Content
The content in any of the websites has to be usable by the general public, readily understandable or a path (a series of pages linked through either suggestions or questions) that the reader controls and is guided by ever enhanced curiosity. How to achieve that with a distributed set of contributors and have a quality product requires a structured approach. The content needs to range from tutorial on such things as GHG to hard charging arguments to rebut the polemics of such people as M Mann. This does require a range of disciplined voices to engage the audience not alert their defenses.
First the determination of the content via outline with content distributed in a hierarchical page layout. See the nearby diagram. This will allow specific contributions by a wide array of contributors, as well as ease in editing and reading. Second this gives the ability to add more layers and/or paths driven by questions. It is a naturally evolving and updateable format. Third if the teams are configured in response team structure the communities can form and thrive. Using infographic and linking to largely teach not argue.
This all requires good training of the content generators and a solidly constructed outline. It also allows for a skeptics to be active while not spending a lot of time. If the latent desire of these skeptics is high in this pursuit then this can be sold and work very well.
The flow below can be replicated vertically and horizontally with tools that function with the same level of complexity as Word by Microsoft.
Structure
of the topic and the flow:
Summary lead-in page:
Basics of the topic with links within the site to the pages on measurements, etc. for example
Summarize the overall level of understanding from both sides
List a set of questions that do occur rationally on the concerns that arise.
Each question will link to a page that has some answers or more links.
As one progresses deeper into a subject, and if the summary to next level down (first series of links) leads to another level, and perhaps another, then the level of detail grows as well as the science level. Articles could then be at the base level of this tree of knowledge, as either hyperlinks to an outside link or page or the article could be reproduced within our site with comments added.
The point in all of this has to be two things: first that the information is on each high level page easy to read by a large audience. It also has to pass the test of not triggering fast rejection in the majority of readers, but finds a way to enhance their inner curiosity. It should also be easy to see the progression of what is being taught and facts or beliefs examined. At the higher levels the voice would be more 2, lower levels more 3 sometimes. Questions raised that temp but not reveal a Socratic obvious confrontation or voice 4.
One of the key questions in the progression of the topic of this project is how can the content be generated and even kept current. Writing articles becomes work intensive and sometimes redundant, and difficult to have a flow that allows several threads to be introduced. But mostly is it a daunting task to generate a large amount of material on various topics in that manner. And the websites become more like blogs and hard for the readers to become educated as the cost in time and effort is high. Article based websites are numerous, and often take shortcuts in emphasizing one subtopic over another. This makes it more difficult to edit and argue, and easier to dismiss.
But there is another way. Collaboration with a structure and
heavy use of hyperlinking, as shown above, allows the reader
to follow the path they are interested in.
In making an attempt to educate, but allow for journeys into more detail, along with ease of use, the outline of content could follow a simple and informative approach. Taking on topics in a multilayer outline might be simpler for many to both generate and work with.
On a topic page a summary of both positions is presented with the appropriate links. In many instances, either position can be broken down into what it means, even asking questions in survey form to find out why for instance the reader thinks a certainly way about a topic. Is sea level going to increase with increase in CO2. What are the reasons for this being the case? Then show the reader the trends of ice or whatever parameter and ask the question did this answer part or all of the person’s question.
Pages linked could also cover a set of sub-topics as given in the example below. This would allow for small contributions that would be to the point, added in along the way. If structured properly, folks would be inclined to add their special piece to the subject. Adding more pages with more in depth articles and up to date content would be pretty easy, and would only require a brief comment with the right voice to be added, along with the links to the related pages. The ever expanding knowledge base builds on what it is learned while also allowing for new readers to find their way.
The topics can be far ranging within the climate field. The goal is to have comprehensive content. Often the content just needs some context or explanation or a figure to make it more clear. There is a lot of good information out there, and a lot of bad, so putting it into logical and discernable form could go a long way to answering the DAGW challenge.
Example:
On websites it would be good again to have short pages to state the elements of the topic. For instance: on sea level (parsing Willie’s recent sea level video I sent out recently), it could present on the page on sea level a brief description of the following: each could have a paragraph with many links to other pages. Each of these topics could have a link to a page with videos and commentary.
Various theories: links to
Measurement approaches: buoys to satellite and their accuracy
History as we know it
Current trends:
Claims and arguments for and against
Summary: what are the questions one is left with.
How this would be updated and articles and even videos linked can evolve with more adding content. It could operate effectively as a group effort as long as the statements being made are well reviewed within the response team. Adding pages is a few minutes work, as is adding content as described.
The key questions become is this of value to work on by a number of contributors, and does it move the needle in the minds of readers? Having a number of contributors listed would add some weight to the arguments made.
(title)