to diminish the value of the debate.
As for Is philosophy any good?, some say philosophy is no good, and the debate is an attempt at a rebuttal, good or less good attempt.
As for Is slavery good?, Aristotle thought so. I do not think discussing this topic is off limits in the academic world. There is something to be learned from examining the relevant argument space. And as Sophivorus pointed out, there is Wikipedia: Proslavery thought article, with many more page views than Is slavery good?.
On another note, there is Wikisource: Author:Adolf Hitler, hosting Hitler's speeches in English. Surely those who entered those speeches do not endorse them and do not try to be offensive. Similarly, by entering arguments into a debate, one does not endorse them.
The perspective "Well, someone thinks [x], therefore, it's something worth debating" is a ridiculous position, as literally anything you can imagine would probably be believed by someone. It is not a debate whether or not vaccines cause autism anymore than they cause earthquakes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "someone thinks X" (at least 1 person thinks X) but rather "all too many think X". Thus, debating vaccines link to autism seems worthwhile, and I would not be surprised finding respectable journalists and scientists having debated the proposition at some point. I do not know of anyone ever proposing that vaccines cause earthquakes, whereas the putative link between vaccines and autism was seriously discussed in the media. If I am right in thinking that all too many people still believe that vaccines cause autism, it would seem worthwhile to try to examine their arguments and try to neutralize them with counterarguments. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can find someone who has published something on the Internet arguing that Jews are subhuman. That does not mean that this is a live debate. By having that debate, you validate that anti-Semitism is a somehow reasonable position to be debated. It's not. Speeches by Hitler have historical importance. Contemporary Nazi rambling does not. We are presently hosting debates that I believe contradict the UCoC and should not be here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯09:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the above-debated subject of the potential vaccine debate (not created yet), I linked to what appears to be a scientific article in a scientific journal, a more specific venue than "somewhere on the Internet".
I don't think that debates validate any position. They examine argument spaces. They are a certain kind of studies in anthropology and argumentation theory. The question "Do vaccines cause autism?" does not examine all that much whether vaccines cause autism but rather how do people think about these kinds of questions and what can be said to neutralize faulty thinking; it is not so much part of vaccinology (if that is a thing) as anthropology, epistelomogy and argumentation theory. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that a serious student of philosophy will run into highly problematic ideas and arguments. Heraclitus taught that war is the father of all things or something of the sort. Aristotle taught that slavery is good. Hegel taught that in order to enter into existence, a nation has to try to exterminate or subjugate other nations, if one believes Popper. To be serious about philosophy, one has to not only learn what the philosophers thought but rather seriously explore the argument spaces, overcoming the fear that what is to be found there is highly distasteful or disconcerting. Examining epistemology is a dangerous thing; if one arrives at a wrong answer about how one knows things, one may as a consequence find oneself believing all sorts of nonsense. If one studies Marxism, one learns ideas that can lead to catastrophic consequences, which has actually happened and may yet happen again since there is no shortage of Marxists and neo-Marxists. Philosophy is dangerous. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heidegger was an unrepentant Nazi and Kant wrote atrociously racist things. Whether or not someone was serious or smart about certain ideas and whether or not those are ideas that we should give credence to as something worth debating are two different things. Grotesquely bigoted and wildly unscientific ideas are not based in logic, so they are not refuted by logic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯11:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, I think we're all experienced enough to know we won't reach an agreement at this point. Perhaps we should let the dust settle and let others voice their opinions, and if nothing comes out of it, bring it up to the UCoC committee or similar. Kind regards, Sophivorus (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disengaged from this debate not because I ran out of arguments (I hardly ever do) but rather because it seemed better to let other people join the debate if they wish before it gets overcrowded by me. I am a tireless debater, but that is not always for the best.
To be specific, section 3.3 of the UCoC specifically forbids:
“
Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are or their personal beliefs
”
Presenting debates like Is slavery good? whose effective purpose is to air viewpoints which are inherently discriminatory - for instance, that "some people are slaves by nature" - is, at best, treading very close to this line. It is more appropriate to discuss these viewpoints at an arm's length, rather than airing them in a way which can be interpreted as support. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think the mistake here is to think that presentation of arguments in a debate is their support; a header used in the debate pages can be expanded to disclaim this notion, e.g. "The arguments for the motion are not endorsed by Wikiversity". In what way is Is slavery good? airing views that are not being aired in W:Proslavery thought?
The further reading contains some interesting links
Does anyone really think that the purpose of, say, libertarianism.org, is to air objectionable views and lend them support?
I am not sure I understand the phrase effective purpose; the real purpose of a debate page is to use a debate format as an alternative to monologue to document, examine and neutralize arguments and ideas. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mistake here is to think that presentation of arguments in a debate is their support - The problem is, in fact, that the format of a wikidebate makes this a very easy mistake to make. When a debate is presented by posing a morally indefensible question like "is slavery good", placing the supporting arguments at the top of the discussion makes it appear that those arguments are an answer to the question, and that they are answering it in the positive. Using green icons for each Argument for and yellow and red icons for each Objection or Argument against worsens the problem by making the arguments "for" appear to be marked as correct, and the counterarguments marked as incorrect.
Since you designed the debate format, you will no doubt object that these are very unlikely misconceptions and that no reasonable person would read the page this way. I counter that they are, in fact, very easy mistakes to make. The vast majority of visitors to Wikiversity, and particularly to keyword-heavy pages like these, are not familiar with the site, nor with the conventions of a wikidebate. Many visitors will skip past the "annoying" banner explaining the debate to read the content, and will leave the site after reading the first few arguments for a position, without scrolling down to read the arguments against it. The structure of a debate, as it stands now, inherently places the "support" arguments on a pedestal.
This is, incidentally, precisely the reason why I removed the lead argument in Was 9/11 an inside job?. At nearly 800 words, this filibuster of an argument forced every single objection onto the second or third page of the debate, making it appear that the entire page was in support of its position.
I'll reiterate that I feel that debates are best understood by discussing them at an arm's length, not by reënacting them. This is particularly true in the case of "hot-button" debates about social or political issues, where it is often critical not only to know what the arguments are, but who first put forth those arguments, and to what ends. Simply reciting an argument loses these critical nuances.
What this means for the Wikidebate format, I'm not sure. But something needs to change.
I am sorry to say that, but to my mind, the above is a list of mostly false or at least unobvious statements. Above all, it treats the readers as little children with no intellectual and moral responsibility who cannot figure out that arguments against are as important as arguments for, although the two groups are highlighted by there being separate sections for them. It argues that content being placed visually before another content is making it seem that content is more important, which logically makes no sense; before one has seriously examined the arguments for and against, how would one know that the for-side is the better one?
Specifically, as for 'Many visitors will skip past the "annoying" banner explaining the debate to read the content, and will leave the site after reading the first few arguments for a position, without scrolling down to read the arguments against it.' That is absurd, while it may be true for some visitors. If a visitor is genuinely interested in a topic and likes debates, why would the visitor ignore most of the debate? And if they are not interested, are they genuinely going to be convinced after a very cursory look at a page in whose content they are not genuinely interested? That makes no sense to me. A visitor of a debate who only reads/listens to arguments for their favorite side and ignores the opposition, although one purpose of a debate is to hear both sides, is probably beyond redemption and perhaps a result of a failed educational system.
More for the record, I did not design the argument format for Wikiversity; I discovered it and fell in love with it. Many years ago, I fell in love with a dialogue format for doing philosophy after my attempts to use monologue paired with defects/issues raised against it led to results that I found lacking. I have no stakes in the icons being used; for me, the debate works reasonably well without any icons (although I do not find the icons particularly problematic). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More on the "arguments for dominate" argument, I can easily turn "Is slavery good?" into "Is slavery bad?", basically swapping the support and oppose sections. I doubt it would help deal with your concerns, although it would address the (arguably incorrect) argument that arguments for dominate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for "who first put forth those arguments, and to what ends", that seems logically irrelevant; the logical/epistemic force of an argument does not depend on who made the argument, and what their purpose was. Yes, there is a school of doing philosophy that emphasizes history and persons, but there is a sizeable opposition to that school, and I for one find myself rather on the side of the opposition. The opposition proposes to focus on philosophical problems and conjectures and refutations concerning proposed solutions to these problems. (Although, I have no written a debate on this yet, so I should not really think anything; alas, the sceptical discipline is failing again.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now added a disclaimer to Is slavery good?: "Disclaimer: The arguments for the motion do not represent the view of Wikiversity. Wikiversity editors do not assert that slavery is good, just, morally acceptable or that some people are slaves by nature. The purpose of this page is to examine arguments in a debate format, including arguments one disagrees with."
"I am not asking are wikidebates a good thing?, but we need to have stronger guidelines on what is a topic of debate and I think that lacking some of our existing wikidebates are inappropriate. Just asking questions like "Can slaves feel pain when whipped?" or "Should women be considered persons?" are not matters of a discussion of values or abstract issues that we can discuss in a rational way. Similarly, Is slavery good? is not an open debate that I think we should host."
They're certainly stupid questions, but I'm equally certain there's a rational answer to all of them.
"Similarly, factual questions like Was 9/11 an inside job? or Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? are not fruitful debates that are actually learning exercises but are matters of crackpottery and idle speculation.".
I beg to differ. For example, the insider trading on 9/10/01 is a matter of public record and certainly worth discussing. Abusus non tollit usum. Your statement here is essentially a bid for censorship contingent upon question-begging criteria like what "we" can or cannot have a "rational discussion" about. I have some misgivings about the wikidebate format, but disagree strongly that some topics must be verboten because someone made a few asinine wikidebates like "Is slavery good". AP295 (discuss • contribs)
And we see this sort of circular reasoning far too often. It's given a thin, facile veneer of legitimacy when applied against a copious supply of strawmen like "can slaves feel pain when whipped?", typically using words like irrational, unfruitful, crackpottery, idle speculation, outrageous, non-factual. Rather than trying to defend any given viewpoint against someone's capricious (read: convenient) definition of what is or isn't "rational", It's probably best to just point out that this is question begging. Otherwise people get into the habit of accepting/using bad logic. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
I've said what I have to say. The reader can make up their mind about who's correct. You should consider letting them do the same. I'll skip getting drawn into the sprawling, back-and-forth pedantry that this would no doubt turn into, littering up the page with semantic dickery and obscuring my original point. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
It would have been easier to just substantiate your baseless claim than to ramble like this. In the future, if you have nothing to offer, then offer nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally I have a few comments about the format, and I'll start by including some of what I wrote on the Wikidebate talk page (how do I link sections without the full URL?): I have caution about this format of itemized or sequential argument, which is also encouraged in this resource: "Split distinct arguments ― If one argument is essentially two, split them apart. Keeping them separate will enrich the debate, allow others to object to each argument independently and prevent unnecessary confusion." Suppose P(A|B),P(A|C),P(A|D),P(A|E) are all relatively small but P(A|B,C,D,E)=.99, Person 1 provides evidence B, Person 2 concludes that P(A|B) is small and assigning them "winner" suggests that P(A|B) = P(A), and so on until P(A|B,C,D,E) is reduced to merely the prior P(A). Exactly how much this factors into a reader's impression, I do not know. However, it's interesting to consider for example that the overwhelming majority of people fail to answer the original three-door Monte Hall problem correctly. Paul Erdős got it wrong and wouldn't accept the answer until he verified it experimentally. On the other hand, if you tell someone there's a thousand doors and 9998 are opened, even most laymen can get it right. I don't think we should underestimate the question of formatting. Not to labor the point, but it shows how a very slight difference in wording something even as concrete as a math question can make the difference between fooling a professional (and well-respected) mathematician at his craft, and being so obvious that every tom, dick and harry can discern the correct answer offhand. I find that amazing. It also makes a good case for skepticism, in an indirect sort of way. I remember reasoning that it would not be a very interesting question unless the most probable door was the one that you hadn't picked. One need not be a Savant so long as they are capable of taking seemingly unlikely possibilities into consideration. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
One more comment in addition to what I've already written. The decision of whether or not to keep a wikidebate resource lies with the users of wikiversity and whoever it empowers with the privelage to remove a resource. Topics like "can slaves feel pain when whipped" indeed (as I've said) have a rational answer, but I think we can remove them on grounds that they're essentially spam. That said, it's dishonest to conflate them with topics like "was 9/11 an inside job", which (considering the evidence of insider trading) should not be written off as something unworthy of debate. Similarly, I can only interpret a statement like "I guess I'm pleasantly surprised that Do vaccines cause autism? and Does Hilary Clinton eat children? are redlinks for now, but I'd like to formalize it so that they will remain that way and that outrageous and non-factual debate topics are not given free hosting space from the WMF." as an attempt to conflate a public health issue like vaccination with a strawman like "Does Hilary Clinton eat children?", as well as a bid for censorship based on false grounds. As an aside, I think the question "Do vaccines cause autism?" is somewhat off the mark. Perhaps a better question might be "should public policy mandate vaccination?", which is also the title I chose for an essay I've started. So to tie up loose ends, I support the removal of the topics "Does Hilary Clinton eat children?" and "can slaves feel pain when whipped", but strongly oppose any policy that prohibits the debate of certain topics or questions. Does this not seem like the most reasonable approach to take? If there's any doubt whatsoever, a debate ought to be kept rather than removed. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
I'll try pinging @Omphalographer:, @Dan Polansky:, @Sophivorus: again to solicit their comments on what I've written above (and below), hopefully I've done so correctly. This seems like an important discussion. I don't think it's a hard problem to control spam and other borderline vandalism, but I find it rather disturbing that it's being conflated with certain debates on policy, politics and media, with censorship being proposed as a solution. It would set my mind eat ease to know that others feel similarly. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
While I think common sense should suffice, perhaps the following might be a helpful place to start in terms of general guidelines, as opposed to constraints. Debates concerning (but not limited to) the following should not in general be subject to removal: policy or law (particularly policy that is either in effect or has been proposed), honesty in the media, public health, and in general public affairs. This isn't to be taken as a list of "allowed" debates (such a thing would be even more Orwellian than a list of prohibited debates), but as something to consider when trying to judge whether or not a topic is spam or vandalism. For example, a debate entitled "Should the civil rights act be repealed?" is about specific policy/law and therefore a legitimate debate, as are debates about honesty/transparency like "Was 9/11 an inside job?". On other other hand, "do slaves feel pain when whipped?", while a well-formed question and one for which there exists a rational answer, is obvious spam. Conversely, "Which animals can feel pain?" or something along those lines would obviously be fine. Again I reiterate that if at all in doubt, a debate should be left alone. I do believe Wikiversity can and should be a venue for debate, and I would hate to see it spoiled, either by spam or by its own policy. We aren't splitting hairs here. Frankly I think that part two of the UCoC is complete nonsense and that we do not need such vague, open-ended and easily-abused policy to deal with this problem. AP295 (discuss • contribs)
And Koavf, you started the debate on 9/11, you even say so on your userpage. I realize some of its content isn't particularly good, but if you felt the topic itself was worthwhile in the first place then why dismiss it on grounds that it's 'crackpottery', 'outrageous', or 'non-factual'? I don't understand. Yet I would bet money that the following two measures would increase the quality of debate greatly: 1) allow users to sign debates and encourage users to make their own arguments rather than editing the arguments of others. 2) do not encourage users to argue a point they don't believe is true. Otherwise it's not a real discourse, but an contrived imitation thereof where people aren't speaking honestly but simply repeating what they've heard. If it's convenient to make people register in order to participate, that would probably be good too. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but the insider trading alone is fairly strong circumstantial evidence. I'm not asking to defend one side or another but surely you cannot write off the topic altogether as crackpottery, let alone propose that it and similar topics be verboten as subjects of discourse. Christopher Hitchens made it plain when he observed that news of the Iran–Contra affair did not break in the United States but in Lebanon, despite so many well-paid, well-funded and presumably well-connected journalists and politicians who work in the United States. Isn't that entirely grotesque? Why should the media receive the benefit of the doubt at all? Anyway, my suggestions will likely improve the quality of discourse so please consider them. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is "entirely grotesque" is your persistence in promoting these antisemitic conspiracy theories in inappropriate places, like this Colloquium. Take it elsewhere - ideally somewhere not on this web site. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this topic is wikiversity policy. It proposes that certain topics must be forbidden on grounds that they're crackpottery. I did not make this topic, nor did I bring up that debate first, nor did I even make that debate itself. If you don't think wikiversity should host that debate, then make a RfD. I've demonstrated with a reasonable argument that it's not crackpottery, which seems to be the benchmark Koavf is proposing. What exactly do you want from me? I'm sometimes wrong and when my work and my beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny I revise them, and that is all I expect from others. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that your reply is an abuse of the term anti-semitism, which is trivialized at the expense of the Jewish people when used so frivolously. Even before I joined this discussion, users were exploiting the term to browbeat others who disagree with vague and open-ended constraints upon discourse. I'm asking for nothing except an honest discourse here. Even if a user is misguided in their opinion, then debate should bear that out. If one is contributing to a debate then by definition they are inviting others to scrutinize their beliefs. Obviously, spam and other vandalism like "can slaves feel pain when whipped?" and "are jews subhuman?" can be removed if and when they come up, not because they should be verboten subjects, but because it's obvious that slaves feel pain and that jews are human, though any race will have its share of people who could be called otherwise. Just as obvious is that questions about public policy, honesty in the media, etc. should be kept. I've also recommended a couple changes to the guidelines that I think will improve the quality of Wikidebates. What do you think of those? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 03:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I joined you wrote a reply to Dan Polansky that began with "I'm sure I can find someone who has published something on the Internet arguing that Jews are subhuman." And you still haven't addressed my reply from earlier. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that in no way is what you described. I'm still waiting for: "What circular reasoning? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)" which you haven't answered because you didn't like it when I called your BS. Answer that first. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is and speaks for itself. To answer your second point, it's perhaps the most direct and brutish type of circular reasoning to say that we shouldn't debate such-and-such a topic because we are not capable of rationally debating it using presumptuous terms like "crackpottery", but that is precisely what first paragraph of this topic does. It is only made to seem reasonable when you throw in a few strawmen like "do slaves feel pain when whipped?" or "should women be considered people?" (for which there are perfectly rational answers) and then follow it with a question of actual consequence that you seem to feel "we" shouldn't talk about, despite strong evidence on the public record like insider trading. It's the same run-of-the-mill question begging one hears all the time. I had already explained this. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I have answered your question very thoroughly several times, you've answered none of mine. Anyone can feign confusion and keep asking for more if they don't like the way an argument is going. If you want to receive the assumption of good faith, you have to act in good faith. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 05:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You never quoted me. Please stop lying. You are not a serious person and are either incapable of understanding what I write or willfully misconstruing it for your self-serving nonsense. Who in this discussion has said that anything you've written is insightful or even correct? (This is a rhetorical question for you to consider--everyone else knows that you're just adding pointless noise.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone else can speak for themselves. You started this topic and solicited feedback from others, including the public. In most english speaking nations it's taken for granted that censorship is a bad thing, and so you can't be terribly surprised that your proposal to censor certain political and public health topics was not received with universal assent. It's more than just a bit churlish to receive scrutiny so poorly, particularly in this context and considering the nature of what you're proposing. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would a prohibition on certain topics concerning public health, politics and media not be exactly that? Feel free to peruse the list of essays on my page. Go to the discussion pages and lay into them all you like. Criticism, feedback, hatemail, whatever feels the appropriate thing to say. I'd love more critical feedback, and so it strikes me as abnormal that there's so little. The socratic method is emphasized ad nauseam on Wikiversity and indeed it's a good model, yet outside wikidebates (which themselves are hardly satisfatory, though I'm not calling for their removal) and a few one-sided examples, it seems not to factor very largely at all in the development of any given resource. It's not normal to demand censorship. People who only want to collaborate don't do that. If there are a few spammy wikidebates then remove them and be done with it, but don't ask for policy that prohibits people from scrutinizing or discussing a given topic in general. Isn't that common sense? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 07:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the fact that nobody was saying otherwise, shouldn't we be talking in terms of what we're prohibited from submitting rather than what we're allowed to submit? Isn't it rather Orwellian that we're talking about the set compliment rather than talking about the rules directly? I understand that Wikiversity is for educational, scholarly and research material but aside from the mission at hand I see no reason to discuss any policy, rules or laws as a set of "allowances". It imparts an odd way of looking at any given issue and the more I pay attention and look for it the more it begins to sound creepy, infantile and faintly disturbing. I even do it myself sometimes just out of unconscious habit, no doubt because it's impressed upon the public so often. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking in terms of what we're "allowed to do" is like any other euphemistic phrasing. There's rhetorical difference if not a semantic difference when one says something is not allowed as opposed to prohibited, which increases as the word "no" is placed farther from the word "allowed", e.g. "I don't think x should be allowed." as opposed to "I think x should be prohibited". Likewise, you've used "parameters" as a euphemism for "restrictions" or "rules". Laws and rules are constriants that are imposed upon us, and we should speak of them as such. How about those suggestions I made? I feel it bears repeating that I do think most of the wikidebates are ill-posed or poorly-worded. However it does not follow that certain topics should be prohibited, least of all those relating to politics, public health, honesty in the media and the public interest in general. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use wikidata item or wikipedia article as subject of an article
Wikidata and wikipedia are pretty good at concepts and hierarchy of them. In Wikiversity, how can I specify my article is about particular wikidata Item or wikipedia article instead of specifying wikiversity-specific category?
Basically, every article has a subject, which is usually a concept well-described in wd/wp. But instead of this interwiki cooperation, wikiversity uses it's own categories, and these categories is a proposed way of defining a subject of an article.
Currently what I've found:
1. You can mention a concept with this template: Template:Wikidata_link. It looks like this {{wdl|Q720314 }} and results in a simple text-wikilink to automatically chosen wikipedia article. Very good, but I'd like to define a subject like that, not a simple mention. Also this mention will be visible in "Page information".
2. You can provide an ui-box which helps to find a topic on Wikipedia with this template: Template:Wikipedia. It always results in "Search for X on Wikipedia" box, it never creates direct connection between material and an article.
3. Some Wikidata items have interwiki links to Wikiversity, like this one: [1]. I assume they should link to Category or Portal and not to specific article or resource.
The Enforcement Guidelines require a Building Committee form to draft a charter that outlines procedures and details for a global committee to be called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Over the past few months, the U4C Building Committee worked together as a group to discuss and draft the U4C charter. The U4C Building Committee welcomes feedback about the draft charter now through 22 September 2023. After that date, the U4C Building Committee will revise the charter as needed and a community vote will open shortly afterward.
What is the difference between this and Wikipedia?
What is the difference between Wikiversity and Wikipedia? From what I've seen, it appears to be more of a community that actively tries to teach as opposed to a community that is just there for reference. Crawwah (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got the right idea. In short:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Each page is a standalone overview of a single topic, and contains a summary of information about that topic.
Wikiversity is a collection of learning resources. Groups of pages are organized around a course or topic, and can take many forms like a set of lectures, lesson plans, homework assignments, discussions, or other things.
There's some overlap as well with the Wikibooks project, which has some textbooks.
One difference is that Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, whereas we do. Another is that the goal of Wikipedia is to publish a specific reference work: an encyclopedia. Here, we have varied projects that are all about learning and sharing knowledge in many formats. See also:
I have registered the following key differences (I hope to get this right): 1) Wikiversity allows publishing of original research; 2) Wikiversity does not require neutrality/lack of bias; 3) Wikiversity does not require an encyclopedic character. Wikiversity content sometimes somewhat overlaps with Wikipedia (but with other requirements) and with Wikibooks (e.g. Python Programming). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with distinctions above. Wikiversity is for teaching, learning, and research. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic information. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c05:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Search subtitle
When I search for VHDL, the result has a subtitle, correctly "Hardware Description Language".
However when I search for Verilog (Also a Hardware Description Language) there is no subtitle.
How do I add or edit the subtitle for a page result in the search?
Argument for and yellow and red icons for each 
Objection or 
Argument against worsens the problem by making the arguments "for" appear to be marked as correct, and the counterarguments marked as incorrect.
