Open Assessors' Network

This page is a encyclopedia article. The page identifier is Op_en2311
Moderator:Nobody (see all) Click here to sign up.
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en2311}}

<section begin=glossary />

The Open Assessors' Network (Opasnet) is a mass collaboration project for open assessors, that is people who are willing to promote the open assessment practices in the aim to improve societal decision-making. The major part of the collaboration happens on the website of this network: http://www.opasnet.org (to be opened soon, currently we use http://heande.pyrkilo.fi).

<section end=glossary />

The Opasnet is based on the idea that assessments should no longer be done in closed expert groups that produce some static reports that may or may not answer the questions a decision-maker actually has, and that are only as credible as the expert group is. Instead, two improvements are needed. First, an assessment should be built on an explicit information need that is defined by an open deliberation between experts, decision-makers, and stakeholders. Second, everything in the assessment - including premises, data sources, modelling, and conclusions - is open to scientific criticism. To be able to perform such assessments in practice, several things must be available. The Opasnet aims to provide these things that are briefly described below (with links to more extensive pages).

We need a common platform or workspace where all these interested people may meet and work together. In practice, the core of the system must be based on an Internet workspace, although all traditional methods of group work (such as stakeholder meetings) should still be used and are available. But the products from traditional methods should be incorporated into the core system so that everyone who were not in a meeting still can read about the conclusions. This wiki-based website works as the core platform for this mass collaboration effort.

We need a systematic information structure for all the parts of an assessment. A crucial problem currently is that the information useful for the assessment is sparsely located. The major task of performing the assessment is to collect the relevant pieces of information and synthesise them. Also, many stakeholder involvement projects have ended up to a failure, either because a large amount of feedback was so unstructured that there were not enough resources to make anything useful out of it, or because people guessed that this would happen and did not give any feedback in the first place. Therefore, the assessment must have a clear but flexible structure where the right location of ANY relevant piece of information can fairly easily be found. This way, it will become possible to save resources in organising information. Each contributor should himself or herself find the right location for his or her comment. Although it is extra work for the contributor, he or she can more easily see the importance of the contribution. One of our slogans is: "There is no such thing as a general comment."

The systematic information structure is performed using standardised information objects. The most important ones are called variables (descriptions of real-world phenomena), assessments (descriptions of the questions and conclusions of a particular policy need), and methods (descriptions of how to actually perform a work that is needed for an assessment). Importantly, an assessment consists of variables and the causal connections between them.

We need a systematic way for discussion and dealing with disputes. For this, we use the approaches of pragma-dialectics, a scientific theory of argumentation that looks at argumentation as a speech act. In this view, argumentation contains both the argumenting (act) and the argument (content). The argumentation is operationalised as Talk pages (see the 'discussion' tab on the top of each page) with some practical tools to help on-line discussions. Of course, other methods for discussion are allowed, but the main contents should be transformed into the core system after the discussion, so that others can see the results.

We need systematic methods for doing assessments. This can be a guidebook about how assessments are done in general, and methods about particular pieces of work. We are collecting work descriptions to this website (for examples, see a category for methods. We are also collecting software tools for pieces of work that are either difficult to do without existing tools, or that repeat from one assessment to another in a very similar way, thus enabling standardisation of the work. For examples, see a tool category and a category for Analytica tools.

We need an information source that contains results from previous assessments. This information can then be utilised in other assessments either as such, or after adjustments for new situations. In any case, the more information assessors provide for others, the easier it will become to perform new assessments. The information can be either assessment models, or model results. Both types of information is provided on this website.

Preliminary versions of all of these methods, websites, tools, and information sources already exist on this website, and they are available to anyone. The Open Assessors' Network invites you to participate in making assessments and improving the system for the benefit of future decision-making and the future world.

Comparison of Wikipedia and Opasnet

Property	Wikipedia	Opasnet
Five pillars of Wikipedia
Purpose	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. The purpose is to produce information that is of general interest.	The purpose is to produce information that is directly relevant for societal decision-making, often targeted for a specific decision process.
	All articles must follow our no original research policy, and strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references.	Same, except that original research is allowed.
Neutral point of view (NPOV)	Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as the truth or the best view.	Same. However, the scopes of most Opasnet articles are much more precise than in Wikipedia. Therefore, more detailed argumentation is possible and often required. The text on the main page must faithfully follow the resolutions of the argumentation presented. However, neutrality is not required in the argumentation itself. One purpose of Opasnet is to resolve disputes, not just report about resolutions.
Copyright	Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)	Same.
Code of conduct	Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Assume good faith.	Same.
No firm rules beyond the five pillars.	Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes.	Same, except that rules derived from the open assessment method apply as well. However, the Wikipedia approach is a good start. Be bold and provide your knowledge for common good even if you are not sure about all conventions. When disputes arise, the open assessment method is the ultimate rule. Remember that it is much easier to proceed with good information in a wrong format than with the right format but no information.
Other aspects
Main contents	Encyclopedia articles.	Assessments, divided into variables. Also, method articles for performing assessments, and encyclopedia articles of specific topics.
Page subtitles	Based on need and conventions related to the topic: e.g. General, History, References, External links.	Based on open assessment method: Scope, Definition, Result. Also voluntary subtitles based on need: e.g. See also, References.
Resolving disputes	Discussions on the Talk pages. Guidance for dispute resolution.	Same, In addition, formal argumentation is used to organize and resolve discussions on the Talk pages.
Page protection	Most pages can be edited continuously. Some system pages are protected.	Same. However, there are also Nugget pages that have distinct authors and cannot be edited by others.