Talk:Online dispute resolution

myclob

edit

Hi, my name is myclob. I have a website devoted to improving Online Dispute Resolution. Someone once told me that my idea is kind of like what is advocated in David's Sling, a Science Fiction book by Marc Stiegler.

Ordered submisions

edit

I would like to organize post into catigories, such as:

  1. Reasons to agree
  2. Reasons to disagree
  3. Books that agree
  4. Books that disagree
  5. Songs that agree
  6. Interest of those who agree
  7. Interest of those who disagree
  8. Common interest
  9. opposing interest

Rating submisions

edit

Much like the http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/home/, I believe that users should be allowed to rate post, so that better post can receave more attention.

To do list

edit

1. I think we need an index. 2. I think the article needs something about innovation in online debate. I mean arbitration has an expert, but most people debate without an arbitrator. There have been some innovations in this field. There is the ability to rate a post. There is the use of a thread discusion method, that lets you see who responded to who. I advocate letting people list reasons to agree or disagree, common interest, apposing interest, etc on Google, Yahoo, and MSN discusion boards.

Most online debate happens on these discusion boards, but this post focuses on scholarly stuff, that is usually ignored by most people. Can we add something about online debate as used on discusion boards, and in chat rooms?

AIR

edit

can i know industrial disputes what is AIR stands for

(The above line was moved down to here, per policy that new comments should go at the end.)

I'm not sure what you wanted to know about industrial disputes, but maybe you'll find it under Strike action?
AIR can mean several things - please see AIR. Trafford09 (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi, a lot of links are not avaible! This should be corrected. Has anybody a suggestion?AxelHellinger (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you are referring to unavailable links, such as the GAMA external link, which you removed. Anybody is welcome to help with such dead links. In fact, Wikipedia has guidelines to help you do this; please see Link rot. Trafford09 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trafford, sry for the late reply. My main wiki is in German. Ok, I am writing an similar article in German. So I think I will come along some links, we can use here too. AxelHellinger (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am suggesting this link http://hellinger.eu/en/law/odr-online-dispute-resolution/. It is the most complete collection of ODR Providers worldwide and give a short overview. I started this collection, because odr.info is not very active at the moment and other collections like ARyME (ADRressources.com) too. AxelHellinger (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I removed http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2325422 which was linked on the top with "ODR". Doesn't fit there! If somebody think, it is a needed and valuable source, he/she can insert it under "external links". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelHellinger (talkcontribs) 08:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

edit

If there is something in this that actually belongs in a Further reading or External links section, it's not apparent. Some of the better entries could probably be used as references. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


Which function you see in further readings and external links? wikipedia shoudn't be a link list, but offering few external source, where you can step deeper into a topic, looks very useful for users. AxelHellinger (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The guidelines are WP:EL and WP:FURTHER. There's also the essay WP:Further reading.
I couldn't separate out the problems, and I don't think the sections have ever been properly maintained. --Ronz (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)Reply