Thesis summary-arguments-about-deleting-wikipedia-content-paris-2013-04-19
-
Upload
jodischneider -
Category
Technology
-
view
2.879 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Thesis summary-arguments-about-deleting-wikipedia-content-paris-2013-04-19
Copyright 2011 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved.
Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie
Enabling Networked Knowledge
Arguments about deleting Wikipedia content
Jodi [email protected]
Vendredi 19th April 2013
1
Télécom ParisTech
Is Wikipedia Sustainable?
Deletion threatens Wikipedia
• 1 in 4 new Wikipedia articles is deleted – within minutes or hours
• Demotivating! – 1 in 3 newcomers start by writing a new article– 7X less likely to stay if their article is deleted!
• Can we support editor retention?
Ph.D. case study: argumentative dialogues about deleting Wikipedia articles
• Goals:– Understand collaboration & coordination– Identify “pain points” & new IT support opportunities
• Approaches:– Net-ethnography
• Interviews of community members• Embedded participation• Reading essays, policies, & written dialogues• Analysing article history, user contributions
– Content analysis• Departure point: grounded theory or existing categories. With multiple annotators,
iteratively refined annotation manual to achieve strong interannotator agreement.• Decision factors (WikiSym 2012)• Walton’s argumentation schemes (CSCW 2013)
– Prototyping & iterative design• Design (WikiSym 2012 demo)• User study (reported in dissertation)
Corpus
• Article deletion dialogues from English Wikipediastarted on a typical-volume day
• 72 dialogues (94 A4 pages)
Findings: pain points of article deletion
• Article creators• Novices visiting or newly joining Wikipedia• No-consensus dialogues
Article creators
• 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”
• Express high levels of emotion– “To be honest it's been a real turn off adding articles to WP
and I don't think I will add articles again. So smile and enjoy.”
• Learn from discussions– “much as it would break my heart … it is perhaps sensible
that the piece is deleted.”Net-ethnography in 8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012)
Novices’ arguments
• Structurally different to experts’ arguments• 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
Argumentation schemes content analysis in 16th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW 2013)
No consensus discussions
“What works well is simply the community agreeing on a verdict.”
Otherwise:• Time-consuming & difficult to judge a case• Same case may get raised repeatedly• Emotional upset is more likely
– “messy”, “full of hate and pain” when overturned
Net-ethnography & interviews in 8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012)
Articulate criteria
Decision factors content analysis in 8th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym 2012)
4 Factors cover– 91% of
comments– 70% of
discussions
Factor Example (used to justify `keep')
Notability Anyone covered by another encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Sources Basic information about this album at a minimum is certainly verifiable, it's a major label release, and a highly notable 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 I'm advocating a blanket "hangon" for all articles on newly- drafted players
Use criteria to augment interface
Prototype design (RDFa; custom ontology based on FOAF, SIOC)in WikiSym 2012 Demos
84% prefer our system
“Information is structured and I can quickly get an overview of the key arguments.”
“The ability to navigate the comments made it a bit easier to filter my mind set and to come to a conclusion.”
“It offers the structure needed to consider each factor separately, thus making the decision easier. Also, the number of comments per factor offers a quick indication of the relevance and the deepness of the decision.”
Based on a formative evaluation user study with 20 novice usersin dissertation “Enabling reuse of arguments and opinions from online social disputes”