Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0173561 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0173561 C5360246!5360246!28323867     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       PLoS+One 2017 ; 12 (3): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=28323867|t=2017. Understanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative environment: A data-driven modeling |pdf=|usr=}}{{28323867}} gab.com Text Understanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative environment: A data-driven modeling JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28323867 #FOAvip The Internet has provided us with great opportunities for large scale collaborative public good projects. Wikipedia is a predominant example of such projects where conflicts emerge and get resolved through bottom-up mechanisms leading to the emergence of the largest encyclopedia in human history. Disaccord arises whenever editors with different opinions try to produce an article reflecting a consensual view. The debates are mainly heated by editors with extreme views. Using a model of common value production, we show that the consensus can only be reached if groups with extreme views can actively take part in the discussion and if their views are also represented in the common outcome, at least temporarily. We show that banning problematic editors mostly hinders the consensus as it delays discussion and thus the whole consensus building process. To validate the model, relevant quantities are measured both in simulations and Wikipedia, which show satisfactory agreement. We also consider the role of direct communication between editors both in the model and in Wikipedia data (by analyzing the Wikipedia talk pages). While the model suggests that in certain conditions there is an optimal rate of ?talking? vs ?editing?, it correctly predicts that in the current settings of Wikipedia, more activity in talk pages is associated with more controversy. Twit Text FOAVip Understanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative environment: A data-driven modeling ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28323867 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=28323867 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|28323867}}</ref> Understanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative environment: A data-driven modeling #MMPMID28323867 Rudas C; Surányi O; Yasseri T; Török J PLoS One 2017[]; 12 (3): ä PMID28323867show ga The Internet has provided us with great opportunities for large scale collaborative public good projects. Wikipedia is a predominant example of such projects where conflicts emerge and get resolved through bottom-up mechanisms leading to the emergence of the largest encyclopedia in human history. Disaccord arises whenever editors with different opinions try to produce an article reflecting a consensual view. The debates are mainly heated by editors with extreme views. Using a model of common value production, we show that the consensus can only be reached if groups with extreme views can actively take part in the discussion and if their views are also represented in the common outcome, at least temporarily. We show that banning problematic editors mostly hinders the consensus as it delays discussion and thus the whole consensus building process. To validate the model, relevant quantities are measured both in simulations and Wikipedia, which show satisfactory agreement. We also consider the role of direct communication between editors both in the model and in Wikipedia data (by analyzing the Wikipedia talk pages). While the model suggests that in certain conditions there is an optimal rate of ?talking? vs ?editing?, it correctly predicts that in the current settings of Wikipedia, more activity in talk pages is associated with more controversy. äUnderstanding and coping with extremism in an online collaborative env(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing