How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08353v1
• Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 09:01:19 GMT
• Title: How to disagree well: Investigating the dispute tactics used on Wikipedia
• Authors: Christine de Kock, Tom Stafford, Andreas Vlachos
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework of dispute tactics that unifies the perspectives of detecting toxicity and analysing argument structure. This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument. We show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.
• Score: 17.354674873244335
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Disagreements are frequently studied from the perspective of either detecting toxicity or analysing argument structure. We propose a framework of dispute tactics that 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.

Related papers

• An action language-based formalisation of an abstract argumentation framework [2.6988814189407937]
  We propose a new framework for modelling abstract argumentation graphs. By taking the order of enunciation into account, we have the means to deduce a unique outcome for each dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T09:24:29Z)
• Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report) [13.644164255651472]
  We propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs) RAEs offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T16:02:48Z)
• Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttals [70.22179850619519]
  In many domains of argumentation, people's arguments are driven by so-called attitude roots. Recent work in psychology suggests that instead of directly countering surface-level reasoning, one should follow an argumentation style inspired by the Jiu-Jitsu'soft' combat system. We are the first to explore Jiu-Jitsu argumentation for peer review by proposing the novel task of attitude and theme-guided rebuttal generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T13:54:01Z)
• Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting [80.9896041501715]
  Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-09T18:02:34Z)
• Probing as Quantifying the Inductive Bias of Pre-trained Representations [99.93552997506438]
  We present a novel framework for probing where the goal is to evaluate the inductive bias of representations for a particular task. We apply our framework to a series of token-, arc-, and sentence-level tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T22:01:16Z)
• DialFact: A Benchmark for Fact-Checking in Dialogue [56.63709206232572]
  We construct DialFact, a benchmark dataset of 22,245 annotated conversational claims, paired with pieces of evidence from Wikipedia. We find that existing fact-checking models trained on non-dialogue data like FEVER fail to perform well on our task. We propose a simple yet data-efficient solution to effectively improve fact-checking performance in dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T17:34:35Z)
• Advocating for Multiple Defense Strategies against Adversarial Examples [66.90877224665168]
  It has been empirically observed that defense mechanisms designed to protect neural networks against $ell_infty$ adversarial examples offer poor performance. In this paper we conduct a geometrical analysis that validates this observation. Then, we provide a number of empirical insights to illustrate the effect of this phenomenon in practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-04T14:42:46Z)
• Diversity Aware Relevance Learning for Argument Search [2.9319293268960025]
  This work introduces a new multi-step approach for the argument retrieval problem. Rather than relying on ground-truth assignments, our approach employs a machine learning model to capture semantic relationships between arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-04T08:37:44Z)
• Debate Dynamics for Human-comprehensible Fact-checking on Knowledge Graphs [27.225048123690243]
  We propose a novel method for fact-checking on knowledge graphs based on debate dynamics. The underlying idea is to frame the task of triple classification as a debate game between two reinforcement learning agents. Our method allows for interactive reasoning on knowledge graphs where the users can raise additional arguments or evaluate the debate taking common sense reasoning and external information into account.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-09T15:19:45Z)
• Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs with Debate Dynamics [27.225048123690243]
  We propose a novel method for automatic reasoning on knowledge graphs based on debate dynamics. The main idea is to frame the task of triple classification as a debate game between two reinforcement learning agents. We benchmark our method on the triple classification and link prediction task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-02T14:44:23Z)
• Defensive Few-shot Learning [77.82113573388133]
  This paper investigates a new challenging problem called defensive few-shot learning. It aims to learn a robust few-shot model against adversarial attacks. The proposed framework can effectively make the existing few-shot models robust against adversarial attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-11-16T05:57:16Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.