Re:Please Bring Back Our Downvotes: Society Desperately Need...
by ohyeshedid on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @02:01PM
(#27987147)
Have you ever thought about becoming a Wikipedia contributor?
Re:Please Bring Back Our Downvotes: Society Desperately Need...
by bee_rider on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @02:04PM
(#27987223)
Wikipedia is cool (so is stack overflow). However I prefer to engage in arguments that do actually terminate at some point.
Actually, though I think there's something to be gained by reading something that is explicitly phrased as a back and forth argument, rather than an explanation. Arguments between informed people usually bring up objections that I wouldn't have thought of, or that somebody writing an encyclopedia entry wouldn't want to deal with.
1) Votes are tied to comments inherently
2) People can argue with those comments
3) Eventually, when a consensus may be reached in the follow up comments (by having most objections to an argument downvoted to oblivion I guess)
4) If so, the thread is replaced with a stub that summarizes it (maybe participants can vote on the person who they'd like to summarize the thread)
5) People can go on to argue with that stub
Might be neat. The intent would be to create a system that is more directly acrimonious, with the hope that we could eventually actually snip off tangents and create a high-quality argument on a topic as a community. I don't know if it actually is possible to do enough cat-herding, such that an actual high quality argument is produced, but it would be an interesting experiment.
There are lots of details that would have to be sorted out, for example it would probably be necessary to group posts as "jointly in support of argument(X).point(Y)" in a way that makes it possible to respond to them jointly with a single counterargument, while still keeping the system from devolving into two sides with horns intractably locked.