Post on 09-Dec-2014
description
WHY?
Thiem! Laat je snor staan
voor het kankerfonds!
Het is ook erg stoer!
Wij doen het ook!
mmm…Goed idee
“How to make people (usually guys) grow a
moustache every year in November?
“
don’t worry, I am only trying to be funny
but…
MOTIVATION
So… there we have it
Why people generate content? Or grow moustaches?-fun-reputation, trust-feedback, reciprocity, learning-…
But how to filter or trust content?-Trust algorithms (Google PageRank, WikiTrust)-Communities/networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, …) -…
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages important.
WikiTrust uses a content-driven reputation system: authors gain reputation when their contributions are preserved by subsequent authors, and they lose reputation when their contributions are reverted.
The trust of a portion of text is computed according to the reputation of the author, and the reputation of the people who subsequently revised the portion of text, and the text immediately surrounding it. Thus, what WikiTrust calls "text trust" is an indication of the degree with which the text has been revised. …
Another dimension to reputation - not just value, according to others
88
PHP (54)
Photography (4)
Ruby on Rails (40)
Project management (0.8)
Social skills (0.4) Writing skills (0.3)Dynamically
updated!
- but a contextualized value, assigned to1. a concept or topic2. a process or competency
Idea generation (0.3)
… but how?
Research goal Example Analysis
Action (contribution) Define the actions and contributions that (could) mean something in terms of expertise or competencies
-Answers on questions-Reviews of papers-Skype conversations
-16 answers-4 reviews-6 Skype conversations
Context of action (contribution)
Define the context relevant for this contribution: knowledge involved?
-Action itself: guiding, writing, formulating answer-Topic context: in-depth or superficial understanding of topic
-Activity focus level: providing feedback, guidance-Topic focus level: logistics, six sigma
action
Competencies (process)What kind of action?Which competencies involved?
Knowledge (topic)What kind of contribution?What kind of topic?
EX ANTE
Research goal Example Analysis
Reaction (interaction) Define the interactions with the contribution that relate to value (popularity, rating, recommending, thanking, etc.) or to context (tagging, categorizing)
-Rating of answers-Number of views-Times used in collection-Number of “thanks”
-Avg rating 4 out of 5, 12 “best answers”-452 views-33 contributions integrated in a course-12 “thank you’s”
Evaluate importance of interaction
Evaluate the value of the different interactions, and determine the relevance and importance of each interaction.
-1 thank you ~ 1 time used in collection-10 positive ratings ~ 1 thank you-10 views ~ 1 rating
For 1 contribution:- 3 times in collections (300), 4 thank you’s (400), 45 thumbs up (450), and 850 views (850) == 2000 points
Evaluate context parameters that can be extracted from the reaction
Find out how the context of each interaction can be analyzed and define context parameters.
-tags assigned to contribution-personal prodfiles of person involved in interaction-special attributed extracted from interaction (helpful, funny, etc.)
For the same contribution:-tagged SixSigma (6), logistics (7), project management (5), China (2) >> Resulting profile:- Logistics (700), SixSigma (600), project management (500), China (200).
reaction: -evaluate value use/rate/recommend-contextualize categorize/tag/embed
EX POSTERIORI based on reactions
createuse/rate/recommend/tag
profile/reputation: every value interaction contains one or more context parameters
reputation
writepaper
. reference (quality & context))
. rating (quality)
. tag (context)
expertise profile
Example: Academic literature… finding the right reviewerAcademics write papers and do reviewsA reviewer that has a good reputation can ask more moneyThe reputation of a reviewer is based on
- The quality of his own papers (expertise)- The quality of his reviews (review competency)- more… (recommendations?)
The value of a paper is based on the review(s), references, and ratings
The context of a paper is based on the review, keywords, journal keywords, and social tagging
- Keywords of the paper itself- Keywords of the paper referring to the paper
researcher I
evaluate quality of
review
writereview
review competency
. review (quality & context)
Research goal AnalysisAction (contribution) Write a paper about a topic -1 paper
Context of action (contribution) Topic is defined by keywords -Keywords: logistics, sixsigma, …
action
Competencies (process)Write a paper
Knowledge (topic)Logistics, six sigma
EX ANTE
Research goal Analysis
Reaction (interaction) Interactions related to value:-Review(s)-References-Rating
Review-Originality: 8/10-Methodology {Case study}: 9/10-Usefulness: 8/10-Overall: 9/10
33 references with 85 different keywords
121 positive ratings
Resulting profile:- Logistics (1785), SixSigma (655), project management (300), China (155), … etc.
Evaluate importance of interaction
1 positive review = 1001 references = 301 positive rating = 1
Evaluate context parameters that can be extracted from the reaction
-Structured review (keywords)-Keywords of journal (optional)-Keywords assigned to papers referring to paper-Social tagging
reaction: -evaluate value review/refer/rate-contextualize structured/
references/tag
EX POSTERIORI based on reactions
-Context-Quality
Challenge
I. Reputation? What is your reputation? Which elements of a reputation can you derive from interactions with contributions?
II. PhD community: what do we want to do with it?
Discussion
-Research question-A sustainable campus platform
2 ideas
Idea 1: Research questions
-Every PhD needs to formulate several research questions-That can be difficult-Some feedback could be helpful-Seeing who have similar research questions could also be interesting
Research question:
Which interactions of users with online content relate to quality?
Keywords: quality, user-generated content, Web 2.0, rating, popularity… add one yourself!
>> 7 related questions
NEEDS REFLECTION!
>> 3 comments >> 2 links/attachments
Share on Twitter
Email question
Add a comment, link, or attachment
Stay updated I like this
So, I filled in my research question, now what?-Attach a document, link, or comment-Assign label “Needs reflection”, “Needs case”, “Needs supervision/collaborators”, “Needs literature”-Others can react, give tips, link to interesting resources, suggest people, like, offer help, etc.-Be notified of others who have similar interests
-People can add simple tips and suggestions to make this campus more sustainable-Possibly including references to literature-Leads to discussion, voting, and possibly solutions-Could lead to research
Idea 2: A sustainable campus platform
Simply sustainable tip : Use tap water instead of bottled waterKeywords: water, consumptionWho can do it? EveryoneEffort: minimumHow many people do it? 29Research: 4 paper, 3 reports
>> 7 related tips
NEW!
>> 3 comments >> 2 links/attachments
Add a solution, comment, link, or attachment
Stay updated
I like this
Share on Twitter
Email tip
Summaryblablabla./… water and (Spieckse, 2007), etc.
Some things to take into account
Kollock
motivation ~ need
Need or necessity is central Heterogeneity is important (different views, people)
Bouwman et al.
• We argue that social software systems should trigger mechanisms that allow us to associate with or form social groups, whether online or in the real world.
• Such mechanisms would acknowledge human motivations, like eagerness for exploration, curiosity, inquisitiveness, civilization, valuation of belonging, achieving self-realization, enjoying one-self.
Psychological needs Approach
Recognition/reputation: audience, visibility
Critical mass/marketing: events, regular interesting news items, clear message
Leadership
Reputatie/status: “winners” are visible, professional relevance
Reciprociteit, gift economy, feedback
Quick response on contributions
Trust, familiariteit, sense of community
Coping with new people, new members
Privacy: restricted access
Events & meetings, online & offline, find a rithm
Clear objectives and role definitions, profiling.Accountability & identificatie: real names.
Identificatie with peers: every role has to be represented
Learning new things Heterogeniteit: different roles and backgrounds
Relation management (inviting people), making connections, relevant content
Support by experts
Netwerking, be more effective Communicate about value of participating
Self-efficacy Statistics: show contributions, popular resources, recognition and praise
Self management Integrate roles, authority, and responsibility
Self organization Group people and contentIntegrate communication and functionality outside community
Self regulation and categorization Order people and content (tagging, taxonomy)