Separate Presenting And Querying -- Don't mix arguing with listening: page starts with Document Mode exposition, followed by Thread Mode discussion(s)

Exposition Not Verdict -- Edit for clarity, don't insist on agreement

Separate Concept Pages From Argumentation Pages -- Present a sustained argument on its own page

Short Objections Are Questions -- Object on the assumption that the other person has something to teach you

Answer The Question -- Meet the other person on his own ground

Move Tangents To Separate Pages -- Tangents don't need to make a mess

Sign Thread Mode -- Saying who said what helps readers follow the thread

Steer Quickly -- Don't debate or dilly-dally about what to do

Teach Wiki Technique By Editing -- If they mess things up, just quietly fix it for them

This page was first put up on Why on 6th February 2001 and received immediate praise, much of which was deserved. Follow-up pages such as Develop The Thesis As Much As Attack It and Move From Argument Type A To Argument Type B soon became our prefered way of saying "Exposition Not Verdict", which we still consider key to success for any Pluralism Workshop covering emotive topics. Here though are a couple of major downsides we also experienced with these guidelines:

• On Why we always questioned "Answer The Question" as a phrase. We received no answer, of course, which was exactly as we wished. Stamping out the use of this as an intemperate demand is something of which we remain proud. In Cheap To Offer, Dear To Counter, Tom Kreitzberg gave one of the key reasons why it can become so oppressive.

• "Steer Quickly" sounded good and definitely can be good. But as practised by the author in many different pages later in the year it began to have a very hollow ring.

Holocaust Reading describes how crassly insensitive application of Steer Quickly, unburdened, unlike the vast majority of editors on Ward's Wiki, by any regard for the views of the host or most other members of the community, caused enormous difficulty in one highly contentious area. Contention Alert starts to outline the much graver abuses in rapid, radical editing of perhaps fifty pages, for three weeks from the day after the September 11th Attacks, all of which seemed calculated to cause frustration and contention at a time Why should have had not only analytical but considerable therapeutic value. -- Richard Drake

Ideas of the sort to converse deeply about are ideas that involve radical changes to the way you look at things. They require many words to get across, because communication cannot depend on a shared vocabulary and set of assumptions tuned well enough to the idea to express it both clearly and briefly. Only sustained discursive prose can present enough propositions, definitions, examples, juxtapositions, and inferences to enable someone to grasp a radically new idea.

To grasp such an idea, you go through a period of confusion, and typically you have objections. Understanding how the objections are met is part of grasping the idea. To resolve your confusions, you must ask questions and get answers.

A Wiki lets anyone edit anything anywhere. A Wiki page does not have a naturally linear sequence of posts and replies and replies to replies. Questions and objections inserted into the flow of discursive prose interrupt the line of thought and render the page incomprehensible. Posting an answer right by the question or objection further adds to the chaos. But the answer must be near the question or the thread will be lost.

As a result, Wiki pages tend to degenerate into shards of text snippets that are too short to communicate any idea of substance. Often these snippets are rude little barbs, since soundbites are all that can fit in such a small space. Conversation in depth comes to seem impossible; subtlety is drowned out amid the noise.

Therefore:

When presenting an idea, write sustained discursive prose on a page dedicated specifically to that idea.

When asking a question or making an objection, post it after the discursive prose, not in the middle. Under a new horizontal rule, post your question or objection. Take turns appending paragraphs in back-and-forth, chronological format. If necessary, to indicate what your question or objection refers to, quote just a little of the discursive prose in italics, immediately following the horizontal rule.

To make a large objection, of a sort that itself requires sustained discursive prose, create a new page.

--

This same principle applies when conversing deeply in any other medium.

For example, in a face-to-face conversation, you and your partner should take turns listening and presenting. When A presents, B listens. B asks questions and withholds lengthy objections. B aims only at understanding A's idea well enough that B can express it in his own words. When this happens, B can switch into presenting his own, opposing idea, and A becomes the listener.

In a face-to-face conversation, the sufficiently lengthy, uninterrupted periods of presenting and querying must be temporal. In a Wiki, the separation must be spatial. Temporally, the discussion can be completely chaotic with no detriment to the pages.

When people hold opposing views, which should a page declare is correct?

If each party wants the page to show only the truth, and each has a different judgement of what is the truth, then fights happen. People Disagree By Deleting, they replace the opposing view with their own, they insist on putting their objections earlier on the page than the opposing ideas, etc. Wiki, a naturally benevolent and collaborative medium, becomes fractious and contentious.

Therefore:

Make the Wiki present both ideas as clearly and persuasively as possible. Do not attempt to make the Wiki present only the truth.

Wikizens only collaborate on exposition of ideas. The Wiki renders no verdict.

For advanced Wikizens: Help the people who disagree with you to express their views more clearly and persuasively. Edit their text to make it more to their liking, even.

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 "Free Market" 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, "Free Market Is Bad".

Put exposition on pages named for a concept. For example, "Free Market". Don't argue here, and don't define the concept contentiously. Create no Devils Dictionary 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, "Free Market Is Good" and "Free Market Is Bad".

If there are many arguments, list them (possibly as Wiki Names) on a single page. For example, "Free Market Pro And Con". Individual pro or con pages can be named after a succinct summary of the argument, like "Free Market Is Fairest System", "Free Market Is Most Efficient", etc.

A long, irreconcilable argument tends to become bitter and goes nowhere.

Therefore:

When posting an objection on the same page as the one containing the discursive prose that you object to, keep the objection limited to eliciting information.

Some techniques to accomplish this:

• Phrase the objection as a question. For example, "Does this theory imply X?" rather than, "This theory implies X, which is wrong."

• Phrase the objection on the assumption that the original contributor already has an answer to it. For example, "How do you answer the objection that...?"

• Do not try to "win". Use your objection to help the page become a clear exposition of the idea that the page is dedicated to. If the answer is not convincing, do not hammer on it. At most, help the other person see how he might make his answer more convincing. If the back-and-forth mode continues for more than a screenful or so, create a new page where you can treat your objection as a new idea.

So:

Discussions will fall more into the mold of Exposition Not Verdict.

Questions and objections typically grow out of a different way of looking at things than an idea proposes. Of course they do; that's the very premise of in-depth conversation.

Consequently, questions often assume a premise that the idea rejects, and objections often object to something that the idea doesn't propose.

It's tempting, when there is an impedance mismatch between your idea and a question or objection, to answer vaguely, not at all, or in a way that doesn't address the concerns or mental framework of the person asking. Better that, you feel, than to implicitly agree to the idea you're opposing or dilute the one you're advocating.

When this happens, conversation is stymied. People feel like they're getting the run-around.

Therefore:

Answer each question or objection in terms that the other person can understand.

If it's a yes-or-no question, and the answer is yes or no, then say "yes" or "no" (these very words). If there is some implication that doesn't follow in your mental framework, but does in that of the person asking the question, then explicitly disavow the implication in addition to answering yes or no.

If you are asked to explain what you mean by a term, then present a definition, give examples, show the concept in use in a proposition--everything that one would ordinarily do to help someone grasp a new concept. Write without presuming that the reader already knows what the term means.

If you don't know the answer to the question or don't see how to meet the objection, then say so. If you think there is an answer but can't see what it is right now or how to express it comprehensibly, then say so.

If the question or objection wrongly construes something about your idea, then patiently explain what's wrong. If the question doesn't make sense within the mental framework you're proposing (often this is a virtue of a new way of looking at things: it renders formerly difficult questions unnecessary), then explain why this is so, and what is the difference between your mental framework and the one from which the question originates.

If you don't understand the question, ask for help understanding it. You can even ask for help making your answer understandable.

People who participate on Wikis seldom can resist the urge to go off on a tangent.

Tangents shred pages into chaos, and prevent any topic from being developed in depth.

Tangents are how wonderful new lines of thought develop.

Therefore:

When a tangent starts, if it has much interest, move it to a page of its own. Keep the original page clear and focused.

You can't tell who wrote text on Wiki just by looking at it. Consequently you can't tell what is an answer, what is a follow-up question, etc.

Therefore:

In a thread section, sign everything you post.

Sometimes it's necessary to step into a third mode, in which you propose and agree to ideas about what to do next. If these "steering" ideas are not answered quickly, the page sits in limbo forever. A debate about steering, if allowed to run at length, turns the page from a conversation about the idea to a conversation about the conversation.

Therefore:

Answer all proposed ideas for steering immediately and decisively. If you are asked to go along with a steering proposal, then answer yes or no. If you don't want to try the proposal now, but might later on, say, "No, I'd rather not, but maybe later." If you are the one proposing a steering idea, then accept the decision either way, and make no counterargument.

Delete text about steering as soon as possible.

Newcomers often don't understand How To Converse Deeply On A Wiki. Often they don't understand how to converse deeply in any medium at all. They mess up pages by inserting questions and objections in the middle of discursive prose, they demand that pages render a verdict that they agree with, etc.

How To Converse Deeply On A Wiki is a moderately complex skill, which takes practice to learn. Reading this pattern language won't make you skillful all by itself.

Therefore:

When people violate How To Converse Deeply On A Wiki, edit the page so that the result is exactly as if they had followed How To Converse Deeply On A Wiki. They will learn by example, with no scolding or lecturing.

Contributors: Ben Kovitz (and hundreds of people on Ward's Wiki who evolved this style of conversation)

Discussion

Ben, this is an excellent collextion of wisdom that we would all do well to heed. Thanks. -- Keith Braithwaite

I haven't read all of this yet but I love the title. This indeed is one of the key aims for me. The "moderately complex" is right too. Neither too elitist or too sloppy. Great stuff. -- Richard Drake

Amen. But I'd split these sections into their own pages, and maybe package the whole thing as a Wiki Pattern Language. If this doesn't convince Ward to implement External Links, nothing will. This is really wonderful, Ben. --Peter Merel

Wow, thanks for the kind words, guys!

Keith, thanks for leaving the text here for now. I also think it's a good idea to move this pattern language across many pages, but not yet. All is still very fluid, and it helps to see it all at once. --Ben Kovitz

• I'd suggest also:Only when a point has obtained universal acceptance within the context distinguished by the page's title, add it to the discursive prose. Only when it has not, add a horizontal rule to separate it, and then discuss why you did that, and sign your comment. --PM

To address this, I've added a new pattern above: Exposition, not verdict. The universal acceptance, in other words, should be about whether some text does a good job explaining an idea, not whether the idea itself is accepted. And maybe universal acceptance is not needed even then.

In general, it seems contrary to Wiki Nature to require consensus-gathering before editing. Occasionally, people need to reach an agreement before engaging in some collective action, but the life of a Wiki is people making edits without asking permission. The pattern language attempts to show a way (the way that evolved on Ward's Wiki) to converse deeply and fruitfully by exploiting the uncoordinatedness of Wiki to the full.

The present page, however, may be an exception. I started it as a speculation--my first attempt at writing a pattern language. But it seems to be capturing a consensus, so perhaps we should treat it as a consensus document when it's refined a bit more.

--Ben Kovitz

• Where possible use Eprime Language.

Is this a technique for ensuring that objections attempt to elicit information, or a completely general technique for clear exposition? --Ben Kovitz

I'm not happy with the names of some of the patterns. Can anyone suggest some improvements, especially to these:

• Separate presenting and querying
• Exposition, not verdict

Or are those satisfactory? I think that these are really the two main principles, but they don't seem articulated in a way that conveys how powerful they really are.

The first principle is that high-bandwidth conversation and large numbers of conversants can mix only by separating topics spatially or temporally. Wiki is the only medium I know of where you can perform the needed separation spatially. Normally to have an in-depth conversation, you have to separate topics temporally, which is much harder for people like us whose minds jump around in many directions at once.

The second principle is that the power of Wiki is collaborative editing, not collaborative decision-making--so play to the strength, not the weakness.

--Ben Kovitz

Some important distinctives of Wiki captured better than (ever?) before, thanks Ben. We still aim to Inhibit Meta Discussion but this is a useful charter of the way we converse here. Let's Be Patient and learn from practice. -- Richard Drake

Actually, I didn't intend this as metadiscussion, but as a topic in its own right. I hate metadiscussion. In fact, the one bright spot in my otherwise deplorable book is http://www.manning.com/Kovitz/Chapter15.html#metatext. --Ben Kovitz

How to give your Wiki Conversation the Quality Withouta Name.

I never understood Quality Withouta Name so I took this away from the top.

Don't worry, you don't need to understand it first. I don't understand it, either. Maybe the pattern language will shed light on Quality Withouta Name.

Not only do you not need to understand it first, you don't need to understand it at all. QWaN is not for understanding.

I'd like to suggest that some of these patterns are specialisations to deep conversation of what I'd further suggest is the Wiki pattern: Be Hyper.

So:

Each concept will have, typically, three pages to start with: Foo Bar, Foo Bar Sucks and Foo Bar Rules. The arguments on either side may diverge, at which time apply Short Objections Are Questions and Move Tangents To Separate Pages.

As discussion of Foobar's desirability or otherwise matures then Separate Presenting And Querying will apply to the argumentation pages.

Nice idea, but I don't think it normally happens like this. Normally a single page for a concept starts the ball rolling, and in the fairly rare cases where a big or complex argument develops, people move the arguments pro and con to separate pages. --Ben Kovitz

So:

Pages will become cluttered with signed posts, which can inhibit further editing. Steer Quickly (but not too quickly), to Separate Presenting And Querying of the new material.

I don't think that the object of the game is to remove all Thread Mode. I like to see the bits of back-and-forth that have already occurred. One learns a lot by watching people go through the process of digesting the idea. Lots of signed posts are fine.

They do require massive editing from time to time, though. And here it seems most consistent with Wiki Nature to just edit them without steering. Steering should be a great rarity (like my crazy proposal on The Very Most Obvious Theory). --Ben Kovitz

Here is a major omission (or two) from the pattern language. Sorry, but this is rather inchoate. I'm just going to "type out loud" now and hope for the best. Hopefully someone else out there can see this more clearly and maybe write it up more clearly.

Conversation happens in a public space. What we bring to conversation, we create in a private space. Wiki, especially, is an entirely public space, and when people try to treat pages like their own private space, the beauty and synergy disappear.

Those are the underlying forces. That is the main conflict, in need of resolution by some pattern or patterns. I suppose you could say that all of the patterns listed above are attempts to address this conflict. But they address it in a non-Wiki way. Indeed, Why in general has a remarkably non-Wiki style (so far, at least). It's a lot more like email conversation, where each person "owns" his own messages. To be truly Wiki, no one can own anything.

Here is why the patterns above (to some extent, not completely) address the public/private conflict in a non-Wiki way. They solve the problem by carving out private spaces for people to "own", and give them rights within those spaces and responsibility toward other people's spaces. For example, Short Objections Are Questions says, in a way, that when you enter someone else's space (i.e. a page devoted to someone else's idea), you should be respectful and mainly attempt to elicit information--that is, beg for a tour through their private world. Answer The Question says that when people ask, you should make the effort to meet their questions or objection in a way that fits their own, private world. Sign Thread Mode is the ultimate in anti-Wiki thought: it premises that we must know who wrote something in order to understand it and respond to it properly! Here! Here!

I think the "separation" patterns are true to the spirit of Wiki. They allow people to create more-coherent discourse without making a Thread Mess. But they also encourage people to feel like they "own" pages devoted to "their" ideas. So there needs to be another pattern to counteract that.

A possible pattern: after you've gone on a Wiki bender, stop contributing for a while. Let other people reshape the page into something that you couldn't anticipate. Resist the urge to control the text.

Here is another force illustrating the difficulty of merging people's privately generated ideas in a public space. If someone posts an idea incomprehensibly, how can you draw out the idea? Once this happens, there's "your" idea and "my" difficulty understanding it, which seems resolvable only in Thread Mode.

Perhaps conversation as such is not possible on a Wiki (at least not without violating the spirit of it).

--Ben Kovitz, signing yet another unmistakably Thread Mode contribution