![[Main Page]](/GikiCLEF/images/logoGikiCLEF.png)
Diana (Talk | contribs)
(New page: At Linguateca we have developed a system to help a large group cooperatively create, define the narrative, translate and discuss the topics. We defined the notion of topic owner (currentl...)
Next diff →
Revision as of 12:35, 24 March 2009
At Linguateca we have developed a system to help a large group cooperatively create, define the narrative, translate and discuss the topics.
We defined the notion of topic owner (currently equated with language group), namely the one who proposed the topic and should know best the answers to it because the subject was included in his or her interests.
In the system, topic owners were the responsible for narrattives of their topics, and could change all translations and remove all answers irrespective of who had put them. All others (not owners) could just add/tamper with their own language and English, add and remove the answers created by them, and set/change the SelfJustified bit.
After the initial topic choice and ownership decision, done through email and whose results were input to the GikiCLEF topic management system, members of the topic group were asked to perform the following tasks:
- edit the narrative field and fill in both further clarifications and a user model
- add translations in their languages to the other topics
- add known answers to their topics
- add answers in their language to the other topics
- for all answers added, set the Self_justified bit to Yes or No
The system then still allowed statistics gathering, as well as XML topic set creation.
Why adding answers
The purpose of having the topic group collecting (right) answers to a topic should be further explained, and also the limitations of the topic management system in that regard should be made clear.
The idea of filling in answers was to do (part of) the job beforehand, in order to help later assessment (and also to collect some statistics). So, members of the topic group should be putting correct answers, and in addition tell the system if they were justified by themselves (and just this small piece of justification info). They should not put other answers whose type were incorrect, nor more complex justifications. Both these decisions can obviously be argued against.
The first is intimately knitted with the way the task was defined: answers have to be of the correct kind, not useful other kinds of pages. This has been part and parcel of the task definition since the beginning.
The second was a design option of the topic management system: it was thought it would be an overkill to ask the members of the topic group to have to enclose large chains of justification, and that it would be quite improbable that systems would find/get the same as them. So the assessment of justification was left to assessment time.