Predicting conflict-prone disputes using the structure of turn-taking: the case of Wikipedia

References

• Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In V. A. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25–41). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Aragón, P., Gómez, V., García, D., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2017). Generative models of online discussion threads: State of the art and research challenges. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-017-0066-z
   Google Scholar
• Aragón, P., Gómez, V., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2017). To thread or not to thread: The impact of conversation threading on online discussion. In ICWSM '17: Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (pp. 12–21), The AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Backstrom, L., Kleinberg, J., Lee, L., & Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C. (2013). Characterizing and curating conversation threads: Expansion, focus, volume, re-entry. In WSDM ‘13: Proceedings of the sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (pp. 13–22). https://doi.org/10.1145/2433396.2433401
   Google Scholar
• Bagavathi, A., Bashiri, P., Reidy, S., Phillipsy, M., & Krishnan, S. (2019). Examining untempered social media: Analyzing cascades of polarized conversations. In ASONAM ‘19: Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 625–632). https://doi.org/10.1145/3341161.3343695
   Google Scholar
• Balakrishnan, A. (2017, October 31). Facebook Senate testimony: Doubling security group to 20,000 in 2018. Cnbc.com. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/31/facebook-senate-testimony-doubling-security-group-to-20000-in-2018.html
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. W., Welser, H. T., Cosley, D., & DeGroot, J. M. (2011). Self-governance through group discussion in Wikipedia: Measuring deliberation in online groups. Small Group Research, 42(5), 595–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411406137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borra, E., Weltevrede, E., Mauri, M., Kaltenbrunner, A., Laniado, D., Magni, G., Venturini, T., & Ciuccarelli, P. (2014). Contropedia – the analysis and visualization of controversies in Wikipedia articles. In OpenSym ‘14: Proceedings of The International Symposium on Open Collaboration (pp. 1–10). https://doi.org/10.1145/2641580.2641622
   Google Scholar
• Choi, D., Han, J., Chung, T., Ahn, Y. Y., Chun, B. G., & Kwon, T. T. (2015). Characterizing conversation patterns in Reddit: From the perspectives of content properties and user participation behaviors. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on Conference on Online Social Networks (pp. 233–243). https://doi.org/10.1145/2817946.2817959
   Google Scholar
• Coulter, J. (1991). Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 20–50). University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Dabbs, J. M., & Ruback, R. B. (1987). Dimensions of group process: Amount and structure of vocal interaction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (t. 20; pp. 123–169). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or as serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00292
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, A. (1991). Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 818–835. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgiou, P. G., Black, M. P., & Narayanan, S. S. (2011). Behavioral signal processing for understanding (distressed) dyadic interactions: Some recent developments. In A. Z. Scottsdale (Ed.), Third International workshop on social signal processing (pp. 7–12). ACM Multimedia. https://doi.org/10.1145/2072572.2072576
   Google Scholar
• Gleeson, J. P., Onaga, T., Fennell, P., Cotter, J., Burke, R., & O’Sullivan, D. J. P. (2020). Branching process descriptions of information cascades on Twitter. ArXiv preprint arXiv:2007.08916, 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Gómez, V., Kaltenbrunner, A., & López, V. (2008). Statistical analysis of the social network and discussion threads in Slashdot. In WWW ‘08: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 645–654). https://doi.org/10.1145/1367497.1367585
   Google Scholar
• Gruber, H. (1998). Disagreeing: Sequential placement and internal structure of disagreements in conflict episodes. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 18(4), 467–504. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.4.467
   Google Scholar
• Guerrero, L. K., & La Valley, A. G. (2006). Conflict, emotion and communication. In G. J. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 69–96). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hessel, J., & Lee, L. (2019). Something’s brewing! Early prediction of controversy-causing posts from discussion features. Proceedings of NAACL Conference, 1, 1648–1659. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-1166
   Google Scholar
• Howe, L. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). Attitude strength. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 327–351. 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahlow, J., Klecka, H., & Ruppel, E. (2020). What the differences in conflict between online and face-to-face work groups mean for hybrid groups: A state-of-the-art review. Review of Communication Research, 8, 51–77. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty, & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion, Vol. 4. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Laniado, D., Tasso, R., Volkovich, Y., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2011). When the wikipedians talk: Network and tree structure of Wikipedia discussion pages. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 177–184). https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/2764
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J. K., Choi, J., Kim, C., & Kim, Y. (2014). Social Media, Network heterogeneity, and opinion polarization. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matei, S. A., & Dobrescu, C. (2011). Wikipedia's “neutral point of view”: Settling conflict through ambiguity. The Information Society, 27(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.534368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medvedev, A., Lambiotte, R., & Delvenne, J. (2017). The anatomy of Reddit: An overview of academic research. Springer Proceedings in Complexity, DOOCN 2017 (pp. 183–204). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14683-2_9
   Google Scholar
• Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00048-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neysari, M., Bodenmann, G., Mehl, M. R., Bernecker, K., Nussbeck, F. W., Backes, S., Zemp, M., Martin, M., & Horn, A. (2016). Monitoring pronouns in conflicts: Temporal dynamics of verbal communication in couples across the lifespan. The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, 29, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1024/1662-9647/a000158
   Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• Nishi, R., Takaguchi, T., Oka, K., Maehara, T., Toyoda, M., Kawarabayashi, K., & Masuda, N. (2016). Reply trees in Twitter: Data analysis and branching process models. Social Network Analysis and Mining. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-016-0334-0
   Google Scholar
• Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., Zochowski, M., & Rychwalska, A. (2017). Functional synchronization: The emergence of coordinated activity in human systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2006). The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, K. C. (1988). Speaking turns in small group interaction: A context-sensitive event sequence model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007 [LIWC manual]. LIWC.net.
   Google Scholar
• Pincus, D. (2014). One bad apple: Experimental effects of psychological conflict on social resilience. Interface Focus, 4(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2014.0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poquet, O., & Dawson, S. (2018). Network patterns of direct and indirect reciprocity in edX MOOC forums. In R. Alhajj, H. Hoppe, T. Hecking, P. Bródka, & P. Kazienko (Eds.), Network intelligence meets user centered social media Networks. ENIC 2017. Lecture Notes in social Networks. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90312-5_4
   Google Scholar
• Sereno, K. K., & Mortensen, C. D. (1969). The effects of ego-involved attitudes on conflict negotiation in dyads. Communications Monographs, 36(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637756909375603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sillars, A., Shellen, W., McIntosh, A., & Pomegranate, M. (1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports, 61(4), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319709374587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. C., & Chambless, D. L. (2005). Pronouns in Marital interaction what Do “You” and “I” Say about Marital health? Psychological Science, 16(12), 932–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01639.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slatcher, R. B., Vazire, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2008.00207.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Taylor, L. A. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stasser, G., & Vaughan, S. I. (1996). Models of participation during face‒to‒face unstructured discussion. In E. H. Witte, & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior, Vol. 1: Consensual action by small groups (s (pp. 165–192). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Villata, S., Cabrio, E., Jraidi, I., Benlamine, S., Chaouachi, M., Frasson, C., & Gandon, F. (2017). Emotions and personality traits in argumentation: An empirical evaluation 1. Argument & Computation, 8(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.3233/AAC-170015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: Edit Warring. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: Featured Articles. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: List of Controversial Issues. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: Talk Page Guidelines. (2013). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&oldid=575112319
   Google Scholar
• Wikipedia: Talk Page Guidelines. (2021). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&oldid=1003789759
   Google Scholar
• Zannettou, S., Elsherief, M., Belding, E., Nilizadeh, S., & Stringhini, G. (2020). Measuring and characterizing hate speech on news websites. WebSci 2020 – Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/3394231.3397902
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Sauper, C., & Taylor, S. J. (2018). Characterizing online public discussions through patterns of participant interactions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274467
   Google Scholar