Talk:Nugget

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

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Name of this entity should be statement (or claim, or something else) instead of nugget 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. 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) ----4: . Another possibility is "view", which allows for opinions of varying stringency, while "claim" conveys the idea of being a very strict statement or even a requirement. --Erkki Kuusisto 16:34, 3 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)