Mashable: New website lets the internet settle your arguments

Mashable: New website lets the internet settle your arguments. “Let’s Settle This plays host, judge, and jury to your argument on the online stage. The free site allows you to write a post describing your situation, where you can detail exactly what’s going on. Below, site users can vote for who they think is right. The site then calculates a percentage based on peoples’ votes, and boom! Argument solved. Right? After voting, you’re presented with a new argument, which seems like it can easily lead to hours of playing jury.”

Quartz: 150 years ago, a philosopher showed why it’s pointless to start arguments on the internet

Quartz: 150 years ago, a philosopher showed why it’s pointless to start arguments on the internet. “Wildly inaccurate facts and spurious arguments are unavoidable features of social media. Yet no matter how infuriatingly wrong someone is, or just how much counter-evidence you have at your disposal, starting arguments on the internet rarely gets anyone to change their mind. Nearly a century-and-a-half ago, British philosopher John Stuart Mill explained, in a few clear sentences, why certain arguments simply won’t go anywhere. As historian Robert Saunders notes, Mill’s analysis neatly applies to heated and futile internet debates.”

MIT News: Why some Wikipedia disputes go unresolved

MIT News: Why some Wikipedia disputes go unresolved . “Often, multiple Wikipedia editors will disagree on certain changes to articles or policies. One of the main ways to officially resolve such disputes is the Requests for Comment (RfC) process. Quarreling editors will publicize their deliberation on a forum, where other Wikipedia editors will chime in and a neutral editor will make a final decision. Ideally, this should solve all issues. But a novel study by MIT researchers finds debilitating factors — such as excessive bickering and poorly worded arguments — have led to about one-third of RfCs going unresolved.”