@radicle /5 I found that the distributions for toxicity scores were right-skewed, while the distributions for bridging scores were most often left-skewed or close to left-skewed.
From this exploratory analysis, the Radicle forum engages in primarily constructive conversations.
/1 DAO Discussion Forums: Exploratory Toxicity and Bridging Analysis of Radicle Forum Posts
https://t.co/yQeLXPmZxu
As part of my explorations into DAO discussion forums, I assessed civility in @radicle governance forum posts.
@radicle /3 Regarding definitions, toxicity refers to "a rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion," while bridging refers to "a comment correlated with more constructive conversations."
@radicle /2 I collected @radicle governance forum posts via @boardroom_info Governance API
I used Google's Perspective API to classify posts for toxicity and bridging attributes.
https://t.co/cgFkoSc9Lk
@volkyeth For example, a sense-making process could focus on assessing engagement signals (e.g., likes, replies) on annotations (e.g., comments, highlights) on blog posts and quality signals (e.g., informative, evergreen, well-written, relevance) from snippets or full-text of the blog post
@volkyeth > Is it for papers, blog posts, articles, or β on the fine-grained side of the spectrum β tweets, individual statements, etc?
Any digital object, but I expect it to be used primarily with creative content.
@volkyeth > One question I couldn't answer yet: Which granularity of content do they target?
Good question.
I plan to make the vocabulary allow for any level of granularity.
@volkyeth The Sense-making markers is meant to provide a vocabulary for describing and formatting sense-making processes, based on signals, from the inputs to the processing method to the outputs, so that sense-making processes can be interoperable and shared between information systems.
@volkyeth > Are sense-making markers some dimensions on which you evaluate content to contextualize the kind of information it contains?
Yes, but there is a bit more to it.
@volkyeth I apologize for the late reply and the confusing response. I am still working on how to communicate the project concisely and succinctly.
> Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I'm not very familiar with the academic language in that domain. Thanks for helping with that
Not at all.
@volkyeth > mind giving an overview or sharing a link with a high-level description of what that is?
I am still trying to find the right language for describing the project currently.
The best overview I have now are the two links below:
https://t.co/7bYyb8i86a
https://t.co/r2hIQ9wnxe
@volkyeth Hi @volkyeth,
You might be interested in my work on developing sense-making markers.
You can find links to my work here:
https://t.co/hdeps9KIOo
https://t.co/7bYyb8i86a
https://t.co/emiRqyMTdq
https://t.co/EdDGRi22Iq
@clinamenic@onchain_org@clinamenic Thanks for the shoutout.
You can find a collection on DAO resources here: https://t.co/bP8xpctcoz
I hope you find the collection helpful.
π Big news! Weβve just submitted a proposal to @gitcoin & @metagov_project for our DAO Index initiative as part of the Distributed Governance Score Framework (DGSF).
π Our mission? To answer a crucial question: How can we develop a standard and measurement tool to rate and benchmark DAO design features and governance processes, considering the unique themes and sociotechnical imaginaries associated with DAOs?
π‘ Explore our innovative approach to revolutionizing DAO governance and see how AI integration could make a difference.
π Check out our proposal and lend your support here: https://t.co/vUBeNIwuCT
#DAO #DecentralizedGovernance #gitcoin #metagov