Argumentative discussions-on-the-web-2013-02-bretagne

3,570 views

Published on

Presentation at Télécom Bretagne on my thesis & related work (draws from EKAW talk). Part of a European Science foundation Exploratory Workshop on Measuring Evaluation managing online communities European virtual institute #OOC2013

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,570
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • . The issue is whether it is the right product for the buyer, which is a matter not only of the pros and cons, but also of the explanations and counterarguments given. In our view, current approaches detect problems, but obscure the chains of reasoning about them.Image: http://www.nickmilton.com/2012/03/when-people-trust-crowds.html
  • Isn’t it funny that people tweet about thisDifference between cakes and biscuits? When stale, cakes go hard, biscuits go soft. Hence Jaffa Cakes are cakes. (Was official EU ruling).https://twitter.com/robeastaway/status/135838892694839296
  • http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R34F9M7871K2W0/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=B004M8S152&cdForum=FxM7A99WYT0UJ9&cdMsgID=Mx35ZEPGH4SV7JK&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1C124R97075W9&store=photo#Mx35ZEPGH4SV7JKArgumentation!ClaimsJustificationsContrary Claims & Disagreements…
  • 4 Dimensions of ExpressionTo extract well-formed knowledge bases of argument, we must first chart out the various dimensions of social media, to point the way towards the aspects that argumentation reconstruction will need to consider, so that we later can isolate these aspects.Social media encompasses numerous genres, each with their own conversational styles, which affect what sort of rhetoric and arguments may be made. One key feature is the extent to which a medium is used for broadcasts (e.g. monologues) versus conversations (e.g. dialogues), and in each genre, a prototypical message or messages could be described, but these vary across genres due to social conventions and technical constraints. De Moor and Efimova compared rhetorical and argumentative aspects[4] of listservs and blogs, identifying features such as the likelihood that messages receive responses, and whether spaces are owned communities or by a single individual, and the timeline for replies [5]. Important message characteristics include the typical and allowable message length (e.g. space limitations on microblogs) and whether messages may be continually refined by a group (such as in StackOverflow).Metadata associated with a post (such as poster, timestamp, and subject line for listservs) and additional structure (such as pingbacks and links for blogs) can also be used for argumentation. For example, a user’s most recent post is generally taken to identify their current view, while relationships between messages can indicate a shared topic, and may be associated with agreement or disagreement.Users are different, and properties of users are factors that contribute not only to substance of the user’s comment, but as well to how they react to the comments of others. These include demographic information such as the user’s age, gender, location, education, and so on. In a specific domain, additional user expectations or constraints could also be added. Different users are persuaded by different kinds of information. Therefore, to solve peoples’ problems, based on knowledge bases, when dealing with inconsistency, understanding the purposes and goals that people have would be useful.Therefore, the goals of a particular dialogue also matter. These have been considered in argumentation theory: Walton & Krabbe have categorized dialogue types based on the initial situation, participant’s goal, and the goal of the dialogue [11]. The types they distinguish are inquiry, discovery, information seeking, deliberation, persuasion, negotiation and eristic. These are abstractions–any single conversation moves through various dialogue types. For example, a deliberation may be paused in order to delve into information seeking, then resumed once the needed information has been obtained.Higher level context would also be useful: different amounts of certainty are needed for different purposes. Some of that is inherent in a task: Reasoning about what kind of medical treatment to seek for a long-term illness, based on PatientsLikeMe, requires more certainty than deciding what to buy based on product reviews.Informal language is very typically found in social media. Generic language processing issues, with misspellings and abbreviations, slang, language mixing emoticons, and unusual use of punctuation, must be resolved in order to enable text mining (and subsequently argumentation mining) on informal language. Indirect forms of speech, such as sarcasm, irony, and innuendo, are also common. A step-by-step approach, focusing first on what can be handled, is necessary.Another aspect of the informality is that much information is left implicit. Therefore, inferring from context is essential. Elliptical statements require us to infer common world knowledge, and connecting to existing knowledge bases will be needed.We apply sentiment techniques to provide candidates for argumentation mining and especially to identify textual markers of subjectivity and objectivity. The arguments that are made about or against purported facts have a different form from the arguments that are made about opinions. Arguments about objective statements provide the reasons for believing a purported fact or how certain it is. Subjective arguments might indicate, for instance, which users would benefit from a service or product (those similar to the poster). Another area where subjective arguments may appear is discussions of the trust and credibility about the people making the arguments.
  • Social media encompasses numerous genres, each with their own conversational styles, which affect what sort of rhetoric and arguments may be made. One key feature is the extent to which a medium is used for broadcasts (e.g. monologues) versus conversations (e.g. dialogues), and in each genre, a prototypical message or messages could be described, but these vary across genres due to social conventions and technical constraints. De Moor and Efimova compared rhetorical and argumentative aspects of listservs and blogs, identifying features such as the likelihood that messages receive responses, and whether spaces are owned communities or by a single individual, and the timeline for replies [5]. Important message characteristics include the typical and allowable message length (e.g. space limitations on microblogs) and whether messages may be continually refined by a group (such as in StackOverflow).
  • Metadata associated with a post (such as poster, timestamp, and subject line for listservs) and additional structure (such as pingbacks and links for blogs) can also be used for argumentation. For example, a user’s most recent post is generally taken to identify their current view, while relationships between messages can indicate a shared topic, and may be associated with agreement or disagreement.
  • Users are different, and properties of users are factors that contribute not only to substance of the user’s comment, but as well to how they react to the comments of others. These include demographic information such as the user’s age, gender, location, education, and so on. In a specific domain, additional user expectations or constraints could also be added.
  • Different users are persuaded by different kinds of information. Therefore, to solve peoples’ problems, based on knowledge bases, when dealing with inconsistency, understanding the purposes and goals that people have would be useful. Therefore, the goals of a particular dialogue also matter. These have been considered in argumentation theory: Walton & Krabbe have categorized dialogue types based on the initial situation, participant’s goal, and the goal of the dialogue [11]. The types they distinguish are inquiry, discovery, information seeking, deliberation, persuasion, negotiation and eristic. These are abstractions–any single conversation moves through various dialogue types. For example, a deliberation may be paused in order to delve into information seeking, then resumed once the needed information has been obtained. Higher level context would also be useful: different amounts of certainty are needed for different purposes. Some of that is inherent in a task: Reasoning about what kind of medical treatment to seek for a long-term illness, based on PatientsLikeMe, requires more certainty than deciding what to buy based on product reviews. Informal language is very typically found in social media. Generic language processing issues, with misspellings and abbreviations, slang, language mixing emoticons, and unusual use of punctuation, must be resolved in order to enable text mining (and subsequently argumentation mining) on informal language. Indirect forms of speech, such as sarcasm, irony, and innuendo, are also common. A step-by-step approach, focusing first on what can be handled, is necessary. Another aspect of the informality is that much information is left implicit. Therefore, inferring from context is essential. Elliptical statements require us to infer common world knowledge, and connecting to existing knowledge bases will be needed. We apply sentiment techniques to provide candidates for argumentation mining and especially to identify textual markers of subjectivity and objectivity. The arguments that are made about or against purported facts have a different form from the arguments that are made about opinions. Arguments about objective statements provide the reasons for believing a purported fact or how certain it is. Subjective arguments might indicate, for instance, which users would benefit from a service or product (those similar to the poster). Another area where subjective arguments may appear is discussions of the trust and credibility about the people making the arguments.
  • Summarising my research to dateSkills, knowledge and track record I can bring to Understand & improve online discussions Enabling reuse of arguments and opinions from online social disputes
  • 1“only 0.6 percent of those whose articles are met with deletion stayed editing, compared to 4.4 percent of the users whose articles remained”, http://enwp.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_ Signpost/2011-04-04/Editor_retention
  • Mentoring in discussions is effective: Article creators who receive mentoring seem toMake more edits to the articleContinue editingIncrease understanding of policy
  • Experts argue from precedentNovices: values, analogy, cause to effectJodi Schneider, KrystianSamp, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online Task Groups. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2013).
  • 500 discussions per week about deleting borderline articles
  • 20 novice participants used both systems“The ability to navigate the comments made it a bit easier to filter my mind set and to come to a conclusion.”“summarise and, at the same time, evaluate which factor should be considered determinant for the final decision”
  • Want to reuse social media dataGrowing amount of social media dataWant to reuse dataNeed to analyse & structure it
  • Want to reuse social media dataGrowing amount of social media dataWant to reuse dataNeed to analyse & structure it
  • Want to reuse social media dataGrowing amount of social media dataWant to reuse dataNeed to analyse & structure it
  • Argumentative discussions-on-the-web-2013-02-bretagne

    1. 1. Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Argumentative Discussions on the Web Jodi Schneider @jschneider “Towards a Virtual Institute for the Measurement, Wednesday 6 Feb 2013 Evaluation, and Management of Open Online Communities” - EST Exploratory Workshop Telecom Bretagne, Brest, France Copyright 2011 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Enabling Networked Knowledge 1
    2. 2. Ph.D. student o Study the Web & sociotechical systems o Multidisciplinary approaches o Create new methods & repurpose existing ones o Bias: structure data@jschneider jodischneider.com
    3. 3. Key PointThe overall popularity of an opinion is not asimportant as the reasons supporting it Image credit: http://www.nickmilton.com/2012/03/when-people-trust-crowds.html
    4. 4. ArgumentsClaim: Jaffa Cakes are cakesJustification: official EU ruling; cakes go hard when stale Tweet by @robeastaway https://twitter.com/robeastaway/status/135838892694839296
    5. 5. Arguments o Claim: If Canon does not make the repair, you should take them to small claims court. o Justification: it’s easy, cheap, and can be done online; it’s within your rights Joint work with Adam Wyner (Aberdeen)
    6. 6. What aspects of social media are relevant to extracting and representing argumentation?o Genreo Metadatao Properties of userso Goals of a particular dialogueo Contexto Informal languageo Implicit infoo Sentiment techniqueso Subjectivity and objectivity Jodi Schneider, Brian Davis, and Adam Wyner. “Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media.” In 18th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW 2012).
    7. 7. Genre
    8. 8. Metadata
    9. 9. Properties of Users 9
    10. 10. Goals - ( .4% ) 1#$ ! " % ( )*+, ( #$ & ; ," %1" 14)< ) - #./ 0" #123 % , 4)5 #$ 61% $ 8& 7 ( ( 9: % % / 1 =#$ ( 4 Find and Verify > " 1? .+ High Low Low Evidence Find and Defend a ! " @ .+ 40% ( High Low Low Suitable Hypothesis Acquire or Give> % #/ % C( ( D" 1A .: 1B 1& High Low Low Information Coordinate Goals and ! ( $E( .#/ % " 1 High Varies High Actions - ( .4 #4" 1 % Persuade Other Party Varies High High Get What You Most F ( & / #/ % % 1 Low Varies High Want Verbally Hit Out at 9." 0 4/ Low High High Opponent Walton & Krabbe. D. N. Walton. Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1995.
    11. 11. Goals of #election2012 tweets?
    12. 12. My thesis in the Social Semantic Webo Investigate Wikipedia discussionso Provide semantic supporto Evaluate the impact on the community
    13. 13. Deletion threatens Wikipediao 1 in 4 new Wikipedia articles is deleted – within minutes or hourso Demotivating! • 1 in 3 newcomers start by writing a new article • 7X less likely to stay if their article is deleted!o Can we support editor retention?
    14. 14. Article creatorso Misunderstand policy • “I do understand that articles on wikipedia need to be sourced… it is due to have two [sources] once [our website goes] live”o Express high levels of emotion • “To be honest its been a real turn off adding articles to WP and I dont think I will add articles again. So smile and enjoy.”o Learn from discussions • “much as it would break my heart … it is perhaps sensible that the piece is deleted.” Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. “Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes.” In WikiSym2012.
    15. 15. Novices’ argumentso Structurally different to experts’ argumentso More problematic arguments from novices • Personal preference • Requesting a favor • Analogy to other cases • No harm in keeping an article • Large number of search engine hits Jodi Schneider, Krystian Samp, Alexandre Passant, Stefan Decker. “Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online Task Groups”. In CSCW 2013.
    16. 16. Factor Example (used to justifyArticulate criteria `keep) Notability Anyone covered by another encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.4 Factors cover Sources Basic information about this • 91% of album at a minimum is certainly comments verifiable, its a major label • 70% of release, and a highly notable discussions band. Maintenance …this article is savable but at its current state, needs a lot of improvement. Bias It is by no means spam (it does not promote the products). Other Im advocating a blanket "hangon" for all articles on newly- drafted players Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. “Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes.” In WikiSym2012.
    17. 17. Add semantic structure Implementation based on Jodi Schneider and Krystian Samp “Alternative Interfaces for Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Some Proposals Using Decision Factors. [Demo]” In WikiSym2012.
    18. 18. 84% prefer our system“Information is structured and I can quickly get anoverview of the key arguments.”“The ability to navigate the comments made it a biteasier to filter my mind set and to come to aconclusion.”“It offers the structure needed to consider each factorseparately, thus making the decision easier. Also, thenumber of comments per factor offers a quickindication of the relevance and the deepness of thedecision.”
    19. 19. Thanks!o Questions?o Comments?o jschneider@pobox.como @jschneider
    20. 20. Acknowledgementso Thanks to collaborators! • Adam Wyner • Brian Davis • Krystian Sampo Overall Ph.D. funding, Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2), advised by Alexandre Passant & Stefan Decker
    21. 21. Linked Data Cloud http://lod-cloud.net
    22. 22. image credit: Alexandre Passant

    ×