Which topics spark the most heated debates on social media? Identifying those topics is not only interesting from a societ al point of view, but also allows the filtering and aggregation of social media content for disseminating news stories. In this paper, we perform a systematic methodological study of controversy detection by using the content and the network structure of social media. Unlike previous work, rather than study controversy in a single hand-picked topic and use domain specific knowledge, we take a general approach to study topics in any domain. Our approach to quantifying controversy is based on a graph-based three-stage pipeline, which involves (i) building a conversation graph about a topic; (ii) partitioning the conversation graph to identify potential sides of the controversy; and (iii) measuring the amount of controversy from characteristics of the graph. We perform an extensive comparison of controversy measures, different graph-building approaches, and data sources. We use both controversial and non-controversial topics on Twitter, as well as other external datasets. We find that our new random-walk-based measure outperforms existing ones in capturing the intuitive notion of controversy, and show that content features are vastly less helpful in this task.
Finally, our findings on controversy have many potential applications on news-reading and public-debate scenarios. For instance, quantifying controversy can provide a basis for analyzing the news diet'' of readers @cite_15 @cite_0 , offering the chance of better information by providing recommendations of contrarian views @cite_7 , deliberating debates @cite_2 , and connecting people with opposing opinions @cite_30 @cite_22 .
@cite_30 @cite_22 @cite_7 @cite_0 @cite_2 @cite_15
2087211905 1936155969 2085731449 2950720829
The wikileaks documents or the economic crises in Ireland and Portugal are some of the controversial topics being played on the news everyday. Each of these topics has many different aspects, and there is no absolute, simple truth in answering questions such as: should the EU guarantee the financial stability of each member country, or should the countries themselves be solely responsible? To understand the landscape of opinions, it would be helpful to know which politician or other stakeholder takes which position - support or opposition - on these aspects of controversial topics. In this paper, we describe our system, named OpinioNetIt (pronounced similar to "opinionated"), which aims to automatically derive a map of the opinions-people network from news and other Web documents. We build this network as follows. First, we make use of a small number of generic seeds to identify controversial phrases from text. These phrases are then clustered and organized into a hierarchy of topics. Second, opinion holders are identified for each topic and their opinions (either supporting or opposing the topic) are extracted. Third, the known topics and people are used to construct a lexicon phrases indicating support or opposition. Finally, the lexicon is uses to identify more opinion holders, opinions and topics. Our system currently consists of approximately 30000 person-opinion-topic triples. Our evaluation shows that OpinioNetIt has high accuracy. In many decision-making scenarios, people can benefit from knowing what other people's opinions are. As more and more evaluative documents are posted on the Web, summarizing these useful resources becomes a critical task for many organizations and individuals. This paper presents a framework for summarizing a corpus of evaluative documents about a single entity by a natural language summary. We propose two summarizers: an extractive summarizer and an abstractive one. As an additional contribution, we show how our abstractive summarizer can be modified to generate summaries tailored to a model of the user preferences that is solidly grounded in decision theory and can be effectively elicited from users. We have tested our framework in three user studies. In the first one, we compared the two summarizers. They performed equally well relative to each other quantitatively, while significantly outperforming a baseline standard approach to multidocument summarization. Trends in the results as well as qualitative comments from participants suggest that the summarizers have different strengths and weaknesses. After this initial user study, we realized that the diversity of opinions expressed in the corpus (i.e., its controversiality) might play a critical role in comparing abstraction versus extraction. To clearly pinpoint the role of controversiality, we ran a second user study in which we controlled for the degree of controversiality of the corpora that were summarized for the participants. The outcome of this study indicates that for evaluative text abstraction tends to be more effective than extraction, particularly when the corpus is controversial. In the third user study we assessed the effectiveness of our user tailoring strategy. The results of this experiment confirm that user tailored summaries are more informative than untailored ones. Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires a deeper understanding of the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when presented with many evidence documents, users do not necessarily read and trust them uniformly. Psychologists and other researchers have shown that users tend to follow and agree with articles and sources that hold viewpoints similar to their own, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This suggests that when learning about a controversial topic, human biases and viewpoints about the topic may affect what is considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is an interesting challenge to build systems that can help users overcome this bias and help them decide the truthfulness of claims. In this article, we study various factors that enable humans to acquire additional information about controversial claims in an unbiased fashion. Specifically, we designed a user study to understand how presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise ratings affect how users learn from the evidence documents. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the credibility of the sources and the context in which the source provides the evidence document not only affects what users read but also whether they perceive the document to be credible. Language: en Understanding the ways in which participants in public discussions frame their arguments is important in understanding how public opinion is formed. In this paper, we adopt the position that it is time for more computationally-oriented research on problems involving framing. In the interests of furthering that goal, we propose the following specific, interesting and, we believe, relatively accessible question: In the controversy regarding the use of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, do pro- and anti-GMO articles differ in whether they choose to adopt a "scientific" tone? Prior work on the rhetoric and sociology of science suggests that hedging may distinguish popular-science text from text written by professional scientists for their colleagues. We propose a detailed approach to studying whether hedge detection can be used to understanding scientific framing in the GMO debates, and provide corpora to facilitate this study. Some of our preliminary analyses suggest that hedges occur less frequently in scientific discourse than in popular text, a finding that contradicts prior assertions in the literature. We hope that our initial work and data will encourage others to pursue this promising line of inquiry.