![Digital Enterprise Research Institute
Building a Standpoints Web
to Support Decision-Making in Wikipedia
Jodi Schneider
Argument Exploration
Wikipedia Deletion Discussion
Argument exploration is joint work with the University of Liverpool, Adam Wyner, Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon.
Thanks to a COST Short-term scientific mission (STSM 1868) from the COST Action ICO801 on Agreement Technologies!
Summarizing Standpoints Support 3 groups:
[Delete the article]...hasn't played 1. Newcomers
since 2008. His 66-73 record is Learn effective argument & rhetoric
far from stellar and, in my
opinion, does not merit an article. • Administrators
Determine outcomes
>>He pitched last month and
plays for the Venezuelan League. • Readers Revisiting Discussions
This meets our article criteria. Understand the deciding factors
Using Standpoints
Abstract
Although the Web enables large-scale collaboration, its
potential to support group decision-making has not been
fully exploited. My research aims to analyze, extract, and
represent disagreement in purposeful social web
conversations. This supports decision-making in distributed
groups by representing individuals' claims and their
justifications in a "Standpoints Web", a hypertext web
interlinking the claims and justifications made throughout the
social web. The two main contributions of my dissertation
are an architecture for the Standpoints Web and a case
study implementing the Standpoints Web for Wikipedia's
deletion discussions.
Enabling Networked Knowledge
Main Ph.D. funding: Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2)
Totten image credit: http://cuentacompleta.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/5229630.jpg](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/building-a-standpoints-web-to-support-decision-making-in-wikipedia-cscw2012poster-120213185014-phpapp01/85/building-a-standpoints-web-to-support-decisionmaking-in-wikipedia-cscw2012-poster-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia (CSCW2012 poster)
Similar to Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia (CSCW2012 poster) (20)
More from jodischneider
More from jodischneider (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia (CSCW2012 poster)
- 1. Digital Enterprise Research Institute Building a Standpoints Web to Support Decision-Making in Wikipedia Jodi Schneider Argument Exploration Wikipedia Deletion Discussion Argument exploration is joint work with the University of Liverpool, Adam Wyner, Katie Atkinson & Trevor Bench-Capon. Thanks to a COST Short-term scientific mission (STSM 1868) from the COST Action ICO801 on Agreement Technologies! Summarizing Standpoints Support 3 groups: [Delete the article]...hasn't played 1. Newcomers since 2008. His 66-73 record is Learn effective argument & rhetoric far from stellar and, in my opinion, does not merit an article. • Administrators Determine outcomes >>He pitched last month and plays for the Venezuelan League. • Readers Revisiting Discussions This meets our article criteria. Understand the deciding factors Using Standpoints Abstract Although the Web enables large-scale collaboration, its potential to support group decision-making has not been fully exploited. My research aims to analyze, extract, and represent disagreement in purposeful social web conversations. This supports decision-making in distributed groups by representing individuals' claims and their justifications in a "Standpoints Web", a hypertext web interlinking the claims and justifications made throughout the social web. The two main contributions of my dissertation are an architecture for the Standpoints Web and a case study implementing the Standpoints Web for Wikipedia's deletion discussions. Enabling Networked Knowledge Main Ph.D. funding: Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2) Totten image credit: http://cuentacompleta.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/5229630.jpg
Editor's Notes
- find all the relevant points of view on a topic, and especially to focus attention on those that bring the most new information — such as arguments one hasn't heard before, or arguments that counter one's own. Arguments given in deletion discussions may involve facts sourced to an external reference (“his status is `Active’”); assertions of the appropriate policy to apply (“baseball notability guidelines”); references to specific criteria (“Have appeared in at least one game in … any other top-level national league”) and interpretations (“I feel he qualifies”). Existing work on templating arguments takes the form of argument schemes; 60 types of arguments have been identified and classified [3]. The `argument from rules’ type best fits the `typical argument’ shown to the left. Particular argument schemes appear with various frequencies in deletion discussions, and not all types of arguments meet community standards. For example, arguments `from popular opinion’, and `from position to know’ (i.e. sourced to personal knowledge) are not given credence. Value-based arguments (e.g. `from waste’ or `from sunk costs’) are sometimes effective, yet are not decisive: they are mainly supplemental.