Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arguably.io"
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
LET's GOOO!!! God Bless you JFG :) | LET's GOOO!!! God Bless you JFG :) | ||
Kind Regards, | Kind Regards, | ||
- Big Time Papi Chulo | - Big Time Papi Chulo | ||
/:) | |||
[[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Can’t wait for: THE BIG ONE^^ [[User:Antaios|Antaios]] ([[User talk:Antaios|talk]]) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Shall we include claims of the future (predictive claims such as, for example, 'Andy Warski will contract AIDs within the next seven years')? A predictive claim such as 'The average global temperature will rise by 1 degree Celsius within the next five years' can never be proven true or false, but only possible, possible but lacking evidence, possible with some support... I'm skeptical about the utility of such predictive claims on this wiki; Such claims could become messy. Perhaps we should let the reader speculate regarding the future, make his own inferences, rather than write about predictive claims. | |||
[[User:Cyanide Taste Sampler|Cyanide Taste Sampler]] ([[User talk:Cyanide Taste Sampler|talk]]) 22 January 2022 | |||
::Yeah initially I thought there could be a place for predictive claims, of course they would never be labeled as true or false until they happen or not. One of the reasons why it would be a good idea to have is to keep a record of people who got things right/wrong. For instance, some predictive claims early in the pandemic were about the evolution of variants that would surpass antibody protections, it seems like these people were right. But I don't think the predictive claims should encompass every single claim that people make about the future - for instance I don't think my trolling about Andy qualifies for encyclopedic content. [[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
I Made an example editing page with an editing modal and explanatory text about various parts of an argument. | |||
The code runs in a sandbox on Codepen.io (safe to view). I used bootstrap (prototyping only). | |||
Here is the link: https://codepen.io/DG1986/pen/XWeveyZ?editors=1000 | |||
If anyone is interested I will continue it. | |||
[[User:PapiChulo|PapiChulo]] ([[User talk:PapiChulo|talk]]) 22 January 2022 | |||
::I really like it. Is that meant to be a form or just some guidelines that people would read? [[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
I want to put a set of pre made articles on here | |||
[[User:Victory of the People|The Sharp Servant of the Victory of the People]] ([[User talk:Victory of the People|talk]]) 05:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not necessarily opposed, but it depends on whether the articles are yours (and you can consent to them falling under a creative commons license) and also they should be written as to fit the encyclopedic style that we have begun to use here at arguably.io. Focused on arguments and arguments only, valid or not valid (and labeled as such). Also there will be 1-3 subjects of controversy that we will not be touching upon for now.[[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:29, 28 January 2022
LET's GOOO!!! God Bless you JFG :) Kind Regards, - Big Time Papi Chulo
/:)
JFG (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Can’t wait for: THE BIG ONE^^ Antaios (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Shall we include claims of the future (predictive claims such as, for example, 'Andy Warski will contract AIDs within the next seven years')? A predictive claim such as 'The average global temperature will rise by 1 degree Celsius within the next five years' can never be proven true or false, but only possible, possible but lacking evidence, possible with some support... I'm skeptical about the utility of such predictive claims on this wiki; Such claims could become messy. Perhaps we should let the reader speculate regarding the future, make his own inferences, rather than write about predictive claims. Cyanide Taste Sampler (talk) 22 January 2022
- Yeah initially I thought there could be a place for predictive claims, of course they would never be labeled as true or false until they happen or not. One of the reasons why it would be a good idea to have is to keep a record of people who got things right/wrong. For instance, some predictive claims early in the pandemic were about the evolution of variants that would surpass antibody protections, it seems like these people were right. But I don't think the predictive claims should encompass every single claim that people make about the future - for instance I don't think my trolling about Andy qualifies for encyclopedic content. JFG (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I Made an example editing page with an editing modal and explanatory text about various parts of an argument. The code runs in a sandbox on Codepen.io (safe to view). I used bootstrap (prototyping only). Here is the link: https://codepen.io/DG1986/pen/XWeveyZ?editors=1000 If anyone is interested I will continue it. PapiChulo (talk) 22 January 2022
I want to put a set of pre made articles on here
The Sharp Servant of the Victory of the People (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed, but it depends on whether the articles are yours (and you can consent to them falling under a creative commons license) and also they should be written as to fit the encyclopedic style that we have begun to use here at arguably.io. Focused on arguments and arguments only, valid or not valid (and labeled as such). Also there will be 1-3 subjects of controversy that we will not be touching upon for now.JFG (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)