Fascinating experiment. Which has implications to other kinds of cooperative work that have to come to some conclusion. Surprised me how little poorthe complete resolution is.Perhaps because goals are not well stated? Or there is no clear management? Is this an example where an augmenting assistant could manage and resolve closure? Assistant becomes a manager with goals?
Why some Wikipedia disputes go unresolved
Study identifies reasons for unsettled editing disagreements and offers predictive tools that could improve deliberation.
Rob Matheson | MIT News Office
Wikipedia has enabled large-scale, open collaboration on the internet’s largest general-reference resource. But, as with many collaborative writing projects, crafting the content can be a contentious subject.
Often, multiple Wikipedia editors will disagree on certain changes to articles or policies. One of the main ways to officially resolve such disputes is the Requests for Comment (RfC) process. Quarreling editors will publicize their deliberation on a forum, where other Wikipedia editors will chime in and a neutral editor will make a final decision.
Ideally, this should solve all issues. But a novel study by MIT researchers finds debilitating factors — such as excessive bickering and poorly worded arguments — have led to about one-third of RfCs going unresolved.
For the study, the researchers compiled and analyzed the first-ever comprehensive dataset of RfC conversations, captured over an eight-year period, and conducted interviews with editors who frequently close RfCs, to understand why they don’t find a resolution. They also developed a machine-learning model that leverages that dataset to predict when RfCs may go stale. And, they recommend digital tools that could make deliberation and resolution more effective. ... "
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment