supporting collaborative online arguing -- talk for bici frontiers and connections between...

Supporting Collaborative Online Arguing

Jodi Schneider

Frontiers and Connections between Argumentation Theory and Natural Language ProcessingBiCi seminar series, Bertinoro (Forlì-Cesena), Italy24 July 2014

Topics

• Examples of argumentation support• Supporting Collaborative Online Arguing• Structuring scientific argument:

Micropublications model

Create new spaces for civic debatehttp://Consider.It

"Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt." CSCW 2012Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett.

Create new spaces for civic debatehttp://Consider.It

"Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt." CSCW 2012Travis Kriplean, Jonathan Morgan, Deen Freelon, Alan Borning, and Lance Bennett.

Choosetask-

appropriateformalisms:

SEAS

"Template-based structured argumentation." In Knowledge Cartography, Springer London, 2008.John Lowrance, Ian Harrison, Andres Rodriguez, Eric Yeh, Tom Boyce, Janet Murdock, Jerome Thomere, and Ken Murray.

Choosetask-

appropriateformalisms

discoursedb.org

Support incremental

formalization

argunet.org

ClimateCoLabclimatecolab.org

http://www.climatecolab.org/ Circa 2010

Topics

• Examples of argumentation support• Supporting Collaborative Online Arguing• Structuring scientific argument:

Micropublications model

General Approach (from Informatics)

1. Analyze requirements2. Consider which argumentation models to use3. Build a prototype support tool4. Evaluate and iterate

500 Wikipedia debates each week: Should we delete this article?

Requirements: Support argumentation tasks

• Convince others of your position, using community norms

• Determine the overall consensus decision

Compare two argumentation theories

• Walton’s Argumentation Schemes (Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008)

– Informal argumentation (philosophical & computational argumentation)

– Identify & prevent errors in reasoning (fallacies)– 60 patterns

• Factors/Dimensions Analysis (Ashley 1991; Bench-Capon and Rissland, 2001)

– Case-based reasoning– E.g. factors for deciding cases in trade secret law,

favoring either party (the plaintiff or the defendant).

Walton’s Argumentation SchemesExample Argumentation Scheme: Argument from Rules – “we apply rule X”

Critical Questions1. Does the rule require carrying out this type of action?

2. Are there other established rules that might conflict with or override this one?

3. Are there extenuating circumstances or an excuse for noncompliance?

Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008

“Rule” Argumentation Scheme

“Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online Task Groups” CSCW 2013

“Evidence” Argumentation Scheme

“Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online Task Groups” CSCW 2013

Evidence + Rule -> Conclusion

“Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online Task Groups” CSCW 2013

Supporting Tasks with Walton

• Convince others of your position, using community norms– To win an argument, use popular schemes:

• Argument from Evidence to Hypothesis (19%)• Argument from Rules (17%)

• Determine the overall consensus decision– Ask critical questions to check others' arguments

Factors/Dimensions Analysis

• Factors (case-based reasoning)– All or nothing• Either present ("applicable") or absent• When present, a factor always favors the same side

• Dimensions– More complex/subtle• Can be applicable to a varying degree ("sliding scale")• Favor plantiff on one extreme; defendant on the other

Ashley 1991; Bench-Capon and Rissland, 2001

Example factors analysis (Aleven 1997)

Aleven 1997

Wikipedia Factors Analysis

Factors determined by iterative annotation

4 Factors cover– 91% of comments– 70% of discussions

“Other” as 5th catchall

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

Wikipedia Factors Analysis

Factors determined by iterative annotation

4 Factors cover– 91% of comments– 70% of discussions

“Other” as 5th catchall

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

Wikipedia Factors AnalysisFactor Example (used to justify 'keep') Example (used to justify 'delete'Notability Anyone covered by another

encyclopedic reference is considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

There is simply no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability.

Sources Basic information about this album at a minimum is certainly verifiable, it's a major label release, and a highly notable band.

There are no independent secondary sources (books, magazine articles, documentaries, etc.) about her.

Maintenance …this article is savable but at its current state, needs a lot of improvement.

Too soon for a page likely to be littered with rumour and speculation.

Bias It is by no means spam (it does not promote the products).

The article seems to have been created by her or her agent as a promotional device.

**Other I'm advocating a blanket "hangon" for all articles on newly-drafted players

it appears to be original research by synthesis

Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes. WikiSym 2012.

Supporting Tasks with Factors

• Convince others of your position, using community norms– To win an argument, talk about the right topics

• Notability, Sources, Maintenance, Bias

• Determine the overall consensus decision– Group messages by factor– Summarize prevalence

Factor-based Summarization

Argument Schemes vs. Factors?

• Argument Schemes (kappa=.48)Details of how to put together an argument– Could support WRITING detailed arguments– Critical Questioning

• Factors (kappa=.64-.82, based on factor)Topics of discussion– Basic support for writing arguments– Summarization supports decision-making

Argument prevalence depends on the corpus

• Wikipedia– Argument from Evidence to Hypothesis (19%)– Argument from Rules (17%)

• Arucaria– Argument from example (38%)– Argument from cause to effect (27%)– Practical reasoning (14%)– Argument from consequences (11%)– Argument from verbal classification (10%)

Topics

• Examples of argumentation support• Supporting Collaborative Online Arguing• Micropublications model: Structuring

scientific argument

Micropublications

Model Data, Methods, Materials, References

Micropublications: a Semantic Model for Claims, Evidence, Arguments and Annotations in Biomedical CommunicationsTim Clark, Paolo N. Ciccarese, Carole A. Goblehttp://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3506

Direct Annotation with Domeo

http://swan.mindinformatics.org/ Paolo N Ciccarese

Micropublication: Claim + Support (e.g. Attribution)

Micropublications: a Semantic Model for Claims, Evidence, Arguments and Annotations in Biomedical CommunicationsTim Clark, Paolo N. Ciccarese, Carole A. Goblehttp://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3506

Constructs claim-argument network across scientific papers

Micropublications: a Semantic Model for Claims, Evidence, Arguments and Annotations in Biomedical CommunicationsTim Clark, Paolo N. Ciccarese, Carole A. Goblehttp://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3506

Argumentation Mining papersArguing on Wikipedia • “Arguments about Deletion: How Experience Improves the Acceptability of Arguments in Ad-hoc Online

Task Groups” CSCW 2013.• “Deletion Discussions in Wikipedia: Decision Factors and Outcomes” WikiSym2012.Arguing in Social Media• “Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media" EKAW 2012• “Why did they post that argument? Communicative intentions of Web 2.0 arguments.” Arguing on the

Web 2.0 at ISSA 2014Arguing in Reviews• “Identifying Consumers' Arguments in Text” SWAIE 2012• “Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews" COMMA 2012• “Arguing from a Point of View” Agreement Technologies 2012Structuring Arguments on the Social Semantic Web• “A Review of Argumentation for the Social Semantic Web” Semantic Web – Interoperability, Usability,

Applicability, 2013.• “Identifying, Annotating, and Filtering Arguments and Opinions in Open Collaboration Systems" 2013

Thesis: purl.org/jsphd• “Modeling Arguments in Scientific Papers” at ArgDiaP 2014

http://jodischneider.com/jodi.html

Argumentation mining today

• No unified vision of the field. Multiple:– Interrelated problems– Application domains– Tools handling one aspect of annotation

• Few corpora• Need for– Common definition(s) of argumentation– "Challenge problems"– Shared corpora– Applications

Example: "Stop at a red light"

1. Does the rule require carrying out this type of action?Were you driving a vehicle?

2. Are there other established rules that might conflict with or override this one?Did a police officer direct you to continue without stopping?

3. Are there extenuating circumstances or an excuse for noncompliance?Were you driving an ambulance with its siren on?

Critical Questions from Argument from Rules based on Walton, Reed, and Macagno 2008

None of Wikipedia's top-used schemes are prevalent in Arucaria.

Classifying Arguments by Scheme. Vanessa Wei Feng. Master's thesis, Toronto, 2010.

Goal: large-scale arguing

• Search for issues, claims, and opinion clusters• Link to evidence when writing your opinion• Publish and navigate claims networks

Online argumentation support interfaces can:

• Promote "listening" in online conversations• Support incremental formalization• Slice and dice the views• Collect crisp examples• Support distributed sensemaking

Argumentation mining could be the basis for support tools

• Help participants write persuasive arguments– How: provide personalized feedback on drafts– Requires: knowing which arguments are accepted;

identifying argumentation in a drafts • Find weaknesses in others’ arguments– How: suggest & instantiate relevant critical questions– Requires: identifying argumentation schemes

• Summarize the overall conclusions of the debate– How: identify the winning and losing rationales– Requires: identifying rationales and contradictions