People on Drugs: Credibility of User Statements in Health Communities

Online health communities are a valuable source of information for patients and physicians. However, such user-generated resources are often plagued by inaccuracies and misinformation. In this work we propose a method for automatically establishing the credibility of user-generated medical statements and the trustworthiness of their authors by exploiting linguistic cues and distant supervision from expert sources. To this end we introduce a probabilistic graphical model that jointly learns user trustworthiness, statement credibility, and language objectivity. We apply this methodology to the task of extracting rare or unknown side-effects of medical drugs --- this being one of the problems where large scale non-expert data has the potential to complement expert medical knowledge. We show that our method can reliably extract side-effects and filter out false statements, while identifying trustworthy users that are likely to contribute valuable medical information

Mining question-answer pairs from web forum: a survey of challenges and resolutions

Internet forums, which are also known as discussion boards, are popular web applications. Members of the board discuss issues and share ideas to form a community within the board, and as a result generate huge amount of content on different topics on daily basis. Interest in information extraction and knowledge discovery from such sources has been on the increase in the research community. A number of factors are limiting the potentiality of mining knowledge from forums. Lexical chasm or lexical gap that renders some Natural Language Processing techniques (NLP) less effective, Informal tone that creates noisy data, drifting of discussion topic that prevents focused mining and asynchronous issue that makes it difficult to establish post-reply relationship are some of the problems that need to be addressed. This survey introduces these challenges within the framework of question answering. The survey provides description of the problems; cites and explores useful publications to the reader for further examination; provides an overview of resolution strategies and findings relevant to the challenges

Towards modelling dialectic and eristic argumentation on the social web

Modelling arguments on the social web is a key challenge for those studying computational argumentation. This is because formal models of argumentation tend to assume dialectic and logical argument, whereas argumentation on the social web is highly eristic. In this paper we explore this gap by bringing together the Argument Interchange Format (AIF) and the Semantic Interlinked Online Communities (SIOC) project, and modelling a sample of social web arguments. This allows us to explore which eristic effects cannot be modelled, and also to see which features of the social web are missing.We show that even in our small sample, from YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, eristic effects (such as playing to the audience) were missing from the final model, and that key social features (such as likes and dislikes) were also not represented. This suggests that both eristic and social extensions need to be made to our models of argumentation in order to deal effectively with the social we