presentatie Reputation Management & workshop PhD community


Published on

PhD meeting 27th of November / TBM faculty Delft University of

Thieme Hennis
Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management
Delft University of Technology
+31 15 278 73 71 (work)
+31 6 51855 22 0 (mobile)
IM/Skype username: thiemehennis

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

No notes for slide

presentatie Reputation Management & workshop PhD community

  1. 1. <br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3. why?<br />
  4. 4. Thiem! Laat je snor staan voor het kankerfonds!<br />mmm…<br />Goed idee<br />Het is ook erg stoer! Wij doen het ook!<br />
  5. 5.
  6. 6. “How to make people (usually guys) grow a moustache every year in November? “<br />
  7. 7. don’t worry, I am only trying to be funny<br />
  8. 8. MOTIVATION<br />but…<br />
  9. 9. So… there we have it<br />
  10. 10.
  11. 11. Why people generate content? Or grow moustaches?<br /><ul><li>fun
  12. 12. reputation, trust
  13. 13. feedback, reciprocity, learning
  14. 14. …</li></ul>But how to filter or trust content?<br /><ul><li>Trust algorithms (Google PageRank, WikiTrust)
  15. 15. Communities/networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, …)
  16. 16. …</li></li></ul><li>
  17. 17. PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page&apos;s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves &quot;important&quot; weigh more heavily and help to make other pages important.<br />
  18. 18. WikiTrust uses a content-driven reputation system: authors gain reputation when their contributions are preserved by subsequent authors, and they lose reputation when their contributions are reverted. <br />The trust of a portion of text is computed according to the reputation of the author, and the reputation of the people who subsequently revised the portion of text, and the text immediately surrounding it. Thus, what WikiTrust calls &quot;text trust&quot; is an indication of the degree with which the text has been revised. …<br />
  19. 19.
  20. 20. Another dimension to reputation<br /> - not just value, according to others<br /> - but a contextualized value, assigned to<br /> 1. a concept or topic<br /> 2. a process or competency<br />Photography (4)<br />PHP (54)<br />Ruby on Rails (40)<br />88<br />Dynamically updated!<br />Project management (0.8)<br />Social skills (0.4)<br /> Writing skills (0.3)<br />Idea generation (0.3)<br />
  21. 21. … but how?<br />
  22. 22. action<br />Knowledge (topic)<br />What kind of contribution?<br />What kind of topic?<br />EX ANTE<br />Competencies (process)<br />What kind of action?<br />Which competencies involved?<br />
  23. 23. reaction: <br /><ul><li>evaluate value  use/rate/recommend
  24. 24. contextualize  categorize/tag/embed</li></ul>EX POSTERIORI<br /> based on reactions<br />
  25. 25. reputation<br />use/rate/recommend/tag<br />create<br />profile/reputation: every value interaction contains one or more context parameters<br />
  26. 26. . reference (quality & context))<br />. rating (quality)<br />. tag (context)<br />expertise profile<br />write<br />paper<br />. review (quality & context)<br />researcher I<br />evaluate quality of review<br />write<br />review<br />review competency<br />Example: Academic literature… finding the right reviewer<br />Academics write papers and do reviews<br />A reviewer that has a good reputation can ask more money<br />The reputation of a reviewer is based on <br /> - The quality of his own papers (expertise)<br /> - The quality of his reviews (review competency)<br /> - more… (recommendations?)<br />The value of a paper is based on the review(s), references, and ratings<br />The context of a paper is based on the review, keywords, journal keywords, and social tagging<br /> - Keywords of the paper itself<br /> - Keywords of the paper referring to the paper<br />
  27. 27. action<br />Knowledge (topic)<br />Logistics, six sigma<br />EX ANTE<br />Competencies (process)<br />Write a paper<br />
  28. 28. reaction: <br /><ul><li>evaluate value  review/refer/rate
  29. 29. contextualize  structured/ references/tag</li></ul>EX POSTERIORI<br /> based on reactions<br />
  30. 30.
  31. 31. Challenge<br /><ul><li>Context
  32. 32. Quality</li></li></ul><li>Discussion<br />I. Reputation? What is your reputation? Which elements of a reputation can you derive from interactions with contributions?<br />II. PhD community: what do we want to do with it?<br />
  33. 33. 2 ideas<br /><ul><li>Research question
  34. 34. A sustainable campus platform</li></li></ul><li>Idea 1: Research questions<br /><ul><li>Every PhD needs to formulate several research questions
  35. 35. That can be difficult
  36. 36. Some feedback could be helpful
  37. 37. Seeing who have similar research questions could also be interesting</li></li></ul><li>Research question:<br />NEEDS REFLECTION!<br />Which interactions of users with online content relate to quality?<br />Keywords: quality, user-generated content, Web 2.0, rating, popularity… add one yourself!<br />&gt;&gt; 7 related questions<br />&gt;&gt; 3 comments<br />&gt;&gt; 2 links/attachments<br />Share on Twitter<br />Email question<br />Add a comment, link, or attachment<br />Stay updated<br />I like this<br />So, I filled in my research question, now what?<br /><ul><li>Attach a document, link, or comment
  38. 38. Assign label “Needs reflection”, “Needs case”, “Needs supervision/collaborators”, “Needs literature”
  39. 39. Others can react, give tips, link to interesting resources, suggest people, like, offer help, etc.
  40. 40. Be notified of others who have similar interests</li></li></ul><li>Idea 2: A sustainable campus platform<br /><ul><li>People can add simple tips and suggestions to make this campus more sustainable
  41. 41. Possibly including references to literature
  42. 42. Leads to discussion, voting, and possibly solutions
  43. 43. Could lead to research</li></li></ul><li>Simply sustainable tip : Use tap water instead of bottled water<br />NEW!<br />Keywords: water, consumption<br />Who can do it? Everyone<br />Effort: minimum<br />How many people do it? 29<br />Research: 4 paper, 3 reports<br />I like this<br />Summary<br />blablabla./… water and (Spieckse, 2007), etc.<br />Stay updated<br />Share on Twitter<br />Email tip<br />Add a solution, comment, link, or attachment<br />&gt;&gt; 7 related tips<br />&gt;&gt; 3 comments<br />&gt;&gt; 2 links/attachments<br />
  44. 44. Some things to take into account<br />
  45. 45. Kollock<br />motivation~ need<br /> Need or necessity is central<br />  Heterogeneity is important (different views, people)<br />
  46. 46. Bouwman et al.<br /><ul><li>We argue that social software systems should trigger mechanisms that allow us to associate with or form social groups, whether online or in the real world.
  47. 47. Such mechanisms would acknowledge human motivations, like eagerness for exploration, curiosity, inquisitiveness, civilization, valuation of belonging, achieving self-realization, enjoying one-self.</li></li></ul><li>