MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2036595872 · doi:10.1080/07370024.2013.828565

Agent-Based Modeling to Inform Online Community Design: Impact of Topical Breadth, Message Volume, and Discussion Moderation on Member Commitment and Contribution

2013· article· en· W2036595872 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueHuman-Computer Interaction · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueSocial Media and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésModerationSet (abstract data type)Virtual communityComputer scienceOddsInterpersonal communicationOnline communityThe InternetPsychologySocial psychologyKnowledge managementPublic relationsWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbstractThe design of complex social systems, such as online communities, requires the consideration of many parameters, a practice at odds with social science research that focuses on the effects of a small set of variables. In this article, we show how synthesizing insights from multiple, narrowly focused social science theories in an agent-based model helps us understand factors that lead to the success of online communities. The agent-based model combines insights from theories related to collective effort, information overload, social identity, and interpersonal attraction to predict motivations for online community participation. We conducted virtual experiments to develop hypotheses around three design decisions about how to orchestrate an online community—topical breadth, message volume, and discussion moderation—and the trade-offs involved in making these decisions. The simulation experiments suggest that broad topics and high message volume can lead to higher member commitment. Personalized moderation outperforms other types of moderation in increasing members' commitment and contribution, especially in topically broad communities and those with high message volume. In comparison, community-level moderation increases commitment but not contribution, and only in topically narrow communities. These simulation results suggest a critical trade-off between informational and relational benefits. This research illustrates that there are many interactions among the design decisions that are important to consider; the particulars of the community's goals often determine the effectiveness of some decisions. It also demonstrates the value of agent-based modeling in synthesizing simple social science theories to describe and prescribe behaviors in a complex system, generating novel insights that inform the design of online communities. NOTESNotes1 An online community can be created on various technological platforms (e.g., listservers, Usenet news, chats, bulletin boards, web forums, and social networking sites) around various purposes (e.g., interest, health support, technical support, education, e-commerce; CitationPreece 2000). In this article, we focus on conversation-based interest communities such as newsgroups or web forums created to host online discussion of shared interests.2 We examine personalized moderation at the conceptual level. Its implementation is beyond the scope of this article.3 Note that in this article we simulate behaviors in an interest community, like a movie discussion group, and do not vary community type. Doing so would involve varying these weights. For example, the relative weights in a technical support group, in which people typically care less about interpersonal bonds and more about information, identity, and reputation, the weights may be 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, and 0.15, respectively. In contrast, the weights for a cancer support group, where one's disease helps defines one's identity, may be 0.33, 0.33, 0.33, and 0.1.4 The Usenet groups in the data set had no moderation, which is the condition we used for model validation.5 Because previous analyses revealed no significant difference between medium and broad topical breadth and a linear effect of message volume, we omitted medium topical breadth in Figure 11 and medium message volume in Figure 12 to make the figures more readable.Acknowledgments. Earlier versions of this article have been presented at the research colloquiums of Carnegie Mellon University, McGill University, University of Maryland, and University of Minnesota and workshops at Academy of Management Annual Meeting and ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. We thank our participants for their valuable feedback. We also thank Shawn Curley for his helpful comments and Sam Hashemi for research assistance.Funding. This work was supported by Carlson School of Management Dean's Small Research Grant, National Science Foundation Grant IIS-0325049 (Designing Online Communities to Enhance Participation), IIS-0729286 (Solving Critical Problems in Online Groups), and IIS-0808692 (Understanding Online Volunteer Communities). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies of the National Science Foundation.Supplemental Data. Supplemental data are available for this article. RenKraut-2013-SimulateOnlineCommunity.nlogo is the simulation model and RenKraut-2013-SupplementaryMaterials.pdf provides instructions for downloading the simulation platform, running the model, and interpreting the results. Free access to these materials is available at the online edition of this article on the Human–Computer Interaction publisher's website (www.tandfonline.com/hhci).HCI Editorial Record. First manuscript received August 22, 2012. Revision received June 26, 2013. Accepted by Peter Pirolli. Final manuscript received June 26, 2013. — EditorAdditional informationNotes on contributorsYuqing RenYuqing Ren (chingren@umn.edu, www.tc.umn.edu/~chingren) is a social scientist with an interest in online community design, social media, distributed collaboration, knowledge management, and computational modeling of social and organizational systems; she is an Assistant Professor of Information and Decision Sciences at the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota.Robert E. KrautRobert E. Kraut (robert.kraut@cmu.edu, kraut.hciresearch.org) is a social psychologist with an interest in the design and social impact of computing, analysis, and design of online communities, everyday use of the Internet, technology and conversation, collaboration in small work groups, and computing in organizations; he is the Herbert A. Simon Professor in the School of Computer Science and the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,754
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,107
Tête enseignante GPT0,402
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle