Abstract. In this article, we propose a novel approach for identifying and evaluation of different solutions to discussed issues in online settings, based on the structure of a discussion of the topic in question. Our approach consists of three steps: (1) assigning weights to participants based on formal criteria such as degree of engagement in the discussion; (2) assigning scores to comments, taking the weights of authors and raters into account; (3) assigning scores to proposals, based on the scores of the pro and contra arguments. So an important idea is that individuals whose behavior is in line with our formal criteria have a higher influence on the decisions. Having built a respective online platform, we have evaluated the proposed model by means of an experiment with more than 100 participants who have discussed several topics relevant to them and a subsequent survey. In the survey, the majority of participants has expressed satisfaction with our forum model, including our weighting scheme. In particular, they have been fond of it regarding respect of the opinions of others.

No abstract

Deliberation, i.e., discussing and ranking different proposals and making decisions, is an important issue for many communities, be they political, be they boards of experts for a scientific issue. Online deliberation however has issues, such as unorganized content, off-topic or repetition postings, or aggressive and conflicting behavior of participants. To address these issues, based on a relatively simple argumentation model and on feedback of different type, the authors propose to weight community members in an elaborate manner; this in turn is used to score arguments and proposals. Given such a scoring scheme, it is important to examine to which extent individuals have understood and accepted the approach, to identify characteristics of ‘good' discussants and of strong arguments and proposals, and to study the robustness of the approach with regard to minor changes. To this end, the authors have carried out an experiment with a real-world community which had to make subjective decisions on issues relevant to them, and they have analyzed the data generated by it systematically, covering the different layers of their approach. The authors' takeaway is that the approach proposed here is promising to improve deliberation in many settings.

No abstract