Towards Effective Structure-Based Assessment of Arguments and Proposals in Online Deliberation
نویسندگان
چکیده
Deliberation, i.e., discussing and ranking different proposals and making decisions, is an important issue for many communities, be they political, be they boards of experts for a scientific issue. Online deliberation however has issues, such as unorganized content, off-topic or repetition postings, or aggressive and conflicting behavior of participants. To address these issues, based on a relatively simple argumentation model and on feedback of different type, we propose to weight community members in an elaborate manner; this in turn is used to score arguments and proposals. Given such a scoring scheme, it is important to examine to which extent individuals have understood and accepted the approach, to identify characteristics of ‘good’ discussants and of strong arguments and proposals, and to study the robustness of the approach with regard to minor changes. To this end, we have carried out an experiment with a real-world community which had to make subjective decisions on issues relevant to them, and we have analyzed the data generated by it systematically, covering the different layers of our approach. Our takeaway is that the approach proposed here is promising to improve deliberation in many settings.
منابع مشابه
Improving online deliberation with argument network visualization
Social media are increasingly used to support online debate and facilitate citizens’ engagement in policy and decision-making. Nevertheless the online dialogue spaces we see on the Web today typically provide flat listings of comments, or threads that can be viewed by ‘subject’ line. These are fundamentally chronological views which offer no insight into the logical structure of the ideas, such...
متن کاملA Formal Argumentation Framework for Deliberation Dialogues
Agents engage in deliberation dialogues to collectively decide on a course of action. To solve conflicts of opinion that arise, they can question claims and supply arguments. Existing models fail to capture the interplay between the provided arguments as well as successively selecting a winner from the proposals. This paper introduces a general framework for agent deliberation dialogues that us...
متن کاملUse of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes – Learning by Doing; Comment on “Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe”
The article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen (OJB) is much more important than it appears because, in the absence of any good general theory of “evidence-informed deliberative processes” (EDP) and limited evidence of how they might be shaped and work in institutionalising health technology assessment (HTA), the best approach seems to be to accumulate the experience of...
متن کاملThe Effect of Dynamic Assessment of Toulmin Model through Teacher- and Collective-Scaffolding on Argument Structure and Argumentative Writing Achievement of Iranian EFL Learners
Considering the paramount importance of writing logical arguments for college students, this study investigated the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) of Toulmin model through teacher- and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and overall quality of argumentative essays of Iranian EFL university learners. In so doing, 45 male and female Iranian EFL learners taking part in the study were r...
متن کاملA lightweight formal model of two-phase democratic deliberation
A formal two-phase model of democratic policy deliberation is presented, in which in the first phase sufficient and necessary criteria for proposals to be accepted are determined (the ‘admissible’ criteria’) and in the second phase proposals are made and evaluated in light of the admissible criteria resulting from the first phase. Argument schemes for both phases are defined and formalised in a...
متن کامل