Arguments in hypertext: a rhetorical approach
HYPERTEXT '00 Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia
The Cathedral and the Bazaar
ThemeRiver: Visualizing Thematic Changes in Large Document Collections
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics
Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
The Wisdom of Crowds
Argumentation support: from technologies to tools
Communications of the ACM - Self managed systems
Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: an approach to legal logic
Artificial Intelligence and Law - Law, logic and defeasibility
Towards an argument interchange format
The Knowledge Engineering Review
A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision
Decision Support Systems
Modelling discourse in contested domains: a semiotic and cognitive framework
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems
Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems
The Promise of Research on Open Source Software
Management Science
Laying the foundations for a World Wide Argument Web
Artificial Intelligence
The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies
Adaptive mediation in groupware
Adaptive mediation in groupware
Information Sciences: an International Journal
Contested Collective Intelligence: Rationale, Technologies, and a Human-Machine Annotation Study
Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Socially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Hi-index | 0.07 |
Web 2.0 technologies, such as forums and wikis, are enabling an explosion of global knowledge sharing through distributed large-scale conversations, but they seem to be less successful at supporting collaborative deliberation around complex and controversial questions. In order to cope with this limitation, many scholars have proposed to adopt on-line argumentation platforms to improve information visualization, organization and reuse. However, such research has mostly focused on the design of adequate argument-based knowledge formalisms. Less attention has been paid to the empirical analysis of actual interactions mediated by argumentation technology with reasonably large user communities. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of the data obtained in the empirical test of an argumentation platform where a 160-member community created, in 3weeks, what is to our knowledge the largest single online argument map ever built (around 5000 posts). Our results show that (i) users were able to quickly and comprehensively explore and map the debate on the selected discussion topic; (ii) substantial moderation was needed to ensure that the argument map was well-organized and users were confident with the argumentation formalism; (iii) considerable out-of-the map communication occurred, possibly as a way to allow for conversational flows inhibited by the argumentation formalism, (iv) formal rating of contributions favored exploration of the map, understanding the debate structure, and improving the quality of content.