Anonymity Interacting with Participation on a Q&A site

International audienceThis article presents a study that investigates how anonymity influences user participation in an on-line question-and-answer platform (Quora 1). The study is one step in identifying hypotheses that can be used to address a research and design issue concerning the role of anonymity in online participation, particularly in sensitive situations where people are seeking social support. Based on the literature, we present a model that describes the factors that influence participation. These factors were used when analyzing the answers to questions in the health category on Quora. The results of this study were completed by a survey asking Quora users about their use of the anonymity feature. The main result is that the only significant difference between anonymous and non-anonymous answers is that: with anonymous answers, social appreciation correlated with the an-swer's length

Characterizing Novelty as a Motivator in Online Citizen Science

Citizen science projects rely on the voluntary contribution of nonscientists to take part in scientific research projects. Projects taking place exclusively over the Internet face significant challenges, chief among them is the attracting and keeping the critical mass of volunteers needed to conduct the work outlined by the science team. The extent to which platforms can design experiences that positively influence volunteers’ motivation can help address the contribution challenges. Consequently, project organizers need to develop strategies to attract new participants and keep existing ones. One strategy to encourage participation is implementing features, which re-enforce motives known to change people’s attitudes towards contributing positively. The literature in psychology noted that novelty is an attribute of objects and environments that occasion curiosity in humans leading to exploratory behaviors, e.g., prolonged engagement with the object or environment. This dissertation described the design, implementation, and evaluation of an experiment conducted in three online citizen science projects. Volunteers received novelty cues when they classified data objects that no other volunteer had previously seen. The hypothesis was that exposure to novelty cues while classifying data positively influences motivational attitudes leading to increased engagement in the classification task and increased retention. The experiments resulted in mixed results. In some projects, novelty cues were universally salient, and in other projects, novelty cues had no significant impact on volunteers’ contribution behaviors. The results, while mixed, are promising since differences in the observed behaviors arise because of individual personality differences and the unique attributes found in each project setting. This research contributes to empirically grounded studies on motivation in citizen science with analyses that produce new insights and questions into the functioning of novelty and its impact on volunteers’ behaviors

Group defamation and harm to identity

Le droit relatif à la diffamation collective se voit habituellement confronté par des objections sur deux fronts. D’une part, s’agissant du délit (civil) de diffamation, la loi exige du demandeur qu’il prouve que l’expression diffamatoire le vise personnellement et que, par conséquent, le préjudice soit individualisé. Les tribunaux ont ainsi traditionnellement refusé d’admettre la requête du demandeur lorsque le groupe était trop grand. En effet, il est alors présumé que le préjudice découlant de ce type de diffamation est atténué en raison de sa dispersion et de sa formulation généralisée. Par conséquent, il s’ensuit qu’une telle expression ne peut constituer un préjudice suffisamment subjectif sur un membre particulier s’identifiant au groupe ciblé. D’autre part, dans une perspective plus large de droit constitutionnel, les règles relatives à la diffamation des groupes apparaissent incompatibles avec l’ordre du système des droits fondamentaux vu l’importance accordée à la liberté d’expression dans les sociétés démocratiques. La présente thèse va à l’encontre de cette vision. Elle soutient que le préjudice causé par diffamation visant les caractères raciaux ou ethniques d’un groupe devrait pouvoir donner lieu à un préjudice individuel car c’est une forme de préjudice rattaché à l’identité de la personne. Ainsi, la thèse réexamine le droit relatif à la diffamation collective, incluant les lois et la jurisprudence pertinentes, ainsi que les traitements constitutionnels réservés à ces dernières face à la liberté d’expression dans les systèmes américain et canadien. La thèse offre un cadre axé sur la notion d’identité pour reconceptualiser le préjudice provoqué par l’expression diffamatoire dégradant des caractères fondamentaux d’un groupe.The law of group defamation is habitually confronted by objections on two fronts. First, in the tort of group defamation, the law requires that the member claiming injury is able to establish that the defamatory statement was “of and concerning” him personally, and thus that the prejudice was subjective and individualized by nature. Courts have traditionally refused to admit cause of action if the involved group was too large. The harm caused by such group-targeting expression is presumed to be somehow lessened by its generalized formulation, defaming the group as a whole as opposed to individual member(s). Therefore, it does not constitute sufficiently individualized harm to an identifying member of the group. Second, on a broader, constitutional level, group libel laws appear to contravene the very order of system of fundamental rights given the reverence freedom of expression commands in democratic societies. The present thesis argues otherwise. The study opines that the harm in group defamation that degrades fundamental characteristics such as race or ethnicity can indeed give rise to individual prejudice because it is a form of harm to identity. In doing so, the study first critically reexamines laws on (group) defamation, related relevant laws, and their constitutional treatment in the American and Canadian legal systems. The thesis offers a new way of reconceptualizing harm in group defamatory speech grounded on an identity-based framework