|Revision as of 16:29, 23 May 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 05:01, 27 May 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(→Debate:Drinking age, lowering of)
Next diff →
|Line 199:||Line 199:|
|Saw your edits. Good work. I've made some more. Would you mind applying the model, bolding argument "claims", and starting to organize subquestion sections better with actual subquestions. As you've probably noticed, this content is from Debatabase, another IDEA project. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]] 11:29, 23 May 2008 (CDT)||Saw your edits. Good work. I've made some more. Would you mind applying the model, bolding argument "claims", and starting to organize subquestion sections better with actual subquestions. As you've probably noticed, this content is from Debatabase, another IDEA project. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]] 11:29, 23 May 2008 (CDT)|
|+||Hey Matthew! What are you interested in collaborating on? What debates are you interested in right now? Let's plan to work together a little more. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]] 00:01, 27 May 2008 (CDT)|
Revision as of 05:01, 27 May 2008
Hey, I would imagine you'd get into Debate:Vegetarianism and the Debate:Animal rights. I'm going to be cross-applying many of the arguments from Debate:Animal testing. Part of the flexibility of our approach is that a single argument page can have multiple "parent debates". -- Brooks Lindsay 11:13, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
How's it going?
How's it going overall Matthew? Do you have any questions? I'm following what you're doing on the Recent Changes. Great Work. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:37, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
On the user, Showstopper, just make sure to "sign" your comment so that he/she can comment back to you, or ask questions back to you. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:37, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
First, look on the history page and find out who created the page. Send them a message, saying, "hi, thanks for creating the page, but this is not a proper page according to our rules..." Then, go ahead and delete the page. Use the delete tab that you have as an administrator to do this. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:46, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, I just posted the capital punishment debate with a major overhaul of it completed. Yet, I didn't get a chance to do a final proof read of it tonight. I'm going to bed now. Would you be willing to proof read it for mispellings and for whatever other improvements you want to through in. More soon. All the best Matt. -- Brooks Lindsay 01:49, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
I'll be working on capital punishment today and tomorrow. I saw that you made an edit there. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:22, 30 April 2008 (CDT)
Maybe, but, establishing an Australian republic does not necessarily mean abandoning the commonwealth. Many people argue this, pointing out that there are many "commonwealth republics". So, it is not clear that a republic would entail foregoing the games.-- Brooks Lindsay 18:08, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
The "vandalisms" were actually a "bug" problem in a new upload of the software we've developed. We fixed the problem.
Yes, but let's keep vigilant. Good work Matt. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:49, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
The way to resolve this is to go back in history. No...seriously. Each page has a history tab. Go to it for this debate. Go way back, like months ago, and click "last". You'll see argument two. Click "edit", cut argument two out, and then return to the modern draft, where you should paste it back in. This is tricky because of the code. Remember to cut the code that appears above the subquestion itself. Don't worry if you make a mistake, I help out. But give this a try yourself. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:19, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
How to "rollback"
To "rollback" the edits of a particular user, you can, in the recent changes, click on their name or their IP address, and then click on "rollback". -- Brooks Lindsay 20:06, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Yeah, please do. I've blocked many of them. But, they keep on doing this. I've rolled back as many of their changes as I could. We're trying to deal with this on a larger level too, possibly disabling anonymous edits. Thanks for offering to help Matt. All the best. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:58, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Australian Republic it is
That sounds good Matt. It is certainly heavily debated around the world. Let's do it today. Then, we're going to focus on Polygamy tomorrow. And then Euthanasia. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:15, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
Hey Matt, let's start moving some of our Debatepedia Project conversations to the Community Forum. People need to see that a community is forming. Also, consider posting editing tasks that you see on the "editing tasks" page. These are community-building steps that we need to be taking. All the best. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:18, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
The site is based on the internet. It's universal! :) Use what is universal; kg. In general, we're trying to make sure we don't come off as too US-focused - we are trying to be universal. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:12, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
Matt, definitely put that argument up as the argument of the week. Certainly, I haven't been keeping that section up to date.
I have a good idea. Why don't you take over the responsibility for the argument of the week and for cycling the "underdeveloped debates" section through, on a semi-daily basis. Focus on those two areas of the main page. I'll check what you're up to and give assistance. I'll focus on the rest of the main page. You back up what I do and give assistance.
Separately, I'm considering openning a section on the main page called "Key debates". It's important to highlight the "bread and butter" debates on the main page that only get momentary attention through the daily debate digest. -- Brooks Lindsay 00:30, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
Tibet off main page, just for a day or two
Matt, you did the right thing, but I removed the Tibet debate again. It's just not ready, and we're expecting some important supporters of the site to come on to view content in the coming day or two, so I'm not trying to risk that they observe a sub par debate on the Daily Debate Digest. No worries, I'll put it up soon. And, as soon as these politics pass, you will be much freer to do what you've been doing -- Brooks Lindsay 13:08, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
Totally cool Matthew. It's still not done (and it never will be), but that's my side of the court, not yours. Good work. Now, we're going to focus on really refining the Tibet and Iraq debates for a couple of debates. The reason is, to some extent, because we got a potential institutional supporter that's going to be looking at the site, and their editorial standards are high, so we need to impress. -- Brooks Lindsay 02:32, 16 April 2008 (CDT)
You are formatting arguments in the following ways...
We still need something to put our shopping in.
Banning plastic bags would save plastic, but add to the environmentally harmful production of paper and cloth. We do still need something to put shopping or rubbish in and if we stop using plastic for the bags, we'll start using another resource which will be bad for the environment such as paper or cloth. We do need plastic.
The standard format we've adopted is to format them like this....
- We still need something to put our shopping in. Banning plastic bags would save plastic, but add to the environmentally harmful production of paper and cloth. We do still need something to put shopping or rubbish in and if we stop using plastic for the bags, we'll start using another resource which will be bad for the environment such as paper or cloth. We do need plastic.
We need to try to keep things consistent. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:09, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
Hey Matt, you're producing great stuff. I noticed on the Earth Hour debate that you wrote, "next year...". Instead, try to think of what we are doing as an encyclopedia where what you write has more lasting permanancy. "Next year" won't be "next year" next year. See what I mean? -- Brooks Lindsay 12:14, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
Publish Tibet at end of today
Matthew, we're not quite ready to publish the Tibet debate article. It is of a very low quality at this point. I try to publish debates only when they are of a good to great quality. I know this means breaking from the Publishing Calendar, but that' OK. We need to adjust the calendar around what we are capable of producing to a high level of quality. So, by the end of the day... Good work for taking the initiative though. I like to see that, so keep doing it. I'll let you know if you're doing anything wrong. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:30, 15 April 2008 (CDT)
Go ahead and post the Iraq withdrawal debate on the Daily Debate Digest. I'm working on it tonight to finalize it to an acceptable standard; it could still go a long way. In general, we are also posting "primer" videos under the daily debate, as you can see. So, you could give a go at finding a good YouTube primer video for this debate, and you could try to post it if you want too. -- Brooks Lindsay 23:08, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
Main page editing
Hey, try editing the main page now. It should work for you now. -- Brooks Lindsay 22:55, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
Feature debates section
We currently consider our Daily Debate Digest section to be our "feature debate" section on the main page. So, let's focus our energies around posting what we consider the most important debates up there, eventually on a daily basis, which we are unable to do well now but that is a good goal to shoot for. What are the debates you want to post? The idea is to get them on the publishing calendar, so as to get them on the radar screen as a priority. We should be focusing squarely on what we consider the most important debates for our public audience right now and for the forseeable future. No time to waste.
Separately, I'm thinking of openning some feature debate sections for key categories on the main page. So, a global warming and green energy section. An Iraq War section. And others. You can recommend others. What do you think of this all? -- Brooks Lindsay 22:53, 13 April 2008 (CDT)
Let me know that your account is upgraded
I just did it. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:18, 12 April 2008 (CDT)
Good eye. Definitely do so. Thanks. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:16, 12 April 2008 (CDT)
Yes, you will be able to update the main page, but I would like you to communicate any plans that you have prior to making changes, unless they are just minor changes.
You will have a responsibility only to keep in close contact with me about the priority tasks of the project. We want to make sure our efforts are spent most where it has the "greatest bang for buck". You should regularly check Recent Changes, see what people are up to, and help or check them. But, generally, I want you to continue to DO WHAT YOU WANT AND LIKE TO DO on the site.
It was only "so funny" that you requested administrator priviledges minutes after a discussion I had with our webmaster about giving it to you.
All the best Matt, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:46, 12 April 2008 (CDT)
I was just talking with our webmaster about making you an administrator. I'll upgrade your account by the end of the weekend. Are you aware of what administrative priviledges will enable you to do? -- Brooks Lindsay 01:10, 12 April 2008 (CDT)
I fixed it. I think you're accidentally erasing the code that appears in editing windows. You have to try to stay clear of that. I know it's finicky, and we're working on that. The other thing is that we can't have subsections (at least at this point) within Yes and No boxes for specific arguments. Rather, you simply need to bold these argument headers. The reason is that it messes with the software we've developed. We'll consider enabling this though, and thanks for exploring the software, and for all of your good work generally. I mean to jump in with you more on the debates that you're working on. Particularly, the ones coming up on the Publishing Calendar (we've been trying to settle into this calendar more consistently - be patient with us). -- Brooks Lindsay 11:52, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
I've made some contributions to your Kangaroo cullings debate. It's a very interesting debate. Let me know what you think. I know we got behind on "publishing" this debate on the daily digest. I'm going to move it forward in the calendar. Look for it. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:34, 31 March 2008 (CDT)
Bolding argument claims
Hey Matthew, our general formatting style is to bold the argument claims, rather than making them into sections with ===== =====. To bold, you simply need to put ''' ''' around the claim. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:43, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
Great work Matthew. I'm working right now on the Debate:Clinton vs. Obama for 2008 US Democratic nomination debate if you're interested. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:15, 26 March 2008 (CDT)
Good work on that debate. I fixed the formating problems. Unfortunately, the code that makes up the structure of debates is easy to disrupt at this point. Just make sure that you're not deleting any code when you're adding content in an editing window. -- Brooks Lindsay 09:00, 25 March 2008 (CDT)
Cool. I'll take the pro case for whaling. Make sure to "sign" your comments, like on the Make the case page, with "~~~~". -- Brooks Lindsay 09:31, 24 March 2008 (CDT)
Focusing overweight passenger debate
It seems that we should isolate the topic to overweight passengers. Discussion of the costs of carrying on luggage seem to stray from the thrust of the debate. Don't you think? -- Brooks Lindsay 13:07, 11 March 2008 (CDT)To be honest, not really...
Drugs in sports
Made a couple contributions to your good work on the Drugs in sports debate. I also move the page to a more fitting title. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:47, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Drugs in sports
Matthew.graham26, great work with the drugs in sports debate. We already have one up though on this topic - Debate:Drugs in Sport. I'd love to work with you in merging the content you've created with the new debate, and then working to develop the Drugs in Sports debate to feature debate status, whereupon, we would put it on the main page in the Daily Debate digest, perhaps in two weeks. We could set a date for completing this task on the Debate collaborations page. I've made a not of this all on the Debatepedia:Community forum-- Brooks Lindsay 11:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for the tips and the help, Brooks Lindsay. Matt 04:09, 28 March 2008 (CDT)
test Matt 18:17, 7 April 2008 (CDT)
We've only sought "free advertising" in write-ups about us, some mailing list, and forums, but we could do a better job for sure. I'm not sure if we're trying to pay for ads (limited resources) What suggestions do you have? Jonathan Winterfield recommended that we do a monthly newsletter, which we are going to start implementing on the first of every month. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:02, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
Monthly press releases
The idea for monthly press releases are that we would show the successes that Debatepedia is having with debates. It could be on a pages on this website and MediaWiki provides the ability to produce RSS feeds. For expample feed://feeds.feedburner.com/WikinewsLatestNews runs of a mediawik page. I will expad this answer later. Thanks, Jonathan Winterfield 09:46, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
Saw your edits. Good work. I've made some more. Would you mind applying the model, bolding argument "claims", and starting to organize subquestion sections better with actual subquestions. As you've probably noticed, this content is from Debatabase, another IDEA project. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:29, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
Hey Matthew! What are you interested in collaborating on? What debates are you interested in right now? Let's plan to work together a little more. -- Brooks Lindsay 00:01, 27 May 2008 (CDT)