|Revision as of 19:44, 18 June 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 10:15, 20 June 2009 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
Next diff →
|Line 334:||Line 334:|
|== Task ==||== Task ==|
|-||Hi Matthew, I want you to document the quotes from the following source, in the [[Debate: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty| CTBT article]:||+||Hi Matthew, I want you to document the quotes from the following source, in the [[Debate: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty| CTBT article]]:|
Revision as of 10:15, 20 June 2009
Hey Matthew, it's good to have you back on the site. I've been meaning to check in with you to see how you are doing. Sorry that I delayed it for so long. How have you been? I'm going to make some edits to compliment your contributions to the year-round schooling debate. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:11, 5 October 2008 (CDT)
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)
Universal health care
I would love to put some work into the universal health care debate if you're interested? The muslim veil ban sounds good too. What you can do to help with the universal health care debate is to read some of the main pro/con articles that are listed at the bottom of the page, and help import supporting quotations. You could possible read the con articles and I could read the pros. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:51, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
Argument:It is easy to catch people with laser pointers, but it's not easy to catch people using them improperly.
I have added the text to Argument:It is easy to catch people with laser pointers, but it's not easy to catch people using them improperly as you requested. Jonathan Winterfield 14:15, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for posting that for today. I'm working on it now to publish it this evening. I really want to do a better job of keeping to the calendar, and not taking articles to a super high level of advancement before publishing them. They need only be pretty good. Thanks again. Also, I'm going to be trying to do a better job in outlining editing tasks. People want to volunteer, but it's sometimes hard to figure out how. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:19, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
I though I saw you post the assassination debate on the publishing calendar. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:20, 3 June 2008 (CDT)
I've done it through the site notice. Jonathan taught me. You can read his messages to me on my talk page. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:11, 7 June 2008 (CDT)
Site Notice is here: MediaWiki:Sitenotice. You can change it by simply editing it. But, I want a certain program to be established around the Site Notice, so check with me before changing it. Basically, I want "tomorrow's" daily debate to be listed, so that people get excited about working on what will be featured "tomorrow". -- Brooks Lindsay 13:48, 11 June 2008 (CDT)
Another way you can help now is by going through different debates and writing editing tasks that other people can do at the top of the page. See Debate:Turkey, EU membership for an example. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:51, 11 June 2008 (CDT)
I've made the lazer pointer debate the daily debate for tomorrow. It's on SiteNotice now. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:05, 16 June 2008 (CDT)
Site overhaul underway
Thanks for doing that. But, I'm trying to focus on doing a site overhaul. I'm going through each debate and establishing editing tasks that need doing. So, I would say let's not do a daily debate for tomorrow. Save it for next week. If you want to help with the overhaul. Go to popular pages http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Special:Popularpages and work back from the 250th most popular debate, creating an editing tasks section at the top of each page and indicating what needs doing. Follow my example. See what I've done on recent debates (through recent changes). -- Brooks Lindsay 18:56, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
Post it on the editing tasks, main page
Post the confederate flag on the main page at the top of the editing tasks section. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:01, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
Nuclear daily debate
That sounds good Matthew. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:07, 30 June 2008 (CDT)
Thanks Matthew for deleting that debate. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 12:19, 22 October 2008 (CDT)
Public transportation made into feature debate March 18th, 2009
Hey, just made your debate article the feature debate for today. Great work. See it on the main page. Sorry it took me so long to get to it. I've been down at South By South West in Austin Texas. You must go at some point in your life soon. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:57, 18 March 2009 (CDT)
Thanks for doing that. That is, indeed, our "naming convention". -- Brooks Lindsay 17:22, 21 March 2009 (CDT)
Re: Underdeveloped debates
Yeah, delete the non-debate, illegitimate articles that you have been deleting. Good work. But, if an article is legitimate, and yet has no content, leave it, and we'll hope to get to it eventually, or hopefully some visitor to the site will jump in. Thanks for consistently coming back and checking in Matt. It is appreciated. We're moving this project right along. Have faith. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:56, 27 April 2009 (CDT)
Would you mind posting a one sentence statement on the community forum that you are engaged in deleting illegitimate articles at the moment. Best, Brooks Lindsay 21:58, 27 April 2009 (CDT)-- Brooks Lindsay 21:58, 27 April 2009 (CDT)
Re: category link
by writing the category exactly like this, with a colon at the beginning [[:Category:Underdeveloped debates]], Category:Underdeveloped debates. Without the colon, the wiki reads the category link as a categorization of the article, and the category link will appear at the very bottom of the page. If you are categorizing articles, this is actually what you want. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:08, 4 May 2009 (CDT)
Hey Matt, couple of projects: we're trying to move all debate pages from Debate:Lazer pointers to Debate: Lazer pointers, if you see the difference. And, we're trying to move tall table of contents sections beneath the background sections. Just an FYI whenever you see the opportunity, which is on most debates. And, good work with your recent edits. -- Brooks Lindsay 23:37, 4 May 2009 (CDT)
We're making money from the ads. Or, a better way to put it, we're generating revenue for the on-profit 501c3 to make it more sustainable. Without such forms of income, the project goes away. But, what is you opinion of the ads? Do they irritate? Are they a distraction? Or, are you supportive, generally. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:23, 7 May 2009 (CDT)
Yeah, some of the ads are a little annoying. And, it's not generating much revenue, despite our good traffic. I think we're going to try to get some sponsorships from some major universities. It would be more money, and less annoying. Yeah, the categorization project is absolutely essential, and long, long over-due. I'm only about 40% done. It takes forever to categorize all of our 1500 or so debate articles in probably 200 categories.
Saw that you've been working on Debate: Capitol punishment. We have, though, an article on capital punishment under the name [[Debate: Death penalty. So, to avoid replication (and the misspelling :) ), we should merge your work on the Capitol punishment article with the death penalty article. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:35, 10 May 2009 (CDT)
Some more comments, and internship...
So, we're adopting the same "naming convention" as Wikipedia. I noticed that you moved the article Debate:capital punishment to Debate: Capitol Punishment. We are actually writing all articles as Debate: Capital punishment. You see the difference. Capitalize the first word after "Debate". De-capitalize the other words, unless its a name or proper noun. Great work. I gotta give you another award for your consistency.
Or, may we could re-formalize your role as an "intern" (not much extra work, just you doing the same stuff you are doing, taking initiative where you desire, and us, hopefully, cooperating a little more on pressing topics around the world. On the internship program, it totally collapsed before, largely because interns were simply not doing their tasks. But, we're trying to re-build one intern at a time. And, an organization that we are partnering with, the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation, is particularly interested in us re-building this program. So, let me know if I can call you an "intern" again. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 17:55, 10 May 2009 (CDT)
Hey Matthew, the hope with the internship is that you can commit roughly 8 to 16 per week. That's the hope. But, in general, I want to approach this in a fairly open-ended way, just giving you the title of intern (with no specific time-line for the program - although giving you credit for each quarter completed), and have you do the same things you are doing now, but with just a little bit more structure. Specifically, I would like us to coordinate projects more closely, such as work on the Debate Digest, categorizing articles, launching efforts to upgrade a certain category of articles like health, managing other editors, and others. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:30, 17 May 2009 (CDT)
Wonderful. The 8-hour commitment is pretty small. I think you can meet it easily, and I think you're coming close already. And, we're not trying to "give out" the internship without it meeting some minimum requirements. BUT, you've been the most engaged and skilled "intern" we've had in the past, so... if you can't make the commitment... it's not the end of the world...
So, moving forward in the "internship", I'm going to start giving you more input and tasks (that you'll enjoy - that's a must). But, we'll get to them as they come...and they'll remain fluid. Feel free to structure your own work as well, and inform me of what you're doing.
Helping new users
Matthew, I could use your help in fostering our new, engaged editors User:Wredling and User:Bizzy. See their user pages and the debates that they've created, and commit some effort to making some arguments and editing these articles, and in communicating directly with them about what you're doing. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 09:50, 29 May 2009 (CDT)
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Hey Matthew, I've directed a prospective intern name Arpita Kapoor (in a two-week trial period) to work on the Debate: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Would you be willing to work on this article as well. Arpita is developing the pro/con resources section. Could you document some arguments and quotations. It will be a Debate Digest featured article in about two weeks. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 12:25, 10 June 2009 (CDT)
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Adjusted the structure. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:09, 14 June 2009 (CDT)
Hey, any progress on Debate: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Hi Matthew, I want you to document the quotes from the following source, in the CTBT article:
Is that possible?
Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:44, 18 June 2009 (CDT)