FixMe. 번역할 것.
{{|
Separate concept pages from argumentation pages
Separate concept pages from argumentation pages
Many arguments are fruitless only because the participants understand the terms to mean different things. One argues for, another argues against, and neither sees that their arguments pertain to no common subject matter.
By arguing before understanding, a new idea cannot be heard. Having posted a devastating criticism, the criticizer demands to collect his points for successfully debunking a foolish idea. Consequently he doesn't want to hear that he was attacking something that the other person never had in mind or that his opponent's idea is much more insightful than what he imagined.
Pages that define a concept contentiously seem unfair and unnecessarily provoke hostility. For example, a "
FreeMarket" page that defines free market as, "A theoretical construct of no applicability in the real world."Therefore:
Put severe argumentation only on pages named for a proposition. For example, "
FreeMarketIsBad".Put exposition on pages named for a concept. For example, "
FreeMarket". Don't argue here, and don't define the concept contentiously. Create no DevilsDictionary pages. Name concept pages in such a way that the name can be used in a sentence. If conversation on argumentation pages yields multiple interpretations of the term, post them all on the concept page.If the argument is complex, do not try to carry out argument both pro and con on one page. Put the arguments on pages named for the propositions they support. For example, "
FreeMarketIsGood" and "FreeMarketIsBad".If there are many arguments, list them (possibly as WikiNames) on a single page. For example, "
FreeMarketProAndCon". Individual pro or con pages can be named after a succinct summary of the argument, like "FreeMarketIsFairestSystem", "FreeMarketIsMostEfficient", etc.see also DaleCarnegie