Difference between revisions of "Analysis of Discussion Page in Wikipedia based on User's Discussion Capability"
(Analysis of Discussion Page in Wikipedia based on User's Discussion Capability - creating a new article) |
(Links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Analysis of Discussion Page in Wikipedia based on User's Discussion Capability''' - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2012, written by Sungmin Joo and Hideaki Takeda. | + | '''Analysis of Discussion Page in Wikipedia based on User's Discussion Capability''' - scientific work related to [[Wikipedia quality]] published in 2012, written by [[Sungmin Joo]] and [[Hideaki Takeda]]. |
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
| − | Wikipedia is the user contributed encyclopedia edited collaboratively by a wide-range of people. Wikipedia usually determines contents of article and editorial policies through discussion among participants. It requires a lot of effort in deducing its conclusion often due to protracted discussion. Authors need some measurement to examine how discussion is valuable to reach conclusion. So, authors call it discussion validity and define it with the model with discussion capability of participants. Discussion capability of participants consists of three features each of which represents characteristic aspect of users' behavior in discussion, and approximated from the corresponding three features of their utterances. Authors conducted the experiments with the subjects to verify the model and found that model resulted better than the conventional model and proposed the automatic prediction of discussion validity using the text analysis. Then authors estimated discussion validity through the model with the estimated values. It turned out that the estimation was well fitted with the values by the subjects. | + | Wikipedia is the user contributed encyclopedia edited collaboratively by a wide-range of people. [[Wikipedia]] usually determines contents of article and editorial policies through discussion among participants. It requires a lot of effort in deducing its conclusion often due to protracted discussion. Authors need some measurement to examine how discussion is valuable to reach conclusion. So, authors call it discussion validity and define it with the model with discussion capability of participants. Discussion capability of participants consists of three [[features]] each of which represents characteristic aspect of users' behavior in discussion, and approximated from the corresponding three features of their utterances. Authors conducted the experiments with the subjects to verify the model and found that model resulted better than the conventional model and proposed the automatic prediction of discussion validity using the text analysis. Then authors estimated discussion validity through the model with the estimated values. It turned out that the estimation was well fitted with the values by the subjects. |
Revision as of 10:33, 8 September 2019
Analysis of Discussion Page in Wikipedia based on User's Discussion Capability - scientific work related to Wikipedia quality published in 2012, written by Sungmin Joo and Hideaki Takeda.
Overview
Wikipedia is the user contributed encyclopedia edited collaboratively by a wide-range of people. Wikipedia usually determines contents of article and editorial policies through discussion among participants. It requires a lot of effort in deducing its conclusion often due to protracted discussion. Authors need some measurement to examine how discussion is valuable to reach conclusion. So, authors call it discussion validity and define it with the model with discussion capability of participants. Discussion capability of participants consists of three features each of which represents characteristic aspect of users' behavior in discussion, and approximated from the corresponding three features of their utterances. Authors conducted the experiments with the subjects to verify the model and found that model resulted better than the conventional model and proposed the automatic prediction of discussion validity using the text analysis. Then authors estimated discussion validity through the model with the estimated values. It turned out that the estimation was well fitted with the values by the subjects.
