Where do Wilensky's 'story points' and Labov's evaluation/reportability disagree about what makes a story worth telling, and which agent checks follow from each?
Wilensky's 1980 Berkeley memorandum treats a story's point as content: a spelled-out problem for a character (goal conflict, competition or lost subsumption) plus a solution component. He gives point prototypes but says his psychological predictions are untested. Labov defines the point as the most highly evaluated action and says interest has no absolute standard, so reportability is relative to the audience. The sources disagree on form versus content and on whether interest can be fixed independently of the audience. The Wilensky text read is the 1980 memorandum, not the 1983 BBS article, which was paywalled.
Wilensky's 1980 Berkeley memorandum treats a story's point as content: a spelled-out problem for a character (goal conflict, competition or lost subsumption) plus a solution component. He gives point prototypes but says his psychological predictions are untested. Labov defines the point as the most highly evaluated action and says interest has no absolute standard, so reportability is relative to the audience. The sources disagree on form versus content and on whether interest can be fixed independently of the audience. The Wilensky text read is the 1980 memorandum, not the 1983 BBS article, which was paywalled.
Curator qualifications: Excerpted evidence located (one excerpt-less row); Wilensky content-points vs Labov situational reportability disagreement kept.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1980/ERL-m-80-17.pdf",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/sfs.html",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
},
{
"url": "https://u.osu.edu/ratcliffmckoon/files/2018/07/exppsylearn86e-uybrpo.pdf",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] Wilensky's 1980 Berkeley memorandum treats a story's point as content: a spelled-out problem for a character (goal conflict, competition or lost subsumption) plus a solution component. He gives point prototypes but says his psychological predictions are untested. Labov defines the point as the most highly evaluated action and says interest has no absolute standard, so reportability is relative to the audience. The sources disagree on form versus content and on whether interest can be fixed independently of the audience. The Wilensky text read is the 1980 memorandum, not the 1983 BBS article, which was paywalled. · locator: candidate evidence excerpts source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |