Advertisement

Need for Collective Decision When Divergent Thinking Arises in Collaborative Tasks of a Community of Practice

  • D. Assimakopoulos
  • M. Tzagarakis
  • J. Garofalakis
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 364)

Abstract

Based on previous work (Assimakopoulos et al. Proceedings of KICSS’2013 [5]) where we introduced HelpMe tool, a tool that automatically selects a group of people according to rules and metrics, we now introduce inconsistency between divergent ranking concerning answers during collaborative tasks among experts. In HelpMe tool, users collaboratively create a knowledge base about a subject and evaluate user opinions in order to achieve quality of knowledge. The basic assumption of the tool is that “Knowledge comes from experts.” This is achieved by collective evaluation, through voting and discussion in every stage (Task) of the discussion (Activity). Inconsistency appears when a set of sentences cannot be true at the same time (Adrian et al. Proceedings of KICSS’2013 [3]). During collaborative tasks in Communities of Practice, inconsistency may inspire new associations and lead to more interesting solutions. However, there are cases such as medical, legal, etc. issues in which contradicting views are not helpful since a final decision has to be made. This paper is focused on such cases and examines the possible options and the methods that have to be implemented in order for a final decision to be made. When difference in the evaluation range is observed (divergent voting), the community should be informed in order to evaluate the existing answer with an “up vote” or a “down vote.” No other option is available. In case of inconsistency, we introduce a loop procedure that informs experts in order to evaluate the task being observed as inconsistent. If inconsistency remains, or the number of evaluators is small, the process keeps going until it meets the criteria introduced in this paper. On the other hand, the system should be able to find, in its knowledge database, related conversations and examines the decisions made on related or same subject.

Keywords

Collaboration Web 2.0 Communities of Practice (CoPs) Argumentative collaboration Social media Recommender systems Expertise finding Inconsistency 

References

  1. 1.
    Ackerman, M.S., McDonald, D.W.: Answer Garden 2: merging organizational memory with collaborative help. In: Ackerman, M.S. (ed.) Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 97–105. Boston, ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackerman, M.S., Wulf, V., Pipek, V.: Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adrian, W.T., Nalepa, J.G., Ligeza, A.: On potential usefulness of inconsistency in collaborative knowledge engineering. In: Skulimowski, A.M.J. (ed.) Proceedings of KICSS’2013. Progress & Business Publishers, Kraków, pp. 14–25 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aouiche, K., Lemire, D., Godin, R.: Collaborative OLAP with Tag Clouds: Web 2.0 OLAP Formalism and Experimental Evaluation, WEBIST, Madeira, Portugal (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Assimakopoulos, D., Tzagarakis, M., Garofalakis, J.: Communities of practice for developers: HelpMe tool. In: Andrzej M.J. Skulimowski (ed.), Proceedings of KICSS’2013. Progress & Business Publishers, Kraków, pp. 26–37 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies. Artif. Intell. Law 14(4), 261–275 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bielenberg, K., Zacher, M.: Groups in social software: utilizing tagging to integrate individual contexts for social navigation. Masters Thesis submitted to the Program of Digital Media, Universität Bremen (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buckingham Shum, S.: Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 Argumentation. Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foner, L.N.: Yenta: a multi-agent, referral based matchmaking system. In: Johnson, W.L., Hayes-Roth, B. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 301–307. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golder, S., Huberman, B.A.: Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. J. Inf. Sci. 32(2), 198–208 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groza, T., Handschuh, S., Breslin, J.G.: Adding provenance and evolution information to modularized argumentation models. In: WI-IAT’08. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference, vol. 1 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B., Shah, M.: Referral Web: combining social networks and collaborative filtering. Commun. ACM 40(3), 63–65 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krulwich, B., Burkey, C.: The ContactFinder agent: answering bulletin board questions with referrals. In: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Eighth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, AAAI 96, Portland, Oregon, vol. 1. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp. 10–15 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B.: Introduction to recommender systems handbook. In: Ricci, F., Rokach, F., Shapira, L., Kantor, B. (eds.) Recommender Systems Handbook, pp. 1–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Streeter, L., Lochbaum, K.: Who knows: a system based on automatic representation of semantic structure. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Assisted Information Retrieval, RIAO’88 Program Conference, Cambridge, MA, 21–24 March, pp. 380–388. CID, Paris (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tzagarakis, M., Karousos, N., Gkotsis, G., Kallistros, V., Christodoulou, S., Mettouris, C., Kyriakou, P., Nousia, D.: From ‘Collecting’ to ‘Deciding’: facilitating the emergence of decisions in argumentative collaboration. Research Academic Computer Technology Institute, N. Kazantzaki, University of Patras, 26500 Rion, Greece (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wikipedia Article Stack Overflow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Overflow (2014)
  18. 18.
    Wikipedia Article Reddit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit (2014)
  19. 19.
    Zhang, J., Ackerman, M., Adamic, L.: Expertise networks in online communities: structure and algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada, 8–12 May, pp. 221–230. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Assimakopoulos
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Tzagarakis
    • 2
    • 3
  • J. Garofalakis
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Engineering and Informatics DepartmentUniversity of PatrasRionGreece
  2. 2.CTI, Computer Technology Institute and Press “Diophantus”University of PatrasRionGreece
  3. 3.Department of Economics Research Academic Computer Technology InstituteUniversity of PatrasRionGreece

Personalised recommendations