CHI-ANNOUNCEMENTS Archives

ACM SIGCHI General Interest Announcements (Mailing List)

CHI-ANNOUNCEMENTS@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Simon Buckingham Shum <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Simon Buckingham Shum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:49:59 +0100
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (4 kB) , text/html (5 kB)
Dear CHI colleagues,

We recently launched the GlobalArgument.net project as an internet 
experimental medium for advancing the state of the art in 
Computer-Supported Argumentation. Our topic for Argumentation Experiment 1 
is the Iraq Debate.

We have leading members of the computational argument modelling and mapping 
community involved, but key contributions from the CHI community would 
include information design and visualization to assist in navigating the 
complex debate, and grasping important connections between elements (at 
least, as asserted by the thought leaders whose published views we are 
modelling).

If you're interested in bringing to bear your approach, then read on... 
Could this fit into an ongoing project that you run on information design, 
hypermedia/website design, public understanding of politics or ethics?

Regards

Simon Buckingham Shum
Senior Lecturer, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK

Peter Baldwin
Former Australian Cabinet Minister
___________________________________________________________________________________

www.GlobalArgument.net

"GlobalArgument.net is an experiment to evaluate different 
Computer-Supported Argumentation approaches: both the technologies, and the 
'craft skill' of using them effectively.

Our two-fold objectives are to:

* showcase how complex debates of topical interest can be more effectively 
communicated,
    navigated and analysed when mapped in software tools

* advance the state of the art in practical argumentation support tools

<http://www.globalargument.net/players/>Players participate in 
<http://www.globalargument.net/experiments/>argumentation experiments, 
working to an agreed schedule and from common sources. Through systematic 
comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of approaches, we aim to clarify 
how approaches can be usefully compared and improved.

We hope that you find this an intriguing idea, and invite you to join in 
the next experiment."

And below is the announcement I posted today on Argumentation Experiment 1...

____________________________________________________________________________

www.globalargument.net/experiments/1

Experiment 1 (Mar-May 2005): Iraq Debate

Introduction to the debate

The decision by the United States and a number of allies (including the UK 
and Australia) to militarily remove the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq in 
March-April 2003 provoked one of the most heated and complex public policy 
debates in recent times. The debate continues to the present day as more 
information bearing on the war’s original justification becomes available 
and the focus shifts to the appropriate policy for post-war Iraq. 
Innumerable arguments and considerations have been invoked in the different 
arenas where the debate has been conducted (parliamentary/congressional 
debates, various branches of academia, the media, the vernacular public 
debate) bearing on the legality, morality and prudence of the war.

The positions taken by participants almost invariable depend (either 
implicitly or explicitly) on some larger framework of analysis that 
determines the weight or relevance accorded to different considerations. 
This may be a comprehensive theory about the justification for war (such as 
traditional Just War Theory), or a distinctive ethical theory (such as 
Consequentialism), or a perspective shaped within a particular academic 
discipline (e.g. the Realist/Constructivist/Liberalist debate amongst 
international relations scholars) – or just a collection of prejudices.

Ideally, we would like to develop an integrated overview of substantial 
parts of the debate, making reference to a representative selection of 
sources (textual and other media) in which the arguments are expressed.

Source Documents
http://www.globalargument.net/experiments/1/source.html

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Dr Simon J. Buckingham Shum
Senior Lecturer, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1908 655723
Fax: +44 (0)1908 653169 [office]
eFax: +44 (0)870 122 8765 [direct]
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.kmi.open.ac.uk/sbs

"All models are wrong, but some are useful"      W. Edwards Deming
  Compendium: hypermedia sensemaking    www.CompendiumInstitute.org
  Visualizing Argumentation       www.VisualizingArgumentation.info

    ---------------------------------------------------------------
                To unsubscribe, send an empty email to
     mailto:[log in to unmask]
    For further details of CHI lists see http://sigchi.org/listserv
    ---------------------------------------------------------------


ATOM RSS1 RSS2