媒介即信息:结构化与非结构化在线讨论中毒性的下降

Mark Klein, Nouhayla Majdoubi
{"title":"媒介即信息:结构化与非结构化在线讨论中毒性的下降","authors":"Mark Klein, Nouhayla Majdoubi","doi":"10.1007/s11280-024-01269-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Humanity needs to deliberate effectively <i>at scale</i> about highly complex and contentious problems. Current online deliberation tools—such as email, chatrooms, and forums—are however plagued by levels of discussion toxicity that deeply undercut the willingness and ability of the participants to engage in thoughtful, meaningful, deliberations. This has led many organizations to either shut down their forums or invest in expensive, frequently unreliable, and ethically fraught moderation of people's contributions in their forums. This paper includes a comprehensive review on online toxicity, and describes how a structured deliberation process can substantially reduce toxicity compared to current approaches. The key underlying insight is that unstructured conversations create, especially at scale, an “attention wars” dynamic wherein people are often incented to resort to extremified language in order to get visibility for their postings. A structured deliberation process wherein people collaboratively create a compact organized collection of answers and arguments <i>removes</i> this underlying incentive, and results, in our evaluation, in a 50% reduction of high-toxicity posts.</p>","PeriodicalId":501180,"journal":{"name":"World Wide Web","volume":"119 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations\",\"authors\":\"Mark Klein, Nouhayla Majdoubi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11280-024-01269-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Humanity needs to deliberate effectively <i>at scale</i> about highly complex and contentious problems. Current online deliberation tools—such as email, chatrooms, and forums—are however plagued by levels of discussion toxicity that deeply undercut the willingness and ability of the participants to engage in thoughtful, meaningful, deliberations. This has led many organizations to either shut down their forums or invest in expensive, frequently unreliable, and ethically fraught moderation of people's contributions in their forums. This paper includes a comprehensive review on online toxicity, and describes how a structured deliberation process can substantially reduce toxicity compared to current approaches. The key underlying insight is that unstructured conversations create, especially at scale, an “attention wars” dynamic wherein people are often incented to resort to extremified language in order to get visibility for their postings. A structured deliberation process wherein people collaboratively create a compact organized collection of answers and arguments <i>removes</i> this underlying incentive, and results, in our evaluation, in a 50% reduction of high-toxicity posts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Wide Web\",\"volume\":\"119 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Wide Web\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-024-01269-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Wide Web","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-024-01269-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类需要对高度复杂和有争议的问题进行大规模的有效讨论。然而,当前的在线讨论工具--如电子邮件、聊天室和论坛--都受到讨论毒性水平的困扰,严重削弱了参与者参与深思熟虑、有意义的讨论的意愿和能力。这导致许多组织要么关闭论坛,要么投资于昂贵的、经常不可靠的、充满道德风险的论坛管理。本文对在线毒性进行了全面回顾,并介绍了与现有方法相比,结构化讨论过程如何能够大幅降低毒性。本文的主要观点是,非结构化对话(尤其是在大规模对话中)会产生 "注意力战争 "的态势,在这种态势下,人们往往会被煽动使用极端化的语言,以提高自己帖子的知名度。在结构化的商议过程中,人们通过协作创建一个紧凑有序的答案和论据集,从而消除了这种潜在的激励因素,根据我们的评估,高毒性帖子的数量减少了 50%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

The medium is the message: toxicity declines in structured vs unstructured online deliberations

Humanity needs to deliberate effectively at scale about highly complex and contentious problems. Current online deliberation tools—such as email, chatrooms, and forums—are however plagued by levels of discussion toxicity that deeply undercut the willingness and ability of the participants to engage in thoughtful, meaningful, deliberations. This has led many organizations to either shut down their forums or invest in expensive, frequently unreliable, and ethically fraught moderation of people's contributions in their forums. This paper includes a comprehensive review on online toxicity, and describes how a structured deliberation process can substantially reduce toxicity compared to current approaches. The key underlying insight is that unstructured conversations create, especially at scale, an “attention wars” dynamic wherein people are often incented to resort to extremified language in order to get visibility for their postings. A structured deliberation process wherein people collaboratively create a compact organized collection of answers and arguments removes this underlying incentive, and results, in our evaluation, in a 50% reduction of high-toxicity posts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信