Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia (CSCW2012 poster)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia (CSCW2012 poster)


Published on

Poster for CSCW2012: Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia

Poster for CSCW2012: Building a standpoints web to support decision-making in Wikipedia

Published in: Technology, Education

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Transcript

    • 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]...hasnt played 1. Newcomerssince 2008. His 66-73 record is Learn effective argument & rhetoricfar from stellar and, in myopinion, does not merit an article. • Administrators Determine outcomes>>He pitched last month andplays for the Venezuelan League. • Readers Revisiting DiscussionsThis 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 Wikipedias deletion discussions. Enabling Networked Knowledge Main Ph.D. funding: Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2) Totten image credit: