Talk:Nugget

From Opasnet
Revision as of 05:30, 3 February 2009 by Mikko Pohjola (talk | contribs) (discussion to format)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should we call this entity a "statement" (rather than nugget)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement:

Closing statement: Resolution not yet found.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1:: . While the word nugget has the advantange of being easy to remember, it does not adequately describe the two key aspects of the concept: 1) a piece of information that will remain in its original form, 2) a piece of information that has distinguished authors. There are words that more aptly describe these features: e.g. claim, statement. The word statement is more self-explanatory and is therefore suggested instead of nugget. User:Erkki Kuusisto (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--2:: . The word statement already has a specific meaning within the context of open assessment (see: Discussion, or the observe the structure of this formalized discussion), and thereby calling also this entity by that name would be confusing. --Mikko Pohjola 07:30, 3 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--3:: . Nugget, despite being short, simple and easy to remember, has not gained much support from the current active/semi-active open assessment community. Perhaps another name, e.g. claim, could do better in describing this entity. --Mikko Pohjola 07:30, 3 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)