I think the Wittgenstein Protocol is helpful for tracing specific arguments, how they derive from more general assumptions or lines or reasoning, and how they contrast with other arguments or propositions.
It also provides a level of summarisation and formalisation that makes it easier to understand the gist or essence of an assessment or a concern.
But sometimes the atomicity of Wittgenstein's writing style can miss some nuance afforded by more spontaneous narratives, and I think it may be complemented by bidirectional hyperlinks to pages with less protocolled styles of writing to offer context and background.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. The way I see it, Wittgenstein is but one mode of communication to be explored in the Agora. I am personally also interested in:
- Graph-oriented discussion, with nodes being arranged around central concepts and linked to each other with semantic annotations. Roam or Athens would be ideal for this; but Wiki might be sufficient with the right extensions.
- Multiple takes on the same subject, each edited by a distinct user, but presented in succession in a single node. This is inspired by https://everything2.com/ -- a thriving community in the late 90s and early 00s, now in decline. But I think the idea behind this arrangement is solid and can still shine through.
- Dialogues, in the Socratic style. Perhaps like this one, right here, right now :) Flancia (talk)
The tension between "early Wittgenstein" and "later Wittgenstein" is worth contemplating. Formal, systematic presentation versus "language games". Both have their place in human being. Michaelgraaf (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)