Jump to content


From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Welcome to the Forum of Wikiphilosophers! Here, you can discuss ideas and potential solutions for issues that the wiki may encounter. Some questions may be answered in the FAQ!


This discussion has been moved from the main page.

I contacted Kialo via email and they informed me that switching to MediaWiki software is not in line with their plans for Kialo. I also took a look around the platform, but it's not exactly what I imagine Wikiphilosophers to be. Wikiphilosophers should instead provide an overview of different viewpoints without too much discussion about them. Kialo is a nice platform, notwithstanding, but it does get cluttered when hundreds of people respond to each other's comments. You would get a big family tree, as it were, whereas Wikiphilosophers should be a bit simpler and just a collection of individual views and ideas on a variety of topics. S. Perquin (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I meant and is not a reasonable thing to ask. Their design is superior for structured debate compared to MediaWiki that's why I recommended it in the first place – did you not first try it out before asking them? Whether they would add MediaWiki or similar tech to their existing may be more reasonable but that's also not what I referred to. Kialo is the opposite of cluttered, you probably just don't know how to browse/navigate/use it yet and these are not comments but arguments that made it past preliminary review and get continuously refined. Good to see they responded to your questions though.
Sadly, there are not hundreds of people in debates but it would be better if that was the case. The whole point of it (well one of several) is to provide a structured integrated overviews of different viewpoints in particular without too much discussion about them while your proposal and MediaWiki would be more for long-form individual nonintegrated viewpoints for which again Wikibooks could probably also be used which is the second thing I mentioned. (Btw this can also be useful on structured Kialo where a claim could link there for longer elaborations similar to how tweets can link to longer texts.) So I'm just not sure how with these two platforms already existing a third would be needed or viable rather than changes / more participation in both of these. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought that if Kialo wanted to integrate with Wikimedia, it would have to run on MediaWiki, just like other projects. I did try Kialo, but I personally find that it becomes quite unseeable when hundreds of people respond. Take Does God exist? as an example. With 45.6k contributors, it gets pretty cluttered, in my opinion. There are arguments for and against, and also for and against all those arguments, and again for that, and so on. In the end, there are thus hundreds of pro and con arguments. If you look at Is scientism a religion? however, with 136 contributions, it is still overseeable. Do you get what I mean?
Furthermore, I don't understand what exactly you mean by that Wikibooks could be used for Wikiphilosophers. I get that you can reference books, but do you mean that within Wikibooks you could create such a platform as Wikiphilosophers?
I look forward to hearing from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know why you read that as if Kialo wanted to integrate with Wikimedia – why would anybody think so after reading what I wrote? I didn't write that anywhere and hope you didn't tell them I was saying that since I wasn't. It's not cluttered because it is structured, you can go to the top level and follow a branch and the n go to the top-level again and check another top-level argument in detail.
Please also make sure to read the metadata there properly, this debate had 3.1 k contributors, the vast majority making only very few claims and it's an exception since most debates get only a handful of contributors, way below 100 and that one is afaik the most popular one. The more arguments the better since you don't need to dive deep into the branches, you can choose the level of detail you're interested in. The second debate is very low quality and was biased last time I looked it up.
Yes, again, I proposed there could be a WikiProject for that on Wikibooks for example. I didn't say anything about referencing books on Wikibooks. Maybe there could be a Portal "Wikiphilosophers" on Wikibooks, there already are many Wikimedia projects and chances for another one being both accepted and well-participated-in are quite low so for that reason as well it would be a much better idea to first see if things are possible within the confines of the existing infrastructure/frameworks. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so because you said, "I think it would be better to integrate Kialo with Wikimedia and vice versa [...]".
I am a person who wants to read all the arguments, but with Does God exist? I got a little lost after reading a few arguments. There are so many tree branches, that you lose track of what you have already read and what not yet. But nevertheless, I really like the platform! Only I think Wikiphilosophers would be more suitable for me. I find it more interesting to go deep into one specific point of view and delve into it.
I don't know if Wikibooks would really be suitable for Wikiphilosophers. I would rather have a separate wiki for it. But indeed, should Wikiphilosophers not be accepted as a separate platform, I might look within Wikibooks to see if there are opportunities there. S. Perquin (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]