Personal tools

User talk:Jonathan Winterfield

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Thanks Jon. We're looking into the Germany thing. Generally, you've been very helpful. We're going to look into many of your suggestions, and I'll come back to you with more questions I'm sure. Please feel free to contact me with any additional suggestions that come to mind. Thanks so much, and good work with the article. I appreciate it very much. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:35, 8 April 2008 (CDT)

Moved Libertarian debate

to Debate:Libertarianism. I think this makes sense, since the scope of the debate surrounds the legitimacy of the philosophy generally. But give me your feedback. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:48, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Debatepedia:Community forum

Debatepedia's community forum is where we're trying to get the community members to request help from one-another. It hasn't picked up too much speed yet (at all), but it is where you should post requests. I will certainly join in on any efforts you propose there. The Debatepedia:Editing tasks page is also a place for this all, but has also not picked up too much speed.

Thanks Jonathan for volunteering one hour per day. I'm very excited by this. One of the things that Debatepedia can use from you is your continued perspective of the ingredients that go into strong community-building. So, be critical. :) Best. - Brooks Lindsay 16:11, 13 May 2008 (CDT)

Re:Media Kit

Very cool Jonathan. Thanks for taking the initiative to do that. Yes, we will start sending out monthly press releases at the end of this month. I'm glad you liked the contributions on the Ex-felon debate I made. I'll keep em coming. Great debate topic, by the way. :) -- Brooks Lindsay 11:41, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Subquestion background sections

I noticed that you edited in the subquestion background boxes in the Libertarian debate. What did you think of this feature? Criticisms/improvements? The other question I would ask is that we want to open up our software add-ons to the larger MediaWiki programmer community. Do you have any suggestions on this front? -- Brooks Lindsay 14:15, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Libertarian debate; quotations

As you've noticed, part of what we are doing is amassing in argument pages quotations that make particular arguments. The general idea has been to synthesize the birds-eye view of a debate in debate articles with the details of quotations in argument pages. But, also, on debate pages, we want to have a mix of summaries of arguments as well as quotations (when a particular quotation does a particularly good job of summarizing an argument). BTW, we refer to the argument "headers"/titles of argument pages as "argument claims" or just "claims". I'll refer to them this way in the future. I'm going to "publish" the Libertarianism debate on the main page Daily Debate Digest at the end of the day. You should keep working on it, and I'll continue as well. Next, let's publish the Vegetarianism debate. Great work Jonathan! You've done everything exactly right. I've given you administrator status. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:23, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


In your opinion, what are the most important blogs, websites, articles, or books for me to read to improve my knowledge of wiki community-building techniques? I'm pretty appraised in the area, but could use your more expert advice. Also, are there any primary forums in the wiki programmer community that would be appropriate for me to look at and maybe solicit volunteers? -- Brooks Lindsay 18:51, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Monthly press release

Hi Jonathon, I was wondering: How and where would we have monthly newsletters/press releases? I don't really understand how that would work. -- Matt 05:54, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

June 1, Monthly press release

We'll schedule our first monthly press release for June 1. We just submitted a grant proposal to the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation. That notion of Debatepedia defining the in-depth journalism of debates and argumentation was central in the proposal and could be an interesting focus of this first press release. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:58, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


You'll notice that I brought many of the arguments over from the animal testing debate. Many of them cross-over (they are general animal rights arguments). One of the things we have to do is provide a link from these argument pages back to the vegetarianism "parent debate", in addition to the link already provided to the animal testing parent debate (and soon the larger animal rights debate). You could help with this. It's an important feature of our model; the cross-applicability of argument pages. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:49, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Community forum

Also, what do you make of the community forum? Do you have any ideas to stimulate community engagement on it? -- Brooks Lindsay 13:51, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


Formatting is a challenging issue on Debatepedia. To add the section, though, did you use the little icon on a subquestion near where you wanted to place the new section? Or did you just cut-and-paste from another section? To fix any problems, you have to go to the "edit" tab at the top and the full page editing window. Hint: the code that makes a subsection box appears above the subsection code (=== ===). -- Brooks Lindsay 14:07, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Debatabase attribution

Don't worry about attributing Debatabase on the hate speech debate, especially if its an unknown author. In general, we have the authorization to use all Debatabase articles, and attribution is proving meaningless when articles are changed entirely. A link at the bottom to the debatabase article would be appropriate. I'm gone for the afternoon. Flying to pick up a car. I'll return tonight to check in and publish the Vegetarianism debate on the daily debate digest (hopefully by tomorrow). -- Brooks Lindsay 15:13, 19 May 2008 (CDT)


The vegetarianism debate still needs work tomorrow to prepare it to be posted on the main page. I had to fly out to Sun Valley, Idaho, pick up my car, and drive it 10 hours back to Seattle today. Agggghhh. Back in action tomorrow... -- Brooks Lindsay 21:25, 20 May 2008 (CDT)


The pro/con resources section could be improved. But, it is pretty well developed and, I think, good enough already to go onto the main page. Of course, part of developing an article is expanding the mass of supporting quotations in argument pages. I think the quotations against vegetarianism are a little weak. Other than that, I'll put it on the main page very soon today. In general, our standard, at this stage, for posting on the main page should be a "good" quality not an "excellent" quality.

You could also help open a pro/con video on the vegetarianism debate at the bottom, and find pro/con videos. Also, we should be doing a "Main pro/con arguments" section at the top of each debate page, which you could help with. There are some OK examples in some past daily debate digest debates. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:05, 21 May 2008 (CDT)

Editor of the week

BTW, I made you editor of the week for last week. Definitely well deserved. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:50, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

video surveillance debate

I realigned the first subquestion so that it corresponds with the main question. In general, all the pros and all the cons must be on the "right" side of the debate (corresponding with the main question). This sometimes means wording subquestions in a somewhat awkward manner. I'm "finishing" and publishing the abortion debate today. It would be great if you could do a proof read of it later today. All the best. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:08, 26 May 2008 (CDT)


Hey Jonathan, I like the previous title of this debate "Debate:Are wikis reliable?", because it was more descriptive of the debate. I was thinking, though, that the major public debate at hand seems centered on whether Wikipedia is reliable. Would it make sense to focus this article on the reliability of the Wikipedia model? If so, we could move it to "Debate:The Wikipedia model" or the "Debate:Reliability of Wikipedia". What do you think? -- Brooks Lindsay 15:44, 27 May 2008 (CDT)

Debate:Wikipedia, reliability and social utility

Hey Jonathan, I moved the debate as you'll find. I hope that this is OK. I realize it is a divergent "move" from the broader nature of the debate you had originated. I think that the a debate on wikis generally is important. But, the debate on Wikipedia's social utility and reliability is so massive right now that I figured it would be important to focus on it first. This will be on the main page tomorrow. -- Brooks Lindsay 20:31, 27 May 2008 (CDT)

Re: Sitenotice

Sounds like an interesting idea. But, where does the site notice appear on every page? I'm not seeing it. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:30, 4 June 2008 (CDT)

Good call. I like it. We'll do a different debate every day, and see what the results are. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:05, 4 June 2008 (CDT)

Press Release

We'll aim to get the following press release out on Monday.

Press release - June 9th, 2008

We're working on the RSS equation for press releases. I also would like to link the RSS up with the SiteNotice/Daily Debate Digest.

Good work on the human cloning debate. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:48, 6 June 2008 (CDT)

Human Reproductive Cloning

I've decided to move the debate to Banning Human Reproductive Cloning. Isolating it to reproductive cloning separates it from therapeutic cloning. I'll open a Human Therapeutic Cloning debate too, and we can move appropriate arguments there. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:18, 6 June 2008 (CDT)

Press release

Yes, that would be great. Thanks Jonathan. I'm am new to press-release-strategizing, so thank you for your suggestions and help. What press release sites will you be submitting it to? Also, I was hoping to send the press release out to various sites, publications, and organizations that would be interested in the Iraq article. What else would you recommend? -- Brooks Lindsay 12:15, 10 June 2008 (CDT)

Other... editing tasks

Right now, I'm also trying to do a sweep of the site and a large portion of its debate articles to establish editing tasks in each article. It's too unclear for everyone what needs doing on Debatepedia. The main focus is in creating pretty strong pro/con resource sections and then instructing people to draw from these articles arguments and quotations. You can help by jumping in and working on the editing tasks that are being posted on the main page and by creating editing tasks for others to do (like creating pro/con resources sections with five god pro and five good con articles for people to draw from (and then posting it on the main page to draw attention). -- Brooks Lindsay 12:43, 10 June 2008 (CDT)

Editing tasks for space exploration

Good work so far! Consider starting up the editing tasks list at the top of the space exploration debate. We need to start bringing people along on the editing journey on each article. I would recommend listing the pro/con resources section as one of the editing tasks. Since we are largely involved in gathering supporting quotations, it's always a good start for an article. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:57, 12 June 2008 (CDT)

Argument pages

The argument pages could use links back to the hunting for sport" debate page. See "editing tasks" on page. Good work. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:29, 20 June 2008 (CDT)


Just changed it. We're trying to keep on schedule with the publishing calendar, so, that's what we'll try to use to direct the site notice. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:22, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

Post it on main page

Post the McCain vs. Obama debate on the main page in the editing tasks section (right, second from top). I'll definitely help it along (I've been thinking about it). -- Brooks Lindsay 15:34, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

Thank You

Thank you, Jonathan!!! I'll try to work more on the article!!! Nastya.

Good work

Good work. I'm trying my best to stay on schedule with a debate-a-day, bringing debates on the publishing calendar up to a strong, but not perfect level. So, good work keeping us on schedule with the SiteNotice. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:32, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


Yes indeed. Well done. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:06, 15 July 2008 (CDT)


On the argument "claims"/headers, try to imagine it as the headline of an article. It should be able to stand alone in describing the gist of the argument.

For example, you wrote:

"The country's restrictions on extremists were not preventing democracy"

A better "claim", in my opinion, would be:

Yogoslavia's restrictions on extremists were not preventing democracy.

In general, you should image that a reader, having found an argument page title in a google search, should be able to understand the gist of the argument, go to it, and understand it in the context of a debate, even without yet having gone to the debate page. Does that make sense? -- Brooks Lindsay 14:15, 18 July 2008 (CDT)


No sweat. So, separately, what are you seeing on Debatepedia, broadly, that needs doing? -- Brooks Lindsay 16:58, 18 July 2008 (CDT)

Jonathan, here's a Wikipedia link to a list of arguments on the "possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory".

This would be a good resource to draw from, if you're up to the task. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 17:05, 18 July 2008 (CDT)


Thanks Jonathan. What are the sites you've submitted it to? We're considering utilizing a PR service such as PR Newswire for getting out our press releases. It's about $80 per release. What is your opinion on this?

No worries about you being busy. I understand how it goes. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:03, 22 August 2008 (CDT)


Hey Jonathan!!! That's great to hear. I hope you're doing well. What have you been up to in your work? Are you working in the media/journalism business? If so, I would guess you were swamped with the elections.

I'm working on the Fairness Doctrine debate article right now. Have a look: Debate: Fairness Doctrine. What are you planning on working on? -- Brooks Lindsay 15:06, 13 November 2008 (CST)


Thanks for the vandalism checking. Good work. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:46, 14 November 2008 (CST)

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits