wip
This commit is contained in:
wea_ondara
@@ -55,10 +55,10 @@ Since the introduction of Web 2.0 and the subsquential spawning of platforms for
|
||||
% DENE How Do Programmers Ask and Answer Questions on the Web? \cite{treude2011programmers} qa sites very effective at code review and conceptual questions
|
||||
% DONE The role of knowledge in software development \cite{robillard1999role} people have different areas of knowledge and expertise
|
||||
|
||||
All these communities differ in their usage. Wikipedia is a community driven knowledge repository where articles are created and edited collaboratively. Reddit represents a platform for social interaction. Quora, StackExchange and Yahoo! Answers are CQA platforms. On Quora and Yahoo! Answers users can ask any question reguarding any topics whereas on StackExchange users have to post their questions in the appropiate subcommunity, for instance StackOverflow or MathOverflow. CQA site are very efficitive at code review \cite{treude2011programmers}. Code may be understood in the traditional sense of source code in programming related fields but this also translates to other fields, for instance, mathematics where formulas represent code. CQA sites are also very effective at solving conceptual questions. This is due to the fact that people have different areas of knowledge and expertise \cite{robillard1999role} and to the large user base established CQA sites have which increases the variety of users.
|
||||
All these communities differ in their usage. Wikipedia is a community driven knowledge repository where articles are created and edited collaboratively. Reddit represents a platform for social interaction. Quora, StackExchange and Yahoo! Answers are CQA platforms. On Quora and Yahoo! Answers users can ask any question reguarding any topics whereas on StackExchange users have to post their questions in the appropiate subcommunity, for instance StackOverflow or MathOverflow. CQA site are very efficitive at code review \cite{treude2011programmers}. Code may be understood in the traditional sense of source code in programming related fields but this also translates to other fields, for instance, mathematics where formulas represent code. CQA sites are also very effective at solving conceptual questions. This is due to the fact that people have different areas of knowledge and expertise \cite{robillard1999role} and due to the large user base established CQA sites have which again increases the variety of users.
|
||||
|
||||
Despite the differences in purpose and manifestation of these communities they are social communities and they have to follow certian laws.
|
||||
In their book on ''Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design`` \cite{kraut2012building} Kraut \etal lie out five equally important criteria online platforms have to fullfill in order to thrive. 1) When starting a community has to have a critical mass of users who create content. StackOverflow already had a critical mass of users from the begining due to StackOverflow team already being experts in the domain \cite{mamykina2011design} and the private beta \cite{atwood2008stack}. Both aspects ensured a strong community core early on.
|
||||
In their book on ''Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design`` \cite{kraut2012building} Kraut lie out five equally important criteria online platforms have to fullfill in order to thrive. 1) When starting a community has to have a critical mass of users who create content. StackOverflow already had a critical mass of users from the begining due to StackOverflow team already being experts in the domain \cite{mamykina2011design} and the private beta \cite{atwood2008stack}. Both aspects ensured a strong community core early on.
|
||||
2) The platform must attract new users to grow as well as to replace leaving users. Depending on the type of the community new users should bring certain skills, for example, programming background in open source software, or extended knowledge on certain domains; or qualities, for example, a certain illness in medical communities. New users also bring the challenge of onboarding with them. They will not be familiar with all the rules and nuances of the community. %TODO add ref
|
||||
3) The platform should encourage users to commit to the community. Online communities are often based on voluntarity of their users \cite{ipeirotis2014quizz}, hence the platform has to ensure users are willing to stay. Most platforms do not have contracts with their users, so users should see benefits for staying with the community. 4) Contribution by users to the community should be encouraged. Content generation and engagment is the backbone of a online community. 5) The community needs regulation to sustain the community. Not every user in a community is interested in the well being of the community. Therefore, every community has to deal with trolls, and inappropiate or even destructive behavior. Rules need to be established and enforced to limit and mitigate the damage malicous users cause.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -74,9 +74,9 @@ In their book on ''Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social
|
||||
All these criteria are heavily intertwined, so for the purposes of this thesis, these criteria can be grouped into two main categries: 1) onboaring of new users, 2) keeping users engaged, contributing, and well behaved.
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Onboarding of new users}
|
||||
The onboarding process is a permanent challenge for online communities. The onboarding process differs from one platform to another. \citeauthor{slag2015one} \etal investigated why many users on StackOverflow only post once after their registration \cite{slag2015one}. They found that 47\% of all users on StackOverflow posted only once. They suggest that code example quatilty is lower than that of more involved users, which often leads to answers to first improve the question and code instead of answering the stated question. This likely discorages new users from using the site further. Negative feedback instead of constructive feedback is another cause for discontinuation of usage. The StackOverflow staff also conducted their own research on negative feedback of the community \cite{silge2019welcome}. They investigated the comment sections of questions by recruting their staff members to rate a set of comments and they found more than 7\% of the reviewed comments are unwelcoming.
|
||||
The onboarding process is a permanent challenge for online communities. The onboarding process differs from one platform to another. \citeauthor{slag2015one} investigated why many users on StackOverflow only post once after their registration \cite{slag2015one}. They found that 47\% of all users on StackOverflow posted only once. They suggest that code example quatilty is lower than that of more involved users, which often leads to answers to first improve the question and code instead of answering the stated question. This likely discorages new users from using the site further. Negative feedback instead of constructive feedback is another cause for discontinuation of usage. The StackOverflow staff also conducted their own research on negative feedback of the community \cite{silge2019welcome}. They investigated the comment sections of questions by recruting their staff members to rate a set of comments and they found more than 7\% of the reviewed comments are unwelcoming.
|
||||
|
||||
One-day-flies are not unique to StackOverflow. \citeauthor{steinmacher2015social} \etal investigated the social barriers newcomers face when they submit their first contribution to an open source software project \cite{steinmacher2015social}. They based their work on empirical data and interviews and identified serveral social barriers preventing newcomers to place their first contribution to a project. Furthermore, newcomers are often on their own in open source projects hindering them. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} \etal found that new contributors on Wikipedia face challanges when editing articles. Wikipedia hosts millions of articles \cite{sizeofwikipedia} and new contributors often do not know which articles they could edit and improve. Recommender systems can solve this problem by suggesting articles to edit but they suffer from the cold start problem because they rely on past user activty which is missing for new contributors. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} \etal proposed a solution by establishing a framework which automatically creates questionaires to fill this gap. This also helps matching new contributors with more experienced contributors.
|
||||
One-day-flies are not unique to StackOverflow. \citeauthor{steinmacher2015social} investigated the social barriers newcomers face when they submit their first contribution to an open source software project \cite{steinmacher2015social}. They based their work on empirical data and interviews and identified serveral social barriers preventing newcomers to place their first contribution to a project. Furthermore, newcomers are often on their own in open source projects hindering them. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} found that new contributors on Wikipedia face challanges when editing articles. Wikipedia hosts millions of articles \cite{sizeofwikipedia} and new contributors often do not know which articles they could edit and improve. Recommender systems can solve this problem by suggesting articles to edit but they suffer from the cold start problem because they rely on past user activty which is missing for new contributors. \citeauthor{yazdanian2019eliciting} proposed a solution by establishing a framework which automatically creates questionaires to fill this gap. This also helps matching new contributors with more experienced contributors.
|
||||
\citeauthor{allen2006organizational} showed that the one-time-contributers phenomenon also translates to work places and organizations \cite{allen2006organizational}. They found out that socialization with other members of an organization plays an important role in turnover. The better the socialization within the organization the less likely newcomers are to leave. This socialization process has to be actively persued by the organization.
|
||||
One-day-flies may partially be a result of lurking. Lurking is consuming content generated by a community but not contribution content to it. \citeauthor{nonnecke2006non} investigated lurking behavior on Microsoft Network (MSN) \cite{nonnecke2006non}. They found that contrary to what previous studies lurking is not neccessarily bad behavior. Lurkers show a passive behavior and are more introverted and less optimistic than actively posting members of a community. Previous studies suggested lurking is free riding, a taking rather than giving process. However, the authors found that lurking is important in getting to know a community, how a coummunity works and learning the nuances of social interactions on the platform. This allows for better integration into the community when a person joins the community. StackExchange, especially the StackOverflow community, probably has a large lurking audience. Many programmers do not register on the site and those who do only ask one question and revert to lurking, as suggested by \cite{slag2015one}.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ This project does not scale very well as the number of mentors is very limited b
|
||||
|
||||
Unwelcomingness is a large problem on StackExchange \cite{friend2018rolling, hanlon2018stack, ford2016paradise}. %TODO maybe more refs
|
||||
Although unwelcomingness affects all new users, users from marginalized groups suffer significantly more \cite{vasilescu2014gender, hanlon2018stack}. \citeauthor{ford2016paradise} investigated barriers users face when contributing to StackOverflow. The authors identified 14 barriers in total hindering newcomers to contribute and five barriers were rated significantly more problematic for women than men.
|
||||
On StackOverflow only 5.8\% (2015 \cite{stackoversurvey2015}, 7.9\% 2019 \cite{stackoversurvey2019}) of active users identify as women. \citeauthor{david2008community} \etal found similar results of 5\% women in ''Community-based production of open-source software`` \cite{david2008community}. These numbers are comparatively small to the number of degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic (STEM) \cite{clark2005women} where 20\% are achieved by women \cite{hill2010so}. Despite the difference, the percentage of women on StackOverflow has increased.
|
||||
On StackOverflow only 5.8\% (2015 \cite{stackoversurvey2015}, 7.9\% 2019 \cite{stackoversurvey2019}) of active users identify as women. \citeauthor{david2008community} found similar results of 5\% women in ''Community-based production of open-source software`` \cite{david2008community}. These numbers are comparatively small to the number of degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematic (STEM) \cite{clark2005women} where 20\% are achieved by women \cite{hill2010so}. Despite the difference, the percentage of women on StackOverflow has increased.
|
||||
|
||||
%discrimitation
|
||||
% DONE Paradise Unplugged: Identifying Barriers for Female Participation on Stack Overflow \cite{ford2016paradise} gender gap, females only 5\%, contribution barriers, found 5 gender specific (women) barriers among 14 barrier in total, barriers also affect groups like industry programmers
|
||||
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ On StackOverflow only 5.8\% (2015 \cite{stackoversurvey2015}, 7.9\% 2019 \cite{s
|
||||
|
||||
\subsection{Keeping users engaged, contributing and well behaved}
|
||||
|
||||
Repuatation plays a big role on StackExchange and indicates the credability of a user as well as a primary source of answers of high quality \cite{movshovitz2013analysis}. Although the biggest chunk of all questions are posted by low reputated users, high reputated users post more questions on average. To earn a high reputation a user has to invest a lot of effort and time into the community, for instance, asking good questions, or providing useful answers to questions of others. Reputation is earned when a question or answers is upvoted by other users, or if an answer is accepted as the solution to a question by the question creator. \citeauthor{mamykina2011design} \etal found that the reputation system of StackOverflow encourages users to compete productively \cite{mamykina2011design}. But not every user participates equally and participation depends on the personality of the user \cite{bazelli2013personality}. \citeauthor{bazelli2013personality} showed that the top reputated users on StackOverflow are more extroverted compared to users with less reputation. \citeauthor{movshovitz2013analysis} found that by analysing the StackOverflow community network experts can be reliably identified by their contribution within the first few months after they registered. Graph analysis also allowed the authors to find spamming users or users with other extreme behavior.
|
||||
Repuatation plays a big role on StackExchange and indicates the credability of a user as well as a primary source of answers of high quality \cite{movshovitz2013analysis}. Although the biggest chunk of all questions are posted by low reputated users, high reputated users post more questions on average. To earn a high reputation a user has to invest a lot of effort and time into the community, for instance, asking good questions, or providing useful answers to questions of others. Reputation is earned when a question or answers is upvoted by other users, or if an answer is accepted as the solution to a question by the question creator. \citeauthor{mamykina2011design} found that the reputation system of StackOverflow encourages users to compete productively \cite{mamykina2011design}. But not every user participates equally and participation depends on the personality of the user \cite{bazelli2013personality}. \citeauthor{bazelli2013personality} showed that the top reputated users on StackOverflow are more extroverted compared to users with less reputation. \citeauthor{movshovitz2013analysis} found that by analysing the StackOverflow community network experts can be reliably identified by their contribution within the first few months after they registered. Graph analysis also allowed the authors to find spamming users or users with other extreme behavior.
|
||||
Although gaining reputation takes time and effort, users can take certain advantages to gain repuatation faster by gaming the system \cite{bosu2013building}. \citeauthor{bosu2013building} analysed the reputation system and found five strategies: Firstly, answering question with tags that have a small expertise density. This reduces competitiveness against other users and increases the chance of upvotes and answer acceptance. Secondly, questions should be answered promptly. The question asker will most likely accept the first arriving answer that solves the question. This is also supported by \cite{anderson2012discovering}. Thirdly, answering first also gives the user an advanteage over other answerers. Fourthly, activity during off-peak hours reduces the competition from other users. Finally, contributing to the diverse areas will also helps in developing a higher reputation.
|
||||
|
||||
% DONE Discovering Value from Community Activity on Focused Question Answering Sites: A Case Study of Stack Overflow \cite{anderson2012discovering} accepted answer strongly depends on when answers arrive, considered not only the question and accepted answer but the set of answers to a question
|
||||
@@ -137,9 +137,9 @@ Although gaining reputation takes time and effort, users can take certain advant
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Complementary to reputatation system StackOverflow also employs a badge system \cite{stackoverflowbadges} to stimulate contributions by users \cite{cavusoglu2015can}. The goal of badges is to keep users engaged with the community \cite{li2012quantifying}. Therefore, badges are often used in a gameification setting where users contribute to the community and are rewarded for their behavior if it alines with the requirements of the badges. Badges are visible in questions and answers as well as the profile page of the user and can by earned by performing certain actions. Badges are often seen as a steering mechanism by reasearchers \cite{yanovsky2019one, kusmierczyk2018causal, anderson2013steering}. Although users want to achieve badges and are therefore steered to perform certain actions, steering also occurs in the reputation system. However, badges allow a wider variety goals, for instance, asking and answering questions, voting on questions and answers, or writing higher quality answers.
|
||||
Badges also work as a motivator for users \cite{anderson2013steering}. Users often put in non-trivial amounts of work and effort to achieve badges and so badges become powerful incentives. However, not all users are equal and therefore do not persue badges in the same way \cite{yanovsky2019one}. Contrary to \cite{anderson2013steering}, \citeauthor{yanovsky2019one} \etal \cite{yanovsky2019one} found that users do not neccessarily increase their activity prior to achieving a badge followed by an immediate decrease in contribution thereafter but users behave differently based on their type of contribution. The authors found users can be categorized into 3 groups: Firstly, some users are not affected at all by the badge system and still contribute a lot to the community. Secondly, users increase their activity to before gaining a badge and keep their level of contribution afterwards. Finally, users increase their activity before achieving a badge and return to their previous level of engagement thereafter.
|
||||
Badges also work as a motivator for users \cite{anderson2013steering}. Users often put in non-trivial amounts of work and effort to achieve badges and so badges become powerful incentives. However, not all users are equal and therefore do not persue badges in the same way \cite{yanovsky2019one}. Contrary to \cite{anderson2013steering}, \citeauthor{yanovsky2019one} \cite{yanovsky2019one} found that users do not neccessarily increase their activity prior to achieving a badge followed by an immediate decrease in contribution thereafter but users behave differently based on their type of contribution. The authors found users can be categorized into 3 groups: Firstly, some users are not affected at all by the badge system and still contribute a lot to the community. Secondly, users increase their activity to before gaining a badge and keep their level of contribution afterwards. Finally, users increase their activity before achieving a badge and return to their previous level of engagement thereafter.
|
||||
Different badges also create status classes \cite{immorlica2015social}. The rarer a badge can be earned by users the more unique it is in the community and therefore the badge symbolizes some sort of status. Often rare badges are hard to achieve and take significant effort. For some users, depending on their type, this can be huge motivator.
|
||||
\citeauthor{kusmierczyk2018causal} \etal found first-time badges play an important role in steering users \cite{kusmierczyk2018causal}. The steering effect only takes place if the benefit to the user is greater than the effort the user has to put into to obtain the badge. If the effot is greater the user will likely not persue the badge and therefore the steering effect will not occur.
|
||||
\citeauthor{kusmierczyk2018causal} found first-time badges play an important role in steering users \cite{kusmierczyk2018causal}. The steering effect only takes place if the benefit to the user is greater than the effort the user has to put into to obtain the badge. If the effot is greater the user will likely not persue the badge and therefore the steering effect will not occur.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -153,8 +153,8 @@ Different badges also create status classes \cite{immorlica2015social}. The rare
|
||||
% DONE Steering user behavior with badges \cite{anderson2013steering} # all abount badges, steering users, motivation, user may put in non trivial amounts of work to achieve badges -> powerful incentives, badges used in multiple ways (steer users to ask/answer more questions, voting, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Quality is often concern in online communities. Platform moderators and admins want to keep a certain level of quality or even raise it. However, higher quality posts take more time and effort than lower quality posts. In the case of CQA platforms this is an even bigger problem as higher quality posts fight against fast responses. Despite that, StackOverflow also has a problem with low quality and effort questions and subsequent unwelcoming answers and comments \cite{silge2019welcome}. StackOverflow has grown into large community and larger communities are harder to control. \citeauthor{lin2017better} \etal investigated how growth affects a community. They looked at Reddit communities that where added to the default set of subscribed communities of every new user (defaulting) which resulted in a huge influx of new users to the communties as a result. The authors found that contrary to expectations, the quality stays largely the same. The vote score dips shortly after defaulting but quickly recovers or even raises to higher levels than before. The complaints of low-quality content did not increase and the language used in the community stayed the same. However, the community clustered around fewer posts than before defaulting.
|
||||
\citeauthor{tausczik2011predicting} \etal found reputation is linked to the perceived quality of posts in multiple ways \cite{tausczik2011predicting}. They suggest reputation could be used as an indicator for quality.
|
||||
Quality is often concern in online communities. Platform moderators and admins want to keep a certain level of quality or even raise it. However, higher quality posts take more time and effort than lower quality posts. In the case of CQA platforms this is an even bigger problem as higher quality posts fight against fast responses. Despite that, StackOverflow also has a problem with low quality and effort questions and subsequent unwelcoming answers and comments \cite{silge2019welcome}. StackOverflow has grown into large community and larger communities are harder to control. \citeauthor{lin2017better} investigated how growth affects a community. They looked at Reddit communities that where added to the default set of subscribed communities of every new user (defaulting) which resulted in a huge influx of new users to the communties as a result. The authors found that contrary to expectations, the quality stays largely the same. The vote score dips shortly after defaulting but quickly recovers or even raises to higher levels than before. The complaints of low-quality content did not increase and the language used in the community stayed the same. However, the community clustered around fewer posts than before defaulting.
|
||||
\citeauthor{tausczik2011predicting} found reputation is linked to the perceived quality of posts in multiple ways \cite{tausczik2011predicting}. They suggest reputation could be used as an indicator for quality.
|
||||
Quality also depends on on the type of the platform. \cite{lin2017better} showed that expert sites who charge fees, for instance, library reference services, have higher quality answers compared to free sites. Also, the higher the fee the higher the quality of the answers. However, free community sites outperform expert sites in terms answer density and responsiveness.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -174,25 +174,25 @@
|
||||
year={}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@article{stackoverflowvotedown,
|
||||
title={Help Center \textgreater~Privileges \textgreater~Vote down},
|
||||
title={Help Center > Privileges > Vote down},
|
||||
author={},
|
||||
journal={\url{https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/vote-down}},
|
||||
year={}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@article{stackoverflowprivileges,
|
||||
title={Help Center \textgreater~Privileges},
|
||||
title={Help Center > Privileges},
|
||||
author={},
|
||||
journal={\url{https://stackoverflow.com/help/privileges/}},
|
||||
year={}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@article{mathoverflowprivileges,
|
||||
title={Help Center \textgreater~Privileges},
|
||||
title={Help Center > Privileges},
|
||||
author={},
|
||||
journal={\url{https://mathoverflow.com/help/privileges/}},
|
||||
year={}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@article{stackoverflowbadges,
|
||||
title={Help Center \textgreater~Badges},
|
||||
title={Help Center > Badges},
|
||||
author={},
|
||||
journal={\url{https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/}},
|
||||
year={}
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -188,6 +188,19 @@
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
%\usepackage{natbib}
|
||||
\usepackage[
|
||||
backend=biber,
|
||||
style=numeric,
|
||||
sortlocale=en_US,
|
||||
natbib=true,
|
||||
url=false,
|
||||
doi=false,
|
||||
eprint=false,
|
||||
hyperref=true
|
||||
]{biblatex}
|
||||
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
||||
|
||||
\addbibresource{\mybiblatexfile}
|
||||
|
||||
%% ========================================================================
|
||||
%%%% MISC self-defined commands and settings
|
||||
@@ -196,7 +209,7 @@
|
||||
%% ... it's OK to put here your own newcommand/newenvironment-definitions ...
|
||||
|
||||
\newcommand{\etal}{et~al.~}
|
||||
\newcommand{\citeauthor}[1]{\textbf{FIXAUTHOR}}
|
||||
%\newcommand{\citeauthor}[1]{\textbf{FIXAUTHOR}}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -272,8 +285,8 @@
|
||||
\include{6_discussion}
|
||||
\include{7_conclusion}
|
||||
|
||||
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
||||
\bibliography{\mybiblatexfile}
|
||||
%\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
||||
\printbibliography
|
||||
|
||||
\appendix %% closes main document, appendix follows until end; only available in book-classes
|
||||
\addpart*{Appendix} %% adding Appendix to tableofcontents
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user