This document summarizes a presentation on supporting online argumentation in open collaboration systems. The presentation discusses how newcomers to open collaboration systems can have difficulties understanding implicit norms and argues that making rules and criteria more explicit could help support newcomers. It provides examples from analyses of Wikipedia deletion discussions that show newcomers struggle more with acceptability of arguments. The presentation proposes adding semantic structure to discussions to articulate criteria for decisions and make the system more newcomer-friendly. An implementation of this approach received positive feedback in a user study.

1. Copyright 2011 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved.
Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie
Enabling Networked Knowledge
Talking is (virtual) work:
Supporting online argumentation
Jodi Schneider
Weds 18th September 2013
1
Dynamics of Virtual Work Training School
Valletta, Malta

2. Ph.D. student
o Information Management on
the Web
o Open collaboration systems
o Multidisciplinary,
mixed methods
@jschneider jodischneider.com

3. Open Collaboration Systems
o Wikipedia
o OpenStreetMap
o Project Gutenberg – Distributed Proofreaders
o Apache projects, Mozilla Firefox, …
In these Open Collaboration Systems
“people form ties with others & create things together”
(Forte and Lampe 2013)

4. How do we learn the “talk”?

5. Online “talk” for decisions

7. What’s an Open Collaboration System?
“An online environment that
(1) supports the collective production of an artifact
(2) through a technologically mediated
collaboration platform
(3) that presents a low barrier to entry and exit,
and
(4) supports the emergence of
persistent but malleable social structures.”
(Forte and Lampe 2013)

8. What’s an Open Collaboration System?
“An online environment that
(1) supports the collective production of an artifact
(2) through a technologically mediated
collaboration platform
(3) that presents a low barrier to entry and exit,
and
(4) supports the emergence of
persistent but malleable social structures.”
(Forte and Lampe 2013)
“Group” collaborating

9. What’s an Open Collaboration System?
“An online environment that
(1) supports the collective production of an artifact
(2) through a technologically mediated
collaboration platform
(3) that presents a low barrier to entry and exit,
and
(4) supports the emergence of
persistent but malleable social structures.”
(Forte and Lampe 2013)
How things get done

10. OBSERVATIONS
“Group” collaborating
Make explicit things
get done.

11. Support Newcomers
by Making Rules Explicit
o Investigate Wikipedia discussions
o Provide semantic support
o Evaluate the impact on the community

12. Deletion threatens Wikipedia
o 1 in 4 new Wikipedia articles is deleted – within
minutes or hours
o 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. Article creators
o 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 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.”
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. Novices’ arguments
o Structurally different to experts’ arguments
o 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. Articulate criteria
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
Jodi Schneider, Alexandre Passant, and Stefan Decker. “Deletion Discussions in
Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes.” In WikiSym2012.

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. 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.”

19. Thanks!
o Questions?
o Comments?
o jschneider@pobox.com
o @jschneider

20. Acknowledgements
o Thanks to collaborators!
• Krystian Samp
• Maciej Dabrowski
o Overall Ph.D. funding, Science Foundation Ireland Grant No.
SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2), advised by Alexandre Passant,
John Breslin & Stefan Decker

22. image credit: Alexandre Passant

23. Goals
! "#$%&' ( )*+, (
- #./0", #1234)5%#$ 61%7 $( 8&( 9: %/ %1
- ( .4%1#$)
; , "1"%14)< )
=#$' ( 4
>1?' ".+
Find and Verify
Evidence
High Low Low
! "40%@( .+
Find and Defend a
Suitable Hypothesis
High Low Low
>1A%.: #/%1BC( ( D"1&
Acquire or Give
Information
High Low Low
! ( $"E( .#/%1
Coordinate Goals and
Actions
High Varies High
- ( .4' #4"%1 Persuade Other Party Varies High High
F ( &%/ #/%1
Get What You Most
Want
Low Varies High
9."4/ 0
Verbally Hit Out at
Opponent
Low High High
Walton & Krabbe. D. N. Walton. Commitment in dialogue. State
University of New York Press, Albany, 1995.