Difference between revisions of "Wanted claims"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
15986523124 (talk | contribs) m |
15986523124 (talk | contribs) m (Fixing spacing) Tag: Manual revert |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Claim: "Wiki-style rhetorical annotation is a better format for crowdsourcing than other alternatives" | Claim: "Wiki-style rhetorical annotation is a better format for crowdsourcing than other alternatives" | ||
Reason for wanting this claim: It is implicit in the use of arguably.io that we are using a wiki-style frontend for rhetorical annotation. | Reason for wanting this claim: It is implicit in the use of arguably.io that we are using a wiki-style frontend for rhetorical annotation. | ||
What other frontend and backends facilitate rhetorical annotation as well as continuous deployment of epistemic resources? | What other frontend and backends facilitate rhetorical annotation as well as continuous deployment of epistemic resources? | ||
Revision as of 20:15, 23 January 2022
Ivermectin has beneficial effects against SARS-COV-2
Ivermectin does not have beneficial effects against SARS-COV-2 -- These two will be quite long because there is quite a lot of peer-reviewed literature that will need to be cited, but if someone wants to try their hand at it, go for it! JFG (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Claim: "Wiki-style rhetorical annotation is a better format for crowdsourcing than other alternatives" Reason for wanting this claim: It is implicit in the use of arguably.io that we are using a wiki-style frontend for rhetorical annotation. What other frontend and backends facilitate rhetorical annotation as well as continuous deployment of epistemic resources?