![]() On pages devoted to project level discussions where participants are tasked with coming to a final decision, Reflect summaries could not only facilitate the discussion itself but also serve as documentary evidence of the deliberative process that led to the final outcome. On the lengthy, open-ended discussions characteristic of Wikipedia talk pages, Reflect summaries might allow new arrivals to get up to speed quickly on the range of issues, positions and suggestions that have been raised already, so that they can confidently join in as productive participants. We believe that Reflect can offer distinct and complementary advantages for both page and project-level consensus-seeking activities. ![]() Post authors can easily respond to summaries, such that they can indicate whether someone has accurately summarized a point they were making. Each summary is linked to its author and to the text it summarizes, inviting all participants to verify the accuracy, neutrality and quality of the summary. In some cases, this may help discussions from degenerating because of misunderstandings, rather than deep-seated disagreements. Moreover, Reflect encourages people to restate in their own words what someone else was trying to say before engaging with them, and provides explicit space in the design to do so. In this way, Reflect enables users to pull out the key ideas from other participants’ discussion posts. Anyone is able to add these summary bullet points. The second column contains bulleted summary points about what each respective commenter was trying to say. Reflect introduces a second column into threaded forums. Reflect is a lightweight tool for supporting reflection, active listening and the distillation of key points in lengthy deliberative discussions. ![]() ![]() Without a concise, persistent representation of the topics under discussion, the issues currently on the table, and the arguments already advanced by various stakeholders, Wiki-based discussions can lapse into lengthy monologues, shouting matches and (in some cases) edit wars. The lack of affordances for sensemaking in these discussions can also have consequences for deliberative quality and productivity. In addition to the technical challenges of conducting a threaded discussion in a wiki environment, the length and open-ended nature of many discussions creates sensemaking challenges for readers who want to come up to speed on a discussion currently in progress. However, wiki pages are less than ideal forums for hosting the threaded discussions that support this collaborative process. Wiki software has proven to be a powerful tool for collaborative content creation and refinement. Morgan (Presenting Author), Lance Bennett, Alan Borning and Deen Freelon, Michael Toomim E-mail address or username (if username, please confirm email address in Special:Preferences) Country of origin US Affiliation, if any (organization, company etc.) University of Washington Personal homepage or blog Project homepage: Abstract (please use no less than 300 words to describe your proposal) Title of the submission Reflect: A Tool for Discussion Summarization and Active Listening Type of submission (workshop, tutorial, panel, presentation) Presentation Author of the submission Travis Kriplean, Jonathan T. This is an open submission for Wikimania 2010.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |