Talk:Wikimania 2009 poster abstract: Opasnet - a wiki site for improving societal decision-making

Opasnet as a systematic science-policy interface

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Systematic policy guidance is a necessary aspect of Opasnet and deserves being explicitly mentioned alongside, or instead of, interaction with public audience. Closing statement: Scientists, and policy-makers to be added alongside general public as main target groups of Opasnet (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1:: . One of the driving forces, if not the main force, behind Opasnet development is the need to enable more systematic analysis of impacts of societal decisions, and thereby develop a better functioning science-policy interface that is (at minimum can be) policy prescriptive according to the state-of-the-art scientific understanding about societally important issues. Only bringing up the interaction with public audience undermines this important, and scientifically interesting, aspect of Opasnet --Mikko Pohjola 21:27, 28 April 2009 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--2:: . If interpreted broadly, societal decision makers belong to public audience. Furthermore, the societal decision makers are representatives of the citizens (public audience being interpreted as somewhat equivalent to lay people here) and the informed, aware and determined public audience is what makes the decision makers move. Thereby, public audience holds it place as the main target of Opasnet. --Mikko Pohjola 21:27, 28 April 2009 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--4: . Open assessment explicitly distinguishes assessors (knowledge producers by appointment), decision makers (knowledge users by societal position), and other stakeholders (virtually everyone else). This is also along the lines of common discourse on related topics. For clarity it is worth sticking to this distinction, as these different roles do take differing points of view to the processes and products of assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--3:: . Yes, concept of public audience is not expressed clear enough. Actually it should cover at least scientists, policy-makers and public audience. --Juha Villman 08:22, 29 April 2009 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)