The idea I keep coming back to is something that works basically the same as how the Transhumanist Wiki's Scenarios Map currently works, but expanded to include a few more features.

The way it is set up now:

• Each claim in the argument would have its own node in the graph.
• Each connection between claims would have its own node in the graph.
• Each node in the graph would have its own wiki page.
• Each wiki page contains all of the information about the node, including tags that specify how it connects to the other nodes.
• Nodes for claims would include a description of the claim, any debate about the claim, links to supporting, opposing, supported, and opposed claims, and any other relevant information.
• Nodes for connections between claims would include an explanation of why the claims are connected, debate about whether the connection is valid, and any other relevant information.
• The graph is automatically generated by a PHP script that scans all of the wiki pages, and parses the tags.
• Clicking on any node in the graph loads that node's wiki page, which shows a graph of nearby nodes.

A BETA VERSION OF THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN UP AND RUNNING FOR MONTHS!

But noone has shown any interest in this at all.

And I don't know why noone is showing any interest.

• Is it because the core idea of the system is so unworkable that it would be best to just abandon the whole project?
• Is it because noone has any use at all for any system even remotely like this?
• Is it because noone has heard about it?
• Is it because hoone who heard about it actually checked it out?
• Is it because I've just done a really bad job of explaining what the system could do?
• Is it because the current interface is so ugly that everyone's first reaction is to turn away in disgust?
• Or is it because of something else I haven't thought of?

Please... I need feedback on this.

• If this comment is so long that you're not going to bother reading the rest of it, please post a comment here saying so.
• If you think that something like this may be a good idea, but don't feel like bothering to check out how the system works so far, please post a comment here saying so.
• If you tried to check it out, but got lost because the interface is confusing, please post a comment here saying what you got confused by.
• If you think this system is a bad idea, please post a comment here explaining why.
• If you think the system is a good idea, but don't plan to try to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.
• If you think the system is a good idea, and you do plan to help with the project, please post a comment here saying so.

I had considered posting each of those suggestions as separate subcomments, to make the comments thread less tangled, but I'm not expecting many people to even read this comment, so that seemed a bit too ambitious, and seemed like downvote-bait.

If you upvote this comment, please post a comment here saying why you upvoted.

I suppose that even a downvote would be of at least some use as feedback, but if you downvote this comment, please at least post a comment here saying why you're downvoting it.

Though I suspect that I'll end up getting some downvotes just because of the tone of this comment, or some other social/signaling/memetic thing.

Ok, I'm done being angry and insecure now. On to more useful things.

More details about how the system currently works:

Documentation on how the system works is available at the main page for the Scenarios Project.

There are plenty of nodes already set up that you can browse through to get an idea of how the system works.

More details about how the system would work, if revised to be used for argument maps:

There are a few changes that would need to be made in order to use this system for argument maps, but I think the same core system would still basically do what we want.

All of these arguments would be stored on the wiki, so points from one argument can easily be used in another argument.

We would need to add more node types:

• Claim
• more?

And we would need to add more connection types:

• supports
• opposes
• requires
• more?

Many of the existing node types would be useful for argument maps:

• groups
• people
• scenarios
• actions
• more?

And many existing connection types would be useful for argument maps:

• is a necessary condition for
• increases the probability of
• decreases the probability of
• is in favour of
• is opposed to
• more?

We would need a method for naming the nodes. One option is to just number them, but then that would make it hard to reuse nodes in later arguments. A better way to name the nodes would be to give a summary of the claim in a few words. Connections between nodes would be automatically named according to the nodes they connect, and the type of the connection.

We would also want a script to automatically generate the wikipages for all the nodes, given the annotated text of the argument, like in this experiment

We would also want to implement some of the other features listed in the Debate tools wiki page

Specifically: Probabilities! We need a way for the system to work with probabilities!

Footnotes:

I chose PHP because MediaWiki is written in PHP, and I am likely going to want to add these scripts into the MediaWiki code itself.

If this all ends up actually working, and being useful, then eventually it might be worth checking if it would be possible to do all this using Google Wave, or something else, so that the collaborative editing can be done in real time.

Question: Should I tidy up this comment some more, and post it as a top-level post?