How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia
How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia
复制标题
DOI：
10.48550/arxiv.2212.08353
复制
发表时间：
2022-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Christine de Kock;T. Stafford;Andreas Vlachos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christine de Kock;T. Stafford;Andreas Vlachos
分歧经常从检测毒性或分析论点结构的角度进行研究。我们提出了一个统一这两种观点的争端策略框架，以及在解决争端中发挥作用的其他对话行为，如提问和澄清。这个框架包括一个优先排序之间的反驳型策略，从人身攻击，以驳斥中心论点。使用这个框架，我们从维基百科讨论页面中注释了213个分歧（3，865个话语）。这使我们能够围绕分歧中使用的策略调查研究问题;例如，我们提供了维基百科推荐的分歧方法的实证验证。我们开发了多标签预测的话语中的争议策略的模型，实现了最佳的性能与变压器为基础的标签幂集模型。增加一个辅助任务，将反驳策略的顺序进一步产生统计上显着的增加。最后，我们表明这些注释可用于提供有用的附加信号，以提高预测升级任务的性能。
Disagreements are frequently studied from the perspective of either detecting toxicity or analysing argument structure. We propose a framework of dispute tactics which unifies these two perspectives, as well as other dialogue acts which play a role in resolving disputes, such as asking questions and providing clarification. This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument. Using this framework, we annotate 213 disagreements (3,865 utterances) from Wikipedia Talk pages. This allows us to investigate research questions around the tactics used in disagreements; for instance, we provide empirical validation of the approach to disagreement recommended by Wikipedia. We develop models for multilabel prediction of dispute tactics in an utterance, achieving the best performance with a transformer-based label powerset model. Adding an auxiliary task to incorporate the ordering of rebuttal tactics further yields a statistically significant increase. Finally, we show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.