Abstract
Although vote eases a Social Web for making decision, a final solution selected by vote is not always the best and might be a wrong answer. Its application without community deliberation obstructs the capability of individuals to share knowledge, create and edit contents, as well as emerge innovative ideas. Moreover, not all votes are reliable due to the increasing of vote spam phenomenon. Accordingly, the community knowledge in Social Webs confront with the reliability and quality issues. This paper, therefore, presents an empirical study of community deliberation in Social Webs by identifying its important components and social interactions in order to clarify the characteristic of an online community. By applying useful measures for analyzing the deliberation and achieving quality-assured consensual knowledge, the experimental results show that the proposed measures make a significant improvement in the accuracy of potential positions’ discovery comparing to the traditional voting method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds. American Journal of Physics 75(2), 190–192 (2007)
Bain, J., Liu, Y., Agichtein, E., Zha, H.: A Few Bad Vote Too Many? Towards Robust Ranking in Social Media. In: Proceeding of the 4th International Workshop on Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web (AIRWeb). ACM press, Beijing (2008)
Zhu, Y.: Measurement and Analysis of an Online Content Voting Network: A Case Study of Digg. In: Proceeding of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW), ACM press, Raleigh (2010)
Maleewong, K., Anutariya, C., Wuwongse, V.: SAM: Semantic argumentation based model for collaborative knowledge creation and sharing system. In: Nguyen, N.T., Kowalczyk, R., Chen, S.-M. (eds.) ICCCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5796, pp. 75–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Maleewong, K., Anutariya, C., Wuwongse, V.: Analyzing Community Deliberation and Achieving Consensual Knowledge in SAM. To appear in International Journal of Organizational and Collective Intelligence, IJOCI (2010)
Bian, J., Liu, Y., Agichtein, E., Zha, H.: Finding the right facts in the crowd: Factoid question answeringover social media. In: Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW). ACM press, Beijing (2008)
Lerman, K.: Social information processing in social news aggregation. IEEE Internet Computing: special issue on Social Search 11(6), 16–28 (2007)
Lerman, K., Galstyan, A.: Analysis of Social Voting Patterns on Digg. In: Proceeding of the 4th International Workshop on Online Social Networks. ACM press, Seattle (2008)
Kittur, A., Suh, B., Pendleton, B.A., Chi, E.H.: He Says, She Says: Conflict and coordination in Wikipedia. In: Proceeding of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing. ACM, San Jose (2007)
Hu, M., Lim, E., Sun, A., Lauw, W.H.: Measuring Article Quality in Wikipedia: Models and Evaluation. In: Proc. 16th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 243–252. ACM press, New York (2007)
Wilkinson, D., Huberman, B.A.: Cooperation and Quality in Wikipedia. In: WikiSym, pp. 157–164 (2007)
Rahwan, I., Zablith, F., Reed, C.: Towards large scale argumentation support on the semantic web. In: Proceeding of the 22nd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1446–1451. AAAI Press, Vancouver (2007)
Buckingham Shum, S., Selvin, A., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J.: Hypermedia Support for Argumentation-Based Rationale: 15 Years on from gIBIS and QOC. In: Dutoit, A.H. (ed.) Rationale Management in Software Engineering, pp. 111–132 (2006)
Conklin, J., Begeman, M.L.: gibis: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. In: ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. ACM Press, New York (1988)
Iandoli, L.K., Klein, M., Zollo, G.: Can We Exploit Collective Intelligence for Collaborative Deliberation? MIT Sloan School of Management (2008)
Rittel, H., Kunz, W.: Issue as elements of information systems. Institue of Urban and Regional Development. University of California (1970)
Walton, D.: Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. University Press, Cambridge (2006)
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. University Press, Cambridge (1958)
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M., Smith, L., Gasser, L.: Information quality work organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(6), 983–1001 (2008)
Yager, R.R.: Centered OWA operators. Soft Computing 11, 631–639 (2007)
LLC, S. (n.d.), Retrieved from http://www.softcorporation.com/products/suggester
Naber, D. (n.d.), Retrieved from http://www.languagetool.org
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Maleewong, K., Anutariya, C., Wuwongse, V. (2011). Is Vote Effective? An Empirical Study of Community Deliberation in Social Webs. In: Chiu, D.K.W., et al. Web Information Systems Engineering – WISE 2010 Workshops. WISE 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24396-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24396-7_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24395-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24396-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)