Ok that's interesting, you've clearly done a lot in this space already, are you still working in this space and would you be up for a quick discussion about it?
I was actually thinking about it from a different direction.
Allow people to enter free text and then aggressively parse it out into a structure. Make the structure visible and then work with the structure. But allow the free text to stand as metadata.
Allow the person writing to highlight/markup blocks in the main text that support their argument.
The structure I was thinking of as a starting point was a list of clauses. You could then surface people stating a clause, saying that it's sometimes true or false, disagreeing with it, and detect it across the nodes in the graph making discovery a bit easier.
Or even taking a clause and using it as a starting point for a new discussion.
The other thing I think that's necessary is what kind of environment you foster. Something like changemyview[0][1] with the delta system [2] comes to mind. Simply speaking a person awards delta's when they've had their mind changed in any meaningful way by a person, and they're required to give a short explanation or statement about why they awarded it.
> Ok that's interesting, you've clearly done a lot in this space already, are you still working in this space and would you be up for a quick discussion about it?
Sure! Feel free to mail me (address in the profile).
I wouldn't say I have done a lot in this space - I am just interested in it, and try to pay attention to any new ways to structure discussions and thoughts that helps people reach agreement.
--
Your concept is very interesting, and indeed a completely different direction than what I was thinking. You seem to want to start from making free-text comments more machine-understandable, so that they can be further analyzed and grouped with similar points from other people? This seems it could mesh with what I wrote in the previous comment - I want to get a graph of ideas, and you just suggested an approach to generating that graph.
Definitely. I'll fire you an email =)... I basically want to get an understanding of what pitfalls and issues that you had exposure to.
Fundamentally however the reason I keep thinking about that graph is that I keep wanting it. I wander into a complex nested discussion online which seems interesting and just want to see it visualised. Select statements and see who's making them. Focus on a part of the discussion one step at a time. Find commonalities and differences marked up.
EDIT: I sent that email I mentioned, not sure if you've seen it =)...
I was actually thinking about it from a different direction.
Allow people to enter free text and then aggressively parse it out into a structure. Make the structure visible and then work with the structure. But allow the free text to stand as metadata.
Allow the person writing to highlight/markup blocks in the main text that support their argument.
The structure I was thinking of as a starting point was a list of clauses. You could then surface people stating a clause, saying that it's sometimes true or false, disagreeing with it, and detect it across the nodes in the graph making discovery a bit easier.
Or even taking a clause and using it as a starting point for a new discussion.
The other thing I think that's necessary is what kind of environment you foster. Something like changemyview[0][1] with the delta system [2] comes to mind. Simply speaking a person awards delta's when they've had their mind changed in any meaningful way by a person, and they're required to give a short explanation or statement about why they awarded it.
--
- [0] https://changemyview.net/
- [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/
- [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem