Slides presented at Arguing on the Web 2.0 Workshop Programme: http://www.sintelnet.eu/wiki/garbage/docs/events/programme_draft.pdf

1. Anna De Liddo1, Simon Buckingham Shum1, Mark Klein2
1Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK
2University of Zurich and MIT CCI
Catalyst Project <http://catalyst-fp7.eu/>

3. Poor Debate: No tools to identify were
ideas contrast, where people disagree
and why... popularity vs critical thinking

4. These tools are increasingly used to support online debate and facilitate citizens’
engagement in policy and decision-making. These are fundamentally chronological views
which offer:
no insight into the logical structure of the ideas, such as the coherence or
evidential basis of an argument.
No support for idea refinement and improvement
LINK to PETITION:
http://www.change.org/en-
GB/petitions/stand-against-russia-s-
brutal-crackdown-on-gay-rights-urge-
winter-olympics-2014-sponsors-to-
condemn-anti-gay-laws

5. No ways to assess the quality of any given idea
LINK to QUORA:
http://www.quora.com/Physics/Do-
wormholes-always-have-black-holes-at-
the-beginning#answers

6. Poor Debate: No tools to identify were ideas
contrast, where people disagree and why
Poor idea evaluation: No mechanisms to identify,
contribute and discuss the evidence for an idea
Poor Summarization and Visualization
Shallow contributions and Cognitive clutters
Platform Island & Balkanization
This hampers both:
quality of users’ participation and
The quality of proposed ideas
effective assessment of the state of the debate.

7. • Poor Commitment to Action
• Poor Summarization
• PoorVisualization
Very High
• Lack of Participation
• Poor Idea Evaluation
• ShallowContribution
High
• CognitiveClutters
• Lack of Innovation
Moderate
• Platform Island and Balkanization
• Non-representative decisions
Minor

8. That make the structure and status of a dialogue or debate
visible
Coming from research on Argumentation and CSAV, these
tools make visually explicit users’ lines of reasoning and
(dis)agreements.
Deliberatorium
Debategraph
Cohere
CoPe_it!
Problem&Proposals
YourView
The Evidence Hub

15. • referred to as “deliberative aggregators” (van Gelder 2012b)
• produce a collective viewpoint or judgment on complex societal
issues by crowdsourcing discourse
• inherent purpose to support large communities to tackle complex
issues of public concern

19. Collective
Intelligence
Online
Deliberation
Human Dynamics of Engagements
Analytics, &
Visualization
Crowdsourcing
ideas, arguments
and facts
Structured Discourse and
Argumentation
Democratic
entitlements
New class of Online
Deliberation tools
Citizen Voice
Social
Innovation
Computational
Services &
Dialogic Agents

20. Model of Collective Intelligence (CI):
from sensing the environment, to interpreting it, to generating good
options, to taking decisions and coordinating action...
Collec ve
Ac on
Collec ve
Decision
Collec ve
Idea on
Collec ve
Sensemaking
Collec ve
Sensing

24. Collaborative
Knowledge
Production
Collaborative Web
Annotation and
Knowledge mapping
Social Network Analysis
and Visualization
Structured Online
Discussion and
Argumentation
Advanced Analytics for:
Attention mediation &
Deliberation diagnostic

25. debatehub.net
demo...

26. http://litemap.open.ac.uk
demo...

27. AddedValue Services:
Deliberation Analytics and
Visualizations
Common Interchange Format
Usable UI for online argumentation

29. Thanks!
anna.deliddo@open.ac.uk
Twitter: Anna_De_Liddo
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/member/anna-de-liddo
Follow us on Twitter
@CATALYST_FP7
Watch the Demos on Youtube
CATALYST FP7