Policy:Collaborative thesis: Difference between revisions
m (1 revision imported) |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Length limitations on titles should be addressed in the first paragraph== | ==Length limitations on titles should be addressed in the first paragraph== | ||
[[File:Counterpoint text.jpg|alt=Alternative text just comes up when a reader highlights the Counterpoint image|thumb|To insert a comment, go into Edit mode, Select Insert, select Image "Counterpoint text.jpg" and then enter the text and link in the Caption area. | |||
In the text box, you can insert a link by selecting the link symbol, then typing in the name of the article, such as [[Global warming is mostly due to human activity.]] ]] | |||
The software for this site does not support titles exceeding 256 characters. It will also not accommodate [[Help:Page_Title_Restrictions| some special characters]]. | The software for this site does not support titles exceeding 256 characters. It will also not accommodate [[Help:Page_Title_Restrictions| some special characters]]. | ||
Latest revision as of 10:50, 24 September 2021
Collaborative thesis pages exist for anyone to contribute articles that argue in favor of a specific thesis, proposition, hypothesis, theory, or view point.
Titles for collaborative thesis pages must be precisely worded
Preferably, the title of the page should be a carefully considered and precisely worded thesis statement of the exact proposition being advanced by that page, for example: "Global warming is mostly due to human activity."
The reason it must be "precisely worded" is that even a single word may make that thesis more or less acceptable to others who would agree or disagree with it. For example: "Global warming is largely due to human activity." is much different than the previous example, much less the proposition: "Global warming is only modestly affected by human activity."
Since one of our goals is to have tools for allow editors, readers, and self-identifying experts to score their level of agreement or disagreement with a specific proposition, the exact wording of the proposition statement is perhaps even more important than the arguments and evidence provided to support it.
.
It is natural and expected that many proposition statements will eventually be abandoned. The whole purpose of collaborative debate is to improve the refinement and articulation of facts, conclusions, and opinions.
Therefore, it is natural and expected that viewpoints will evolve and will require a revised or more nuanced thesis statement, resulting in the need to create a new thesis page. If and when it become evident that there are no editors willing to defend a poorly worded and abandoned thesis statement, and Abandoned Template should be added to the beginning of the article, with a link to an actively defended proposition(s) which has superseded, in to notify readers of which related propositions continue to have support and to create a history of changing understandings.
Length limitations on titles should be addressed in the first paragraph
The software for this site does not support titles exceeding 256 characters. It will also not accommodate some special characters.
It the exactly phrased thesis statement will not into the 256 character title limit, you may use a paraphrase, or even a version number (ie:"Over 40% of global warming is caused by humans burning of fossil fuels in the northern hemisphere. Ver 3")
In any case where the title is not the exactly phrased proposition being defended, the first sentence of the introduction should begin with a clear statement of the effect of, "Exact Statement of Proposition: . . . " In may actually be a good practice to do the same even when the title is already the exact proposition.
In order to make it easier for people to find your article, it is important for you to do the following:
- Consult the Existing Categories page (and search key terms using the Category Tree tool to identify the category tags you should use at the bottom of your page to link it article so it will be automatically indexed with articles related to the same topic.
- Examine existing link pages, or create a new one, adding your thesis statement to the list of related or competing thesis statements.
- Examine related, similar, or competing thesis pages and encyclopedic articles and add a link in the appropriate space provided for related or competing thesis pages.
- When appropriate, create a side bar comment in related or competing thesis pages briefly stating your key counterpoint argument with a link to your favored thesis page. Do this sparingly. Do not dispute every paragraph, and preferably not more than a single paragraph. Our overarching goal is to avoid disrupting a readers experience with the proposition being defended while at the same time providing a sidebar alert that a specific premise of the argument has been challenged elsewhere, which the reader may wish to examine. Respect other thesis pages as you would like others to respect yours.
Proponents responsibility to delete off topic comments and links
The core goal of SearchForTruth is to provide a platform for collaborative debate in which all sides of any debate have a fair opportunity to make their views available to readers. That doesn't mean readers are obligated to read all viewpoints, but rather that they can at least easily find representative links to competing viewpoints.
Put another way, not every link to article related to competing viewpoints must be included. Too much information (links to hundreds of articles) can be just as unhelpful as too few.
A preference for links to other views should be given to those that are the most narrowly focused responses to points raised in the main article. As discussed in the policies regarding Personal thesis pages, the author of a page that covers a wide variety of issues should not expect to have a link to his page inserted into an collaborative thesis page that is narrowly focused...most especially if the points he/she raises are already addressed in alternative collaborative thesis pages that are already linked in the main article.
As a general rule, the preference is for linking collaborative thesis pages to other collaborative thesis pages with alternative views, as these are intended to provide an opportunity for multiple authors to contribute the best arguments to each thesis. Private thesis pages are not preferentially linked unless they are focused and high quality . . . which may be common when professional academics are weighing in, but simply prefer to retain their copyrights.
If necessary, SearchForTruth arbitration is available to resolve any conflicts.