A Consensus Reaching Model for Web 2.0 Communities
- 635 Downloads
Web 2.0 Communities allow large amounts of users to interact with each others. In fact, new Web 2.0 technologies allow to share resources and information in an easy and timely manner, allowing real time communication among persons all over the world. However, as Web 2.0 Communities are a quite recent phenomenon with its own characteristics and particularities, there is still a necessity of developing new tools that allow to reach decisions with a high enough consensus level among their users. In this contribution we present a new consensus reaching model designed to incorporate the benefits that a Web 2.0 Community offers (rich and diverse knowledge due to a large number of users, real-time communication...) and that tries to minimize the main problems that this kind of organization presents (low and intermittent participation rates, difficulty of establishing trust relations and so on).
KeywordsConsensus Model Consensus Process Trust Network Fuzzy Preference Relation Linguistic Preference Relation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/
- 4.Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/
- 5.PollDaddy, http://www.polldaddy.com/
- 6.BallotBin, http://www.ballotbin.com/
- 14.Cabrerizo, F., Moreno, J., Pérez, I., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Analyzing consensus approaches in fuzzy group decision making: advantages and drawbacks. Soft Computing (In press, 2009), doi:10.1007/s00500-009-0453-xGoogle Scholar
- 16.Xu, Z.: Dynamic linguistic preference relations and their use in multi-period decision making. In: International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, Harbin, P.R. China, pp. 345–350 (2007)Google Scholar
- 21.Baym, N.K.: The Emergence of On-line Community. In: Cybersociety 2.0., pp. 35–68. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
- 22.Ling, K., Beenen, G., Ludford, P., Wang, X., Chang, K., Li, X., Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Terveen, L., Rashid, A.M., Resnick, P., Kraut, R.: Using social psychology to motivate contributions to online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10(4) (2005)Google Scholar