(Alternative names for this keyword)
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of keywords|
controversy is included as keyword or extra keyword in 0 datasets, 0 tools and 6 publications.
There is no datasets for this keyword.
There is no tools for this keyword.
|Title||Author(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|A Platform for Visually Exploring the Development of Wikipedia Articles||Erik Borra
|ICWSM '15 - 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media||English||May 2015||When looking for information on Wikipedia, Internet users generally just read the latest version of an article. However, in its back-end there is much more: associated to each article are the edit history and talk pages, which together entail its full evolution. These spaces can typically reach thousands of contributions, and it is not trivial to make sense of them by manual inspection. This issue also affects Wikipedians, especially the less experienced ones, and constitutes a barrier for new editor engagement and retention. To address these limitations, Contropedia offers its users unprecedented access to the development of an article, using wiki links as focal points.||0||0|
|Identifying controversial articles in Wikipedia: A comparative study||Hoda Sepehri Rad
|WikiSym||English||August 2012||Wikipedia articles are the result of the collaborative editing of a diverse group of anonymous volunteer editors, who are passionate and knowledgeable about specific topics. One can argue that this plurality of perspectives leads to broader coverage of the topic, thus benefitting the reader. On the other hand, differences among editors on polarizing topics can lead to controversial or questionable content, where facts and arguments are presented and discussed to support a particular point of view. Controversial articles are manually tagged by Wikipedia editors, and span many interesting and popular topics, such as religion, history, and politics, to name a few. Recent works have been proposed on automatically identifying controversy within unmarked articles. However, to date, no systematic comparison of these efforts has been made. This is in part because the various methods are evaluated using different criteria and on different sets of articles by different authors, making it hard for anyone to verify the efficacy and compare all alternatives. We provide a first attempt at bridging this gap. We compare five different methods for modelling and identifying controversy, and discuss some of the unique difficulties and opportunities inherent to the way Wikipedia is produced.||0||0|
|Negotiating Cultural Values in Social Media: A Case Study from Wikipedia||Jonathan T. Morgan
Robert M. Mason
|Towards identifying arguments in Wikipedia pages||Hoda Sepehri Rad
|World Wide Web||English||2011||0||0|
|Visual analysis of controversy in user-generated encyclopedias||Ulrik Brandes
|Information Visualization||English||2008||Wikipedia is a large and rapidly growing Web-based collaborative authoring environment, where anyone on the Internet can create, modify, and delete pages about encyclopedic topics. A remarkable property of some Wikipedia pages is that they are written by up to thousands of authors who may have contradicting opinions. In this paper, we show that a visual analysis of the 'who revises whom'-network gives deep insight into controversies. We propose a set of analysis and visualization techniques that reveal the dominant authors of a page, the roles they play, and the alters they confront. Thereby we provide tools to understand how Wikipedia authors collaborate in the presence of controversy.||12||5|
|WikiNetViz: Visualizing friends and adversaries in implicit social networks||Le M.-T.
|IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics, 2008, IEEE ISI 2008||English||2008||When multiple users with diverse backgrounds and beliefs edit Wikipedia together, disputes often arise due to disagreements among the users. In this paper, we introduce a novel visualization tool known as WikiNetViz to visualize and analyze disputes among users in a dispute-induced social network. WikiNetViz is designed to quantify the degree of dispute between a pair of users using the article history. Each user (and article) is also assigned a controversy score by our proposed ControversyRank model so as to measure the degree of controversy of a user (and an article) by the amount of disputes between the user (article) and other users in articles of varying degrees of controversy. On the constructed social network, WikiNetViz can perform clustering so as to visualize the dynamics of disputes at the user group level. It also provides an article viewer for examining an article revision so as to determine the article content modified by different users.||0||0|