Controversy Analysis and Detection

Seeking information on a controversial topic is often a complex task. Alerting users about controversial search results can encourage critical literacy, promote healthy civic discourse and counteract the filter bubble effect, and therefore would be a useful feature in a search engine or browser extension. Additionally, presenting information to the user about the different stances or sides of the debate can help her navigate the landscape of search results beyond a simple list of 10 links . This thesis has made strides in the emerging niche of controversy detection and analysis. The body of work in this thesis revolves around two themes: computational models of controversy, and controversies occurring in neighborhoods of topics. Our broad contributions are: (1) Presenting a theoretical framework for modeling controversy as contention among populations; (2) Constructing the first automated approach to detecting controversy on the web, using a KNN classifier that maps from the web to similar Wikipedia articles; and (3) Proposing a novel controversy detection in Wikipedia by employing a stacked model using a combination of link structure and similarity. We conclude this work by discussing the challenging technical, societal and ethical implications of this emerging research area and proposing avenues for future work

Pushing Your Point of View: Behavioral Measures of Manipulation in Wikipedia

As a major source for information on virtually any topic, Wikipedia serves an important role in public dissemination and consumption of knowledge. As a result, it presents tremendous potential for people to promulgate their own points of view; such efforts may be more subtle than typical vandalism. In this paper, we introduce new behavioral metrics to quantify the level of controversy associated with a particular user: a Controversy Score (C-Score) based on the amount of attention the user focuses on controversial pages, and a Clustered Controversy Score (CC-Score) that also takes into account topical clustering. We show that both these measures are useful for identifying people who try to "push" their points of view, by showing that they are good predictors of which editors get blocked. The metrics can be used to triage potential POV pushers. We apply this idea to a dataset of users who requested promotion to administrator status and easily identify some editors who significantly changed their behavior upon becoming administrators. At the same time, such behavior is not rampant. Those who are promoted to administrator status tend to have more stable behavior than comparable groups of prolific editors. This suggests that the Adminship process works well, and that the Wikipedia community is not overwhelmed by users who become administrators to promote their own points of view

Impact Of Content Features For Automatic Online Abuse Detection

Online communities have gained considerable importance in recent years due to the increasing number of people connected to the Internet. Moderating user content in online communities is mainly performed manually, and reducing the workload through automatic methods is of great financial interest for community maintainers. Often, the industry uses basic approaches such as bad words filtering and regular expression matching to assist the moderators. In this article, we consider the task of automatically determining if a message is abusive. This task is complex since messages are written in a non-standardized way, including spelling errors, abbreviations, community-specific codes... First, we evaluate the system that we propose using standard features of online messages. Then, we evaluate the impact of the addition of pre-processing strategies, as well as original specific features developed for the community of an online in-browser strategy game. We finally propose to analyze the usefulness of this wide range of features using feature selection. This work can lead to two possible applications: 1) automatically flag potentially abusive messages to draw the moderator's attention on a narrow subset of messages ; and 2) fully automate the moderation process by deciding whether a message is abusive without any human intervention

Closing the loop: assisting archival appraisal and information retrieval in one sweep

In this article, we examine the similarities between the concept of appraisal, a process that takes place within the archives, and the concept of relevance judgement, a process fundamental to the evaluation of information retrieval systems. More specifically, we revisit selection criteria proposed as result of archival research, and work within the digital curation communities, and, compare them to relevance criteria as discussed within information retrieval's literature based discovery. We illustrate how closely these criteria relate to each other and discuss how understanding the relationships between the these disciplines could form a basis for proposing automated selection for archival processes and initiating multi-objective learning with respect to information retrieval

Dynamics of conflicts in Wikipedia

In this work we study the dynamical features of editorial wars in Wikipedia (WP). Based on our previously established algorithm, we build up samples of controversial and peaceful articles and analyze the temporal characteristics of the activity in these samples. On short time scales, we show that there is a clear correspondence between conflict and burstiness of activity patterns, and that memory effects play an important role in controversies. On long time scales, we identify three distinct developmental patterns for the overall behavior of the articles. We are able to distinguish cases eventually leading to consensus from those cases where a compromise is far from achievable. Finally, we analyze discussion networks and conclude that edit wars are mainly fought by few editors only.Comment: Supporting information adde