More concept statements

As a class exercise, we posted a concept statement so that it could be critiqued.

Here’s what I posted:

FOR those interested in engaging with politics for the first time WHO want to understand why there is so much disagreement in the world right now, “What Are They Thinking?” (WATT) is a crowdsourced encyclopedia THAT helps users understand perspective across the political spectrum. UNLIKE most news sources that either provides an aggressively objective point of view, or seeks to provide a “winning” argument, WATT’s explicit goal is to further understanding, not help win debates.

Here’s the feedback I heard (it’s very scribbly):

• Get rid of the first “those interested in engaging with politics for the first time”
• Aggressively → might be too aggressive. What about artificially?
• over-simplifying. Maybe anecdotal? personal?
• They are doing a valuable, important, objective thing, this thing is also valuable
• “Washes out nuance”/conflate
• Aims to,
• Further is an adjective and verb and is therefore confusing
• Understanding is vague. “Watt helps build empathy,”

Here is a revised version:

For people who want to understand why there is so much disagreement in politics right now, “What Are They Thinking?” (WATT) is a crowdsourced encyclopedia that helps users understand perspectives across the political spectrum. Unlike mainstream media that fails to capture nuanced viewpoints, WATT’s goal is to bring to the surface a diversity of perspectives and encourage dialog.

Here’s a version targeted at different user:

For news consumers WHO ARE not satisfied with their typical offerings “What are they thinking” (WATT) is a crowdsourced take on current events that helps people get a greater perspective on issues, particularly the viewpoints they don’t understand. Unlike mainstream media that encourages argument, WATT’s explicit goal is to further understanding and promote healthy discourse.

Any of those appealing to you? One over the others? Tell me why @sonofdiesel on twitter.