CredKudo
| CredKudo | |
|---|---|
| Status of the proposal | |
| Status | rejected |
| Reason | no support. Pecopteris (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Details of the proposal | |
| Project description | An online esteem incentive for a balanced approach to contentious issues, providing an alluring new portal into Wikimedia projects and the Wikimedia movement. |
| Is it a multilingual wiki? | Unknown |
| Potential number of languages | Unknown |
| Proposed tagline | TBA |
| Technical requirements | |
| New features to require | TBA |
Summary
CredKudo would offer the allure of three kinds of "points" scorable in all-or-nothing chunks:
- POINTS OF CONTENTION: Issues characterized by conflicting evidence
- TALKING POINTS: Concise evidentiary assertions in accordance with Wikipedia core content policies
- POINTS OF CONSENSUS: The sum of the above points, scored all together or not at all, purporting to reflect the participant's credibility as a partner in informed discourse on the subject.
The overarching objective of this project would be to promote a definition of credibility by which participants would be encouraged to measure themselves, in which understanding opposing viewpoints is considered a fundamental qualification. This would be hoped to improve the civility of debate over time.
As this proposal develops, if permissible please refer to the demo site credkudo.wordpress.com for further description and mock-ups.
Detail
- POINTS OF CONTENTION -
These collectable “points” are ISSUES characterized by conflicting views or evidence, dispassionately presented, and phrased to array evidence on opposite poles; e.g. TRUE vs. FALSE, PRO vs. CON, AFFIRM vs. REFUTE:
• UNFETTERED POLICE ACCESS TO PERSONAL DATA AS SOCIETAL POSITIVE
• BOTOX INJECTIONS AS A RECIPE FOR PATIENT SATISFACTION
• HUMAN ACTIVITY AS HASTENING CLIMATE CHANGE
• AMERICA AS THE LAND OF UPWARD MOBILITY
Points of Contention might be grouped by topic:
WHAT SORT OF PRESIDENT WOULD CANDIDATE X MAKE?
• CANDIDATE X AS POSSESSING RELEVANT EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
• CANDIDATE X AS CHARACTERIZED BY ALTRUISM
• CANDIDATE X AS A UNITER • CANDIDATE X AS DECISIVE
• CANDIDATE X AS FRUGAL • CANDIDATE X AS ETHICAL
- TALKING POINTS -
These are the reliably-sourced data and analysis that tend to lend credence or otherwise inform one side or the other of a Point of Contention.
For example a rather lightweight exchange of talking points on the sports topic of TOTAL FOOTBALL AS A DESIRABLE SOCCER FORMATION might include the following Pros (⇑) and Cons (⇓):
- POINTS OF CONSENSUS -
This is where the rubber hits the road in terms of point accumulation. All the work to properly distill and phrase Points of Contention and research and populate Talking Points may make you a Contender® (ooh, nice!) but it CONFERS GLORY UPON NO ONE until a user peruses and ACCEPTS all talking points. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition!
Why? Because that’s the point! The credibility we’re peddling doesn’t derive from pretending opposing viewpoints and evidence don’t exist, but rather from using an understanding of the basic countervailing evidence as a springboard for advanced problem-solving.
Usage Scenario
Joe Blogs is a blogger. He’s seen the CredKudo GRAVATARS around the message boards, and craves likewise to trumpet his legitimacy as a partner in informed social discourse. Besides, Joe has a burr in his saddle over the widespread presumption of an individual right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when it seems obvious to him #2 arose rather from local/regional militias’ interest in retaining the wherewithal to resist outside tyranny, and therefore conferred a collective rather than individual right.
So Joe heads over to CredKudo.org and gets himself all configured... maybe he has his choice of CONTENTION MOTIFS or other niceties that probably aren’t necessary. But he’s anxious to set himself to some myth-busting!
PROPOSED POINT OF CONTENTION:
| Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution as conferring an individual right to bear arms |
PROPOSED TALKING POINT:
| ⇓ Framers intended collective right |
Joe’s first challenge is to ensure that his points are reliably sourced with a neutral tone (in accordance with Wikipedia core content policies) in order to avoid a biased presentation; after all, we’re seeking the core of evidence on which all can agree. Joe’s Point of Contention seems to pass muster; but his Talking Point commits the gaffe ol’ Perry Mason used to call “assuming facts not in evidence.” Joe will need to engage in a modicum of research.
A review of the literature affirms lively debate on the subject, and Joe ends up walking his Talking Point back to something more neutral and better supported:
| ⇓ Scholarly analysis suggesting framers meant collective right in conjunction with service in militia |
Of course Joe’s Talking Point won’t even SAVE without citation of a reliable source; so he goes with Kenneth A. Klukowski, Armed by Right: The Emerging Jurisprudence Of The Second Amendment, 18 Geo. Mason U. Civ. Rts. L.J. 167, 176 (2008)
Congrats Joe… you’re in tentative possession of 1 Contention Point + 1 Talking Point = 2 CredKudo points! Except for one problem: one-sided arguments do not CredKudo Points make. Absent opposing Talking Points there’s no contention, and nothing to “score” by achieving consensus. Joe’s tentative points would remain so forever… never “vested”, not CredKudable — a dull ache in his soul.
To Joe’s rescue (and chagrin) comes the unlikely hero of the story in the form of District of Columbia v. Heller — settled constitutional law supporting an individual right to bear arms. Grudgingly (yet delightedly!) Joe adds a Talking Point:
| Second Amendment to U.S. Constitution as conferring an individual right to bear arms | ||
|---|---|---|
|
…thus transforming a thorny issue into the boon of CredKudo points!
After a couple more half-baked attempts to tip the talking points in his favor, Joe ultimately decides to rest on his laurels and resume his blogging ways — but this time with a CredKudo gravatar bulging with points (including glamorous “contender” authorship points!) In the days that follow, he’s delighted to note other bloggistas who have “scored” his Points of Consensus. Unfortunately one such user is observed to claim Heller to be “still tied up in the courts”… that’s grounds for Point forfeiture! Knowing that CredKudo allows for CHALLENGING points in such circumstances, Joe mulls his next move.
Eventually Joe settles into the typical CredKudo routine, with authorship perhaps playing a diminishing role over time:
• BROWSING Points of Contention
• SCORING Points of Consensus that interest him
• becoming VERSED in topics, and FORGING KINSHIP with others so-versed (easing the bridging of differences later!)
• doing his part to fill the void when important Points are missing
• possibly achieving CERTIFICATION in a related group of points
• navigating the web with head high, judging others’ credibility by their scores
Proposed by
[edit]OracleFancy
Alternative names
[edit]Unknown
Related projects/proposals
[edit]CredKudo shares some of the impetus of the VotersWiki and WikiArguments proposals, seeking to enhance information and integrity of debate:
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VotersWiki
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiArguments
Its communicative units have a strong commonality with Wikhypothesis:
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikhypothesis
It has probably the most in common with WikiReason, which seeks to organize arguments on issues:
• https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikireason
The unique way CredKudo differs is in offering an actual incentive for users (authors/editors or otherwise) to accumulate knowledge on both sides of contentious issues. In so doing, it would be hoped to promote Wikimedia authorship and enhance the profile of the Wikimedia movement.
Domain names
[edit]CredKudo
Mailing list links
[edit]Demos
[edit]People interested
[edit]- ...