Discussion
This page is a encyclopedia article.
The page identifier is Op_en2382 |
|---|
| Moderator: [[category:Moderator:Jouni]][[user:Jouni|Jouni]] [[moderators#Jouni|(see all)]] |
|
|
| Upload data
|
<section begin=glossary />
- Discussion is a part of an attribute of a formally structured object. In discussion, anyone can raise any relevant points about the property that the attribute describes. Discussion is organised using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory[1]. A discussion usually consists of three parts: 1) the explication of a dispute; 2) the actual discussion, which is organised as hierarchical threads of arguments; and 3) the resolution.
<section end=glossary />
This page presents rules of discussion engagement and discussion format, as well rules for editing discussions.
Your contribution in the form of remarks or argumentative criticism on the content of the wikipages is most welcome. It can change the outcome of an assessment; it will improve it and make the assessment better understandable for decision makers and other stakeholders. The discussions will show the reasoning behind the work done in an assessment; it will indicate the objective and normative aspects in the assessment. In this way, decision makers and stakeholders can judge themselves whether they agree on our normative weighting. In order to obtain an orderly discussion, it is appreciated if you follow the discussion rules and apply the discussion format.
Discussion rules
- Freedom of opinion. Everyone has the right to criticise or comment on the content of Opasnet pages.
- State your critique with supporting arguments or your comment or remarks on the discussion tab of the page whose content you wish to criticize and sign it. (Discussion tab can be found on top of every Opasnet page, signature can be added using the signature button in the toolbar on top of the edit window.)
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation must be related to the topic of the Opasnet page.
- Only statements made and arguments given can be attacked.
- Comments, remarks, statements and argumentation can NOT be redundant. They cannot be repeated.
- You are supposed to be committed to your statements, that is:
- a) if someone doubts on your statement (----': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)), you must explain it (edit or defend ←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- b) if someone attacks your statement (⇤--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)), you must defend it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- c) if someone doubts on your argument (----': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)), you should explain it (edit or defend ←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
- d) if someone attacks your argument (⇤--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ), you should defend it (←--': . (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ).
Discussion format
For discussing, the discussion format should be used. Click the blue capital D in the toolbar on top of the edit window to apply the discussion template. This is how the discussion format appears:
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
Opening statement: This is either
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
----1: . The blue horizontal line represents the comment button. It yields this blue layout, which is used for comments and remarks. (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Furthermore:
- If you agree with an argument made by others, you can place your signature (clicj the signature button in the toolbar) after that argument.
- Arguments may be edited or restructured. However, if there are signatures of other people, only minor edits are allowed without their explicit acceptance.
- If agreement is reached, i.e. the dispute is settled or resolved, the result can be stated at resolution.
In order to contribute to the discussion you need to have a user account and be logged in.
See also
Interesting, but somewhat outdated text on editing discussions, argumentation structures, and argument types was archived, and can be found at [1].
- ↑ Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.