Simply view and contribute to complex debates

How do you cope with the exponential growth in information? How do you get to grips with the key underlying arguments? Is there a way of using the collaboration of peers to get a concise picture of key debates?

It looks as though help may be at hand through something called Debategraph (http://debategraph.org/) which I came across at the weekend. It presents arguments visually, in a mindmap form. The maps are carefully structured based on an understanding of the theory and practice of debate (I have to confess I didn’t know before that there were such people as argumentation theorists). It is organised like a wiki, so anyone can contribute to the debates. It aims to strip out the problems of “repetitive contributions, digressions, argumentative fallacies, rhetorical flourishes, manipulative framing, obfuscation and personal attacks that result in a high noise-to-signal ratio and confusion rather than clarity.” And it lets you view the issue at any level of detail.

When I come across interesting new websites like this, one of the first things I want to know is – who’s behind it, what’s their motivation and how do they make their money. In this case the answer from their website is:

“Debategraph.org is the first public implementation of the underlying Debatemapper software developed by the Anglo-Australian social enterprise Thoughtgraph Ltd, and a signatory to the Cape Town Open Education Declaration.

The debate processing software has been developed in public beta over the last year, via pilot projects in the UK for the Prime Minister’s Office and the Royal Society of Arts, with a view to fulfilling the vision now embodied in Debategraph.

To help support Debategraph as a free, creative commons social venture, Thoughtgraph is also developing commercial applications of the Debatemapper software as a tool for internal collaborative knowledge sharing, argument mapping, and decision making within interested organisations. The Thoughtgraph team also works with senior management teams to map and communicate complex issues, decisions and strategic challenges to internal and external stakeholders.”

There’s already a wide range of debates up there, including a number relevant to UK public services. Maybe a good place for mapping debates around local government policy and performance?