Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Liuxinyu970226 in topic The actual status


Relation to w:Wikinfo[edit]

  • Can you please explain how (if at all) this proposal would differ from w:Wikinfo, which likewise splits a topic into a number of articles each with a specified point of view. It also appears to be very similar to what occurs on Wikipedia talk pages... GeorgeStepanek 20:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikinfo attempts to basicly clone wikipedia but from a sympathetic point of view. Wikibate would be only pages of highly organized arguments and counterarguments, which could be linked to by wikipedia in the way wikibooks and wikiquotes are. David Bruhn 21:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • This means that wikinfo can already be used to set up the basic idea. Let us start doing so. The suggestion is to use wikipedia for the general entry, then link to wikinfo for detailed steps in the argument. It can evolve into a common format and then split off as a separate wiki. User:Colignatus Feb 25 2005
        • Two problems I see. First, Wikimedia likely has a problem linking to non-foundation sites in the manner that it currently does with projects such as Wikibooks. Second... I haven't seen any examples of this at wikinfo. I guess it could be made there, but if it was to not immediately be a separate project than I would probably focus on a common format for WIkipedia. David Bruhn 04:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I like the point-counterpoint structure much better than having particular pages crafted to present a particular argument (as I understand WikiInfo's design, tho I can't find a good example). I think the main drawback from point-counterpoint is the difficulty of organizing it clearly, but it has several advantages:

  1. Complements Wikipedia rather than replacing it.
  2. It is modular
    1. Brings all perspectives to one page, where they interact with each other. I can't imagine how WikiInfo-style articles would handle direct responses to arguments made on another page. Futhermore, there are an infinite number of perspectives on any issue, and they often vary in subtle ways, such as whether a particular argument is valid or how a topic is presented. The point-counterpoint style allows for all of this to be included without creating immense redundancy (that would bore a reader)
    2. Repeated arguments can be split out into their own page, and referenced from other debates.

AdamRetchless 01:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


There are a lot of different formats that this could be done in. First issue is whether arguments for and against an issue should be in the same or separate articles. I am leaning towards separate, due to the length of the content.

I propose a tree-like structure, in which arguments are listed, with counterarguments listed below, and counter-counter arguments below those, etc...

  • I agree that the tree structure is the way to go. This allows for people to follow the logic of an argument and judge whether it is logically valid based on it's premises.[Brad Weisbeckerspelling corrected by Judy Gonsalves]

Perhaps some type of color code could be used to label arguements and rebuttals as to whether they are adequately answered by a counter. This would require consensus for such a label. David Bruhn 20:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I like it. --R3m0t 10:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC
  • Color coding should be used to put emphasis on logical validity.[Brad Weisbecker]
    • An important suggestion seems to be that we should use lots of links to existing (stable) sites on the internet. There is no need to burden the wiki with stuff that already exists. The wiki then functions as a reasoned google that provides a reasoned guide to the internet. Eventually, XML markups might do so too, but the advantage of the wiki is its multiple editors. User:Colignatus Feb 25 2005
      • I agree. Conclusions and premises should be kept as simple as possible. Links to supporting evidence for premises should be provided.[Brad Weisbecker]

I generally agree with all of the previous comments. However, I think that at first, for and against should be kept in the same article. If an article gets too big, it can be split up. I expect many subarguments can be split into separate pages and referenced from many different arguments. I like the Issue, Position, Argument-Counterargument format, where each position (proposition) gets its own page.AdamRetchless 01:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A major strength of wikis is that it is easy to link to other articles in the wiki. This is useful for discussions since more than one argument may rest upon a particular proposition. For example, many arguments may be based upon the debatable proposition that "the Bible is the word of God", which could have its own page. Unfortunately, there is generally more than one way to write a particular proposition; for example, "the Bible is the word of God" is roughly synonymous with "the Bible is divinely inspired", or "God commanded Moses to write the Torah". If page titles are propsitions, then it may be difficult to find the page that you want to link to. Please suggest any solutions that will make it easy (or inevitable) for editors to link to the right article. AdamRetchless 19:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is quite amazing that this idea has been come up with here, as I have been pondering how exactly I will do it in the future myself. Since it is already being discussed however, I thought I might give my idea of the format.

  • A general idea of what the debate is about would head the page, along with necessary background info. At the end of this header, an assertion will be made and this is what the debate is about.
    • The Background of the debate need only be a sentance or two long, anything longer and the debate header itself will be contested.
  • Two sided debates would be split into two columns.
    • The left column would have the original assertion that starts off the debate, along with a few seed assertions on each side.
    • If you had something to add to one side or the other, you would click a button to add an assertion(for lack of better word; this could instead be a peice of evidence, past history, an analogy to help explain the argument, etc).
    • If an argument is in responce to another, instead of clicking add an assertion, you would click on the argument that it is in responce to and have the options to
        • Support the argument
        • Give a counter argument
      • This new argument would be then lined up with the one it is respopnding to so that the debate can be easily viewed and so each side can easily see both sides of every shred of evidence.
    • If you wanted to contest the validity of someone elses assertion you would click on contest and add your argument in repeal to the other.
      • This in turn would turn the contested argument into its own debate that can have its own sub assertions.
    • Throughout the process (through a method yet unkown to me, maybe voting?) every assertion would have a score that decided how much it actually supported one side or the other, if it adequatly countered any other assertions, etc.
      • The score is then added up and it would be clear which side is more convincing (which doesn't really mean anything if not all of the evidence is there).

Suggestion: instead of voting, arguments should be judged based on their logical validity. All conclusions and premises should be labeled as either logically valid, logically invalid, probable, improbable or simply possible.[Brad Weisbecker]

  • If a topic of a debate hangs on a moral/ethical issue, the debate is unresolvable and that would be clearly stated above the article.

Regardless of what happends with an official version of this, I think I will try and do it anyway, I have thought for quite a while about it and still have some unwritten ideas brewing in my head. --Loplin 00:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've begun something somewhat similar at the Wikibooks Issue Guide (and its related Voter's Guide). I've got the debate set up differently (I'm not at all committed to my format though) but it similarly allows for pages on specific arguments and the factual and moral premises that support them. The Issue Guide is very much just beginning, so feel free to relentlessly refine and improve it. TUF-KAT 02:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That does look interesting, and I can definatly appreciate the fact that it supports sub-arguments. I beleive a lot of un-regulated debates end up going wildly off topic when contesting/countering an argument and the original topic eventually gets lost. Organization on wiki would greatly benefit all involved. I think what you have started here could eventually be used in the format I have suggested. Due to some limitations in my format, I think arguments on either side will be almost required to be very short paragraphs or one sentence assertions. I think, however, that after a specific debate has settled down and all major point of views and arguments by either side are settled, the debate could be refactored above or below the actual debate layout. This would be a meatball:DocumentMode version of the debate that is more elegantly presented to the reader.
Unfortunatly, what I have suggested would not be easily done without some code written. I would like to eventually write a mediawiki extension for this but I currently have a few to many projects going on. I'll get to it someday I guess. :/ --Loplin 05:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's my piece - I think that it should be organized using links under official sections on something resembling tiddlywiki. The design is extremely useful for meta-branching, because you don't have to close your old article to read a bit on a subargument, and you can rely on the flexibility of tagging-style categories instead of a branching system. 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply


This proposal has a terrible terrible name. -- Cyrius 04:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, all the other words that could be used are too long. Except for maybe Wikiviews... David Bruhn 05:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikibate is a bad name - it sounds like a wiki for people into "self-love". The other problem is that the mediawiki software isn't really designed to run debates - better to use a forum system or a usenet group.--Paul youlten 15:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The purpose is not to run debates- in that regard, the name is a bad choice. It is to organize the logical arguments of each side. I could create a demo that we could test, if you want. --David Bruhn
"Wikiviews" would be much better than the alternative; I can't imagine the jokes people would come up with about "wikibating." 16:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I added the suggestion of Wikipolis. User:Colignatus

I think that WikiDebate or WikiForum could be good. I expect that we should be open to changing the name once we've gotten a little feedback. My site is currently called "the Pittsburgh Forum", because I was trying to appeal to various debating groups in Pittsburgh. If it gets a non-Pittsburgh audience, the name will change. AdamRetchless

In common with the ideas I've expressed elsewhere on this page, that this project would be better developed as a think-tank than as a debating chamber, I propose the name: WikiThink. This also sounds cool.

When I was working offline on my parallel, I settled on the name "Wikiforum". I definitely wante to steer clear of the -bate suffix, lest the site be accused of being nothing more than a lot of mental masturbation. Ahem. I liked putting the "wiki" morpheme in there, so it's identified with and parallel to the names of the other Wikimedia Foundation projects. I was also considering "Wikipolitics", but I think that was too narrow. I also considered radically different names, like "Political Persuasion" (a nice pun, but also too narrow). My favorite, I think was "Moral Suasion", which is the term we used in college for changing minds (and reaching consensus) through making persuasive arguments. It also sounds like it's referencing the values underlying political opinons. But I like "Wikiforum" - recognizable, extensible, serious-sounding. -- Beland 05:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and to me, a "think tank" is a non-profit that comes up with a singular recommendation that aligns with its institutional goals, not a diversity of views from different parties. So I would avoid that connotation. -- Beland 06:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

There's a vote taking place on PghForum:Name. -- Beland 06:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Wikiforum" already exists. It's a basic forum extension for Mediawiki 1.4, so giving a new project this name is going to be confusing. Angela 06:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Integration with Wikinews?[edit]

I think it would be great for ideas like this, and other ideas relating to politics (like Internet think tank(s)), to be incorporated at some point into Wikinews - assuming of course that Wikinews takes off. I envision something like Wikibate as the editorial section of Wikinews, and Intenet think tanks as the opinion section. - TalkHard 07:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm don't see much synergy between WikiNews and WikiDebate, except in audience. I don't understand the proposal for Internet think tanks; it's poorly written. It sounds similar to Interest Groups in the Pittsburgh Forum. AdamRetchless 01:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see lots of synergy with Wikinews, but Wikibate should be its own project, which can take the heat off Wikinews comment pages, and turn it into something positive. Nyarlathotep 12:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


Ok, first off, im not a great fan for any new project by the wikimedia foundation. too spread out, not enough focus. but, isnt this just going to end up as a place for flame wars, (angery) arguments, ect. by its very definition it wouldent (couldent) ahewre to NPOV standerds, which gets rid of a lot of the power for moderation in wikipedia, and would make it extreemly hard to run.

  • Items should be judged based on their logical validity. Flame wars are caused by ad hominid arguments. Ad Hominid arguments should be labeled as logical fallacies, and multiple ad hominids should be deleted.[Brad Weisbecker]

could you delete somthing that is flatly false, i dont know, like the earth is flat, or dosnt go round the sun (*and i dont mean written in a philophcal cand of way), just becuse you could be accused of "being from the other camp", and therefor committing vanduerlism...

  • False statements should be left and labeled as logically false. Invalid statements are just as important as true statements for understanding the truth. However, invalid conclusions and premises should be color coded so that they are easy to distinguish from logically valid statements.[Brad Weisbecker]


Flame wars? They occur in Wikipedian talk pages sometimes, but that's not really a problem. Stuff that is almost universally held as false could be deleted, but other than that each side would have their logical arguments represented. The other side shouldn't mind, as they can put their counterarguments. That is NPOV. David Bruhn 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • False statements should be labeled as logically invalid, but they should remain so that others do not add them. It is important not to delete false statements, because one of the main reasons to create this wiki, is to discover truth through debate. Discovering what is true is part of this wiki's purpose.[Brad Weisbecker]
  • One insult per argument should be left undelete, so long as it is labeled as an ad hominid fallacy. Multiple insults and repeats of the same basic argument should be deleted.[Brad Weisbecker]

I imagined this type of project as a replacement for Discussion Boards and Mailing Lists (and debate on Wikipedia discussion pages). I think the format will help keep people focused and community editing will eliminate flame bait. It doesn't need to be NPOV, arguments just need to be coherent. Partisan deletions of content should not be an issue since you are invited to rebut any argument in an organized manner. AdamRetchless 01:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It needs to be spread out, indeed it should be merged with WikiIdea. The NPOV standard is not essential to making a wiki work. What is essential is that POV conflicts do not create divergence. Imagine each POV gets its own section, with a comment providing a brief discription of the POV. Your quite free to rollback changes which confflict with a section's desired POV. Nyarlathotep 12:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Right and Wrong[edit]

My first thought is "hehe, a place for all the master debaters." My second thought is that it reminds me a bit of cable news. In other words, sometimes one side is right and the other is wrong. The accusations about John Kerry's war record were ridiculious, but that didn't stop the cable news network with providing both "sides" of the story and talking about it for weeks. Its the cheap way out, instead of trying to arrive to a conclusion (what actually happened) you just let each "side" have their say. I guess debates on God, guns and gays would probably be mostly harmless, but "wikibates" on "Did NASA really land on the moon?", human evolution, holocaust etc. just wouldn't do anyone any good. --wikt:en:eean

  • Your argument convinces me even more that this wiki project is a good idea. Both sides should be presented, so that invalid and fallacious urban myths, wives tails and rumors can be laid to rest. This is why it is important that every conclusion should be judged based on its logical validity.

The way people keep talking about this, I get the impression what they have in mind is completely different from what I do. Is there a space for demo pages? Or should one be set up on wikipedia or my site's wiki? David Bruhn 05:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In any case, the format I had in mind would help make transparent whether one side is clearly right or not. David Bruhn 20:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Every debate is useful. If a person has a mistaken idea about the world, the only way that he can be corrected is if he is invited to present that idea to others and receive their corrections. There are good arguments for NASA being real, evolution being real, and the holocaust having happened--those arguments need to be presented as direct rebuttals of all of the nonsense that is out there. AdamRetchless 01:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why we need to provide a place for that nonsense. --wikt:en:eean
  1. If we provide a forum, the users will use it as they see fit. It's not worth my time to prohibit frivolous arguments (is Tidly Winki gay?). It looks like we have different opinions about the nature of open discussion. You say that discussions of "God, guns, and gays would probably be mostly harmless." I say that those discussions are essential. Discussions of NASA, evolution, and the holcaust are at worst harmless.
  2. As a biologist, I have debated with many creationists. While some of them are filthy liars, many of them are just ignorant of biology (others just prefer revelation over empiricism). The "filthy liar" creationist can easily decieve those who are ignorant of biology, as long as he is allowed to present his argument in isolation from any rebuttal. The format of the forum dispenses with most rhetoric and provides an immediate rebuttal for the reader to consider.
AdamRetchless 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Existing demo page[edit]

I think my idea is similar to David's. I've started such a project, but have no community contributing. Please see http://forum-for-pgh.org/wiki http://wikireason.org/wiki.

AdamRetchless 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other demo pages[edit]

Thank you, Adam, for doing all this. I noted also wikicities: http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Wikicities with e.g. http://beyondvoting.wikicities.com/wiki/BeyondVoting and then there is http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Internet_think_tank%28s%29 while other proposals on the proposals page are quite similar (like 'share' and 'ideas'). I have just indicated which proposals these are. Needless to say that many people simply start their own internet site to develop a view.

The point seems to be that more people think along similar lines, but that we need a stable environment so that an initiative will be around for a while (forever) so that it pays to contribute.

My impression is that my earlier idea today is still best (see above): "The suggestion is to use wikipedia for the general entry, then link to wikinfo for detailed steps in the argument. It can evolve into a common format and then split off as a separate wiki."

For example, what Adam did on the minimum wage, might be transformed in that manner.

User:Colignatus Feb 25 2005

Are there any good examples on WikiInfo? I didn't see anything that was obviously different than what I'd see on Wikipedia-- I even looked at the article about Israel! Those other projects seem to have similar motives to WikiBate, but I don't quite understand how they are supposed to work. Wiki cities seems like it is just begging for ideological segregation. One thing I like about Wikipedia is that it brings together people who disagree on various issues; I'd want WikiBate to do the same. AdamRetchless

Good idea[edit]

I tried to start something similar up at Wikibooks. It's organized as a Voter's Guide but the format would lend itself towards being a broader project (see for example the Gay Marriage guide). Feel free to come over and get this going... TUF-KAT 04:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your voter's guide looks like a really great idea, which I may get involved with in the future. I think the organization would be different in the two, though, to represent different goals. Of course, if this project is adopted they could share/link information. There's a nice coincidence- the one we're working on currently at Adam's site as a demonstration is also on gay marriage. Anyone want to take a look? David Bruhn 01:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. How do we actually make it happen? The Ungovernable Force 07:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Debate presented as a dialog[edit]

I've been working on a system destined for debate (The goal is similar to wikibate, but the implementation is different).

The idea is to present the debate as a dialog of different characters, with the rules that anybody can edit any of the characters (The characters are supposed to represent "stereotypical" viewpoints - both sides of the argument.

the idea can be attached to the wikipedia NPOV mechanicm, except that instead of having "some say that", "some hold that" you can directly have the characters saying it :)

The idea, and a few examples, are explained in more detail at http://www.emacswiki.org/cw/WikiDrama. It hasen't been fully tested yet ...

suggestions and comments welcome ! :) Flammifer 17:39, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IPOV: Identified Point of View[edit]

There are a number of people who want to collaboratively develop POV ideas, but all lack the support of those who feel NPOV is essential. We need to somehow bring those who care about developing POV material together and find some strength in numbers. Here is a proposal to unify WikiReason, Wikibate, WikiDebate, WikiIdea, WikiTheory, etc.

The NPOV policy is not essential to a wiki, but you need an objective policy on POVs to make the editing "converge". A solution is to merely identify the POV which blocks of content should take: a block may be NPOV or IPOV (identified point of view). IPOV means the content is prefaced by a html comment stating the POV it must take. Such a statment should be as short and objective as possible. You may move content violating the blocks IPOV out of the block, and into a compatible IPOV block elseware, but all quality content should "find a home". The location of derivative/related IPOV blocks is determined by the page style. Some valid page styles include:


A single large (usually multi-section) IPOV block, which is the "Idea". It would be followed by other smaller (usually single section) IPOV "comment" blocks, of various differing POVs. NPOV comments would also be respected. IPOV comment blocks would be sorted into "opposition", and "support but outside IPOV".
If content was rejected from one IPOV block, such content would be given IPOV comment status, either by creating a new comment or by folding it into an existing comment which it was compatible with. No one should ever add "opposing" POVs to the Idea, but some amount of confusion surrounding the Idea's POV should be tolerated.


A single medium sized NPOV block which explains the question to be debated, followed by medium sized IPOV "position" blocks. Such position blocks may have comments of differing IPOVs. Again, content eliminated for being outside of a position block's IPOV should find a home.


One single very large IPOV block. All other IPOVs are asked to stay in other linked pages, which may have any style. Article's are obligated to reciprocate links from opposing ideas, debates, articles, etc. Content eliminated for being outside the scope/IPOV of the article should be moved to such pages if they exist. It may be tactfully deposited on its authors talk page if they do not exist, and the author is registered. Big enough articles should consider becoming a WikiBook.


You must list another page style with IPOV comments, such as Template:Idea or Template:Debate. All rules of that page style apply, but now all comments should follow some additional objective set of rules, which must be clearly stated on the page, and in html comments after the {{rigorous}}. You may ask that each comment bring a piece of NPOV information to the discussion, or just uses NPOV information. You may also curtail the sources and arguments used. For example, a debate about evolution using only selfish gene based arguments, or one using only bible quotes.


No restrictions per se. However, you must list another page style too, and demonstrate progress towards it.


A subsidiary component of another page, which must be identified in the XXX. A chapter in an article would use this style. Page style tags and rules are assumed to be the same, unless explicitly changed with the consensus of the community editing XXX.


Additional comments on another page. Page style tags and rules are not assumed to be the same. No special privileges are given to the community editing XXX. You may, for example, have a thread of nothing but comments on an article or debate. You may also have non-rigorous positions associated to a rigorous debate.

Page style must be clearly marked. You should always obtain consensus on the talk page before changing a page's style, except when eliminating {{develop}}.

You may, in principle, changing a blocks IPOV but you should be respectful of other editors POVs. Normally, this should be to improve the flow and readability of the page. An example of an IPOV is "random humorous one-liners gently mocking the article". You could hypothetically change the "gently" so as to include a less gentle one-liner, as that IPOV may obstruct the flow.

Thoughts? BTW, the name Wikibate would be quite ironic for a group trying to colaberatively develop ideas, so it has my thumbs up.  :) - Nyarlathotep 16:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Should this be here or on the Wikibate:similar page? - Nyarlathotep 17:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think this idea is great. In academia papers and authors often identify themselves with a particular POV, like PostStructuralism, Functionalism, Existentialism, Phenomenological etc. As there are already well developed views on certain phenomena held by these philosophies, there is certainly a valuable cultural knowledge base ready to bring to wikipedia. - OllieG, 22:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm thinking of renaming this proposal as "wikireason". We've started a demo site, and the community at that site discussed a number of names and Wikireason had the most support. The person who proposed "wikibate" also supported the name "wikireason". Any thoughts? AdamRetchless 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply


I'm also thinking of rewriting much of the proposal section relating to wikibate, such that it places more emphasis on the demo project and the work that we've done there. One thing I want to include is an description of how Wikireason will complement existing Wikimedia projects. Any thoughts? AdamRetchless 16:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

name change[edit]

I have changed the name from Wikibate to Wikireason. The original advocate for Wikibate (David Bruhn) has helped out at the Wikireason project, and has expressed his acceptance of the name Wikireason. I plan to update the project proposal to reflect the work that David Bruhn, I, and others have done at the Wikireason site. AdamRetchless 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

moved from "proposals for new projects"[edit]

  • Good idea, I'd go for "WikiForum" (all languages)
  • Good idea. Maybe we should have this as part of a wiki for original ideas. This would organize miscellaneous ideas, original research from Wikipedia, poems from Wikipedia Sandbox, and the 9/11 memorial site. Possibly also include jokes and BJAODN from Wikipedia. Pcu123456789 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikia Debate has been shut down, and seems that a POV wiki with similar scope has been established there. AdamRetchless 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. User:Centroles - Brilliant Idea
  2. User:socratesone - That's an idea I've had for a while but never got around to, but "wikibate" sounds like it's a wiki collection of pr0n. Watch as one hot young Wiki and another edit each other... all on camera! --*Node ue
  3. User:Beland - Under a different name, of course.
  4. Aaron Einstein -After looking at the demo site this sounds like a great idea.
  5. This is just about the only proposal that I'm actually for. Just keep it organized. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
  6. Love it! Wikipedia User Mb1000
  7. Yes. I had this idea back in November 2004. --Wonderfool
  8. I already have controversies to debate there. Bruno Negrao
  9. Yes! Inge Habex
  10. Hanju Great idea. Im all in. NAME CHANGE REQUIRED!!!
  11. User:Sean 0000001 I'm in. I saw the idea at "Conservapedia," and I thought that it was brilliant! If we have it here, though, we'll get a much broader range of opinions, and I, for one, look forward to that. Please keep me updated with how this proposal is coming along. Thanks! Sean 0000001 09:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply


This is not a kind of project wikimedia has. It is not a bad idea though :) --La gloria è a dio 19:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

New reasoning wiki[edit]

I've set-up a wiki for reasoning which seems to be the kind of thing people are discussing here: http://www.chainsofreason.org/wiki/Home Hensa 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Link update: http://www.chainsofreason.org

Wikipedia Ref Desk discussion[edit]

A discussion about the need for a wiki which allows opinions is currently taking place at: [1]. We currently get quite a few opinion questions at the Wikipedia Ref Desk, and it would be nice to have a place they could be redirected, like this. StuRat 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The actual status[edit]

PNP says "Closed as part of a reform of the request process. (Could be re-opened under new policy)" but this page looks rather like opening? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply