pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2509.23309 · v2 · submitted 2025-09-27 · 💻 cs.HC

Designing AI-Infused Interactive Systems for Online Communities: A Systematic Literature Review

Yuanhao Zhang , Xiaoyu Wang , Jiaxiong Hu , Ziqi Pan , Zhenhui Peng , Xiaojuan Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 12:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords AI-infused systemsonline communitiessystematic reviewcommunity participationdesign considerationsevaluation strategiesinteractive systems
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

A review of 77 studies organizes AI-infused systems for online communities around four participation aspects to identify recurring design and evaluation patterns.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper conducts a systematic review of 77 studies on AI-infused interactive systems in online communities. It examines the challenges these systems target, their design functionalities, and their evaluation strategies, all grouped under four aspects of community participation: contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation. This synthesis matters to designers and researchers because it turns scattered findings into clear patterns that can guide how AI tools shape large-scale user interactions and community behavior. The work extracts practical design considerations from the existing literature and flags specific gaps for further study.

Core claim

By systematically reviewing 77 studies, the authors organize their analysis of AI-infused systems according to the challenges addressed, the design functionalities provided, and the evaluation strategies used, all framed within the four core aspects of community participation—contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation. This structure allows them to surface common design and evaluation patterns across the studies, distill key considerations that should inform future design decisions, and identify concrete opportunities for advancing research on these systems.

What carries the argument

Four aspects of community participation—contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation—used as the primary organizing framework to categorize challenges, design functionalities, and evaluation strategies across the 77 studies.

If this is right

  • Designers can apply the common patterns in functionalities to address similar challenges in contribution or moderation tasks.
  • Researchers can adopt the reviewed evaluation strategies to produce more consistent assessments of system impact.
  • Future systems can incorporate the distilled design considerations to better align AI features with community dynamics.
  • Work on mediation and moderation aspects offers the clearest opportunities for expanding current capabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The patterns identified could transfer to other digital social environments if the participation aspects remain similar.
  • Testing the key design considerations through targeted deployments would provide direct evidence of their practical value.
  • The review suggests that balanced coverage across all four participation aspects could produce more integrated AI support for communities.

Load-bearing premise

The 77 studies selected and their assignment to the four participation aspects accurately represent the full relevant literature without major omissions or misclassifications.

What would settle it

A search that surfaces many additional studies on AI-infused systems in online communities whose challenges, designs, or evaluations do not fit the identified patterns or the four participation aspects would undermine the completeness of the synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.23309 by Jiaxiong Hu, Xiaojuan Ma, Xiaoyu Wang, Yuanhao Zhang, Zhenhui Peng, Ziqi Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Flowchart of our paper collection process following PRISMA guidelines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An overview of our collected papers in venues and years. Companion publications and extended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Co-occurrence heatmap of challenges (RQ1) and functionalities (RQ2) at the subtheme level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Design space for AI-infused system to support content contribution. The order of the codes is adjusted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Design space for AI-infused system to support content consumption. To avoid visual clutter, the order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Design space for AI-infused system to support interaction mediation. The order of the codes is adjusted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Design space for AI-infused system to support content moderation. The order of the codes is adjusted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

AI-infused systems have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in addressing diverse human needs within online communities. Their widespread adoption has shaped user experiences and community dynamics at scale. However, designing such systems requires a clear understanding of user needs, careful design decisions, and robust evaluation. While research on AI-infused systems for online communities has flourished in recent years, a comprehensive synthesis of this space remains absent. In this work, we present a systematic review of 77 studies, analyzing the systems they propose through three lenses: the challenges they aim to address, their design functionalities, and the evaluation strategies employed. The first two dimensions are organized around four core aspects of community participation: contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation. Our analysis identifies common design and evaluation patterns, distills key design considerations, and highlights opportunities for future research on AI-infused systems in online communities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic literature review of 77 studies on AI-infused interactive systems for online communities. It analyzes the systems via three lenses—challenges addressed, design functionalities, and evaluation strategies—organized around four core aspects of community participation: contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation. The review extracts common design and evaluation patterns, distills key design considerations, and identifies opportunities for future research.

Significance. If the categorization and synthesis hold, the review could provide a useful organizing framework for an emerging HCI sub-area, helping researchers identify patterns across contribution/consumption/mediation/moderation and guiding practical design decisions. The structured analysis around participation aspects offers a reusable lens that future empirical work could test.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The review does not report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement) or provide a coding manual with explicit boundary definitions and overlap-resolution rules for assigning the 77 studies to the four participation aspects. This directly affects the stability of the extracted patterns and design considerations.
  2. [Results] Results / Analysis section: The claim that the 77 studies comprehensively represent the literature on AI-infused systems in online communities requires explicit justification of search strings, databases, date range, and inclusion/exclusion criteria; without these details the risk of omission or selection bias cannot be assessed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The time period covered by the literature search and the exact number of papers screened versus included should be stated to give readers an immediate sense of scope.
  2. [Figures] Figures: Any summary tables or charts showing the distribution of studies across the four aspects would benefit from clearer axis labels and legends to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive feedback on our systematic literature review. The comments highlight important aspects of transparency in methods and analysis that we will address to strengthen the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The review does not report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement) or provide a coding manual with explicit boundary definitions and overlap-resolution rules for assigning the 77 studies to the four participation aspects. This directly affects the stability of the extracted patterns and design considerations.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of the coding process would improve reproducibility and allow readers to better evaluate the stability of our categorizations. In the original work, two authors independently assigned studies to the four participation aspects (contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation), with all disagreements resolved through iterative discussion and consensus among the full author team. We will revise the Methods section to describe this process in detail, report the percentage agreement achieved, provide explicit boundary definitions for each aspect, and include a supplementary coding manual with overlap-resolution rules. These changes will be incorporated in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / Analysis section: The claim that the 77 studies comprehensively represent the literature on AI-infused systems in online communities requires explicit justification of search strings, databases, date range, and inclusion/exclusion criteria; without these details the risk of omission or selection bias cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation and acknowledge that greater detail on the search protocol is needed to substantiate the scope and assess potential biases. While the Methods section describes our systematic approach, we will expand it to explicitly list the search strings, the databases queried (including ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Springer, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar), the date range (2010–2024), and the full set of inclusion/exclusion criteria. We will also add a brief discussion of limitations regarding literature coverage. These revisions will allow readers to evaluate the representativeness of the 77 studies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in external literature synthesis

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review that selects and categorizes 77 external studies, then extracts patterns across challenges, design functionalities, and evaluation strategies. The four participation aspects (contribution, consumption, mediation, moderation) serve as an organizing framework applied to outside papers; no result is obtained by fitting parameters to the review's own data, redefining terms in terms of the output, or chaining self-citations whose content is unverified. The synthesis therefore remains independent of any internal construction and rests on the cited external works.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a literature review and introduces no free parameters, new physical or mathematical entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond the standard assumptions of systematic review methodology.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard systematic literature review methodology is sufficient to identify representative studies and extract design patterns
    The review relies on established review practices to select and categorize the 77 studies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5690 in / 1194 out tokens · 32340 ms · 2026-05-18T12:42:33.757096+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We present a systematic review of 77 studies, analyzing the systems they propose through three lenses: the challenges they aim to address, their design functionalities, and the evaluation strategies employed. The first two dimensions are organized around four core aspects of community participation: contribution, consumption, mediation, and moderation.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. ConSearcher: Supporting Conversational Information Seeking in Online Communities with Member Personas

    cs.HC 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0

    ConSearcher generates query-based member personas in an LLM conversational tool, yielding higher information-seeking outcomes and engagement than baselines in a 27-person study, with noted risks of over-personalization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

155 extracted references · 155 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anand Ravi Aiyer, IV Ramakrishnan, and Vikas Ashok. 2023. Taming entangled accessibility forum threads for efficient screen reading. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 65–76

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Ezgi Akar and Sona Mardikyan. 2018. User roles and contribution patterns in online communities: a managerial perspective.Sage Open8, 3 (2018), 2158244018794773

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publicati...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Arthur Armstrong and John Hagel. 2009. The real value of online communities. InKnowledge and communities. Routledge, 85–95

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Johnson, Qian Pan, Casey Dugan, Michelle Brachman, and Carolina Spina

    Zahra Ashktorab, Michael Desmond, James M. Johnson, Qian Pan, Casey Dugan, Michelle Brachman, and Carolina Spina. 2023. SME-in-the-loop: Interaction Preferences When Supervising Bots in Human-AI Communities. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, Pittsburgh PA USA, 2281–2303

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Shubham Atreja, Jane Im, Paul Resnick, and Libby Hemphill. 2024. AppealMod: Inducing Friction to Reduce Moderator Workload of Handling User Appeals.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (2024), 1–35

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Sandeep Avula, Jaime Arguello, Robert Capra, Jordan Dodson, Yuhui Huang, and Filip Radlinski. 2019. Embedding search into a conversational platform to support collaborative search. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval. 15–23

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Sandeep Avula, Gordon Chadwick, Jaime Arguello, and Robert Capra. 2018. Searchbots: User engagement with chatbots during collaborative search. InProceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval. 52–61

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Sandeep Avula, Bogeum Choi, and Jaime Arguello. 2022. The effects of system initiative during conversational collaborative search.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW1 (2022), 1–30

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Aadesh Bagmar, Kevin Hogan, Dalia Shalaby, and James Purtilo. 2022. Analyzing the effectiveness of an extensible virtual moderator.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, GROUP (2022), 1–16

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Ivo Benke, Michael Thomas Knierim, and Alexander Maedche. 2020. Chatbot-based emotion management for distributed teams: A participatory design study.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (2020), 1–30

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. InConference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 149–159

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Moira Burke, Robert Kraut, and Cameron Marlow. 2011. Social capital on Facebook: Differentiating uses and users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 571–580

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Shuxian Cao, Dongliang Guo, Lina Cao, Shuo Li, Junlan Nie, Amit Kumar Singh, and Haibin Lv. 2023. VisDmk: visual analysis of massive emotional danmaku in online videos.The Visual Computer39, 12 (2023), 6553–6570

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A cross-community learning-based system to assist reddit moderators.Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–30

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Guanzheng Chen, Chenghan Xie, Qijie Lu, Yifei Huang, Linxuan Miao, and Zhenhui Peng. 2022. TopsBot: Facilitating Mental Health Peer Support with a Topic-based Writing Assistant in Instant Messaging Apps. InProceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of Chinese CHI. 256–261

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Jianqing Chen, Hong Xu, and Andrew B Whinston. 2011. Moderated online communities and quality of user-generated content.Journal of management information systems28, 2 (2011), 237–268

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Michelene TH Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes.Educational psychologist49, 4 (2014), 219–243

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Chun-Wei Chiang, Zhuoran Lu, Zhuoyan Li, and Ming Yin. 2024. Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil’s Advocate. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 103–119

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Chao-Min Chiu, Hsin-Yi Huang, Hsiang-Lan Cheng, and Pei-Chen Sun. 2015. Understanding online community citizenship behaviors through social support and social identity.International journal of information management35, 4 (2015), 504–519

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Frederick Choi, Tanvi Bajpai, Sowmya Pratipati, and Eshwar Chandrasekharan. 2023. ConvEx: A Visual Conversation Exploration System for Discord Moderators.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–30

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Gabriele Cimolino and TC Nicholas Graham. 2022. Two heads are better than one: A dimension space for unifying human and artificial intelligence in shared control. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Dan Cosley, Dan Frankowski, Loren Terveen, and John Riedl. 2007. SuggestBot: using intelligent task routing to help people find work in wikipedia. InProceedings of the 12th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. 32–41

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Rodrigo Fernandes Gomes da Silva, Chanchal K Roy, Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Kevin A Schneider, Klérisson Paixão, Carlos Eduardo de Carvalho Dantas, and Marcelo de Almeida Maia. 2020. CROKAGE: effective solution recommendation for programming tasks by leveraging crowd knowledge.Empirical Software Engineering25 (2020), 4707–4758

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Secher, Carla F

    Sander de Jong, Joel Wester, Tim Schrills, Kristina S. Secher, Carla F. Griggio, and Niels van Berkel. 2024. Assessing Cognitive and Social Awareness among Group Members in AI-assisted Collaboration. InProceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. 338–350. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111....

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Hyo Jin Do, Ha-Kyung Kong, Jaewook Lee, and Brian P Bailey. 2022. How should the agent communicate to the group? Communication strategies of a conversational agent in group chat discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–23

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Hyo Jin Do, Ha-Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Karrie Karahalios, and Brian P Bailey. 2023. Inform, Explain, or Control: Techniques to Adjust End-User Performance Expectations for a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat Discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–26

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Hyo Jin Do, Ha-Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Jaewook Lee, and Brian P Bailey. 2023. To err is AI: imperfect interventions and repair in a conversational agent facilitating group chat discussions.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–23

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Bryan Dosono and Bryan Semaan. 2019. Moderation practices as emotional labor in sustaining online communities: The case of AAPI identity work on Reddit. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Gregory Dyke, David Adamson, Iris Howley, and Carolyn Penstein Rosé. 2013. Enhancing scientific reasoning and discussion with conversational agents.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies6, 3 (2013), 240–247

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Christo El Morr, Bushra Kundi, Fariah Mobeen, Sarah Taleghani, Yahya El-Lahib, and Rachel Gorman. 2024. AI and disability: A systematic scoping review.Health Informatics Journal30, 3 (2024), 14604582241285743

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    David Ellis, Rachel Oldridge, and Ana Vasconcelos. 2004. Community and virtual community.Annual review of information science and technology38, 1 (2004), 145–186

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    David Engel, Anita Williams Woolley, Ishani Aggarwal, Christopher F Chabris, Masamichi Takahashi, Keiichi Nemoto, Carolin Kaiser, Young Ji Kim, and Thomas W Malone. 2015. Collective intelligence in computer-mediated collaboration emerges in different contexts and cultures. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing syste...

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Siwei Fu, Jian Zhao, Hao Fei Cheng, Haiyi Zhu, and Jennifer Marlow. 2018. T-cal: Understanding team conversational data with calendar-based visualization. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Mingkun Gao, Hyo Jin Do, and Wai-Tat Fu. 2018. Burst your bubble! an intelligent system for improving awareness of diverse social opinions. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 371–383

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Zhipeng Gao, Xin Xia, David Lo, John Grundy, Xindong Zhang, and Zhenchang Xing. 2023. I know what you are searching for: Code snippet recommendation from stack overflow posts.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology32, 3 (2023), 1–42

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Anna S Geraedts, Annet M Kleiboer, Jos Twisk, Noortje M Wiezer, Willem van Mechelen, and Pim Cuijpers. 2014. Long-term results of a web-based guided self-help intervention for employees with depressive symptoms: randomized controlled trial.Journal of medical Internet research16, 7 (2014), e168

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    2019.Inclusive design for a digital world: Designing with accessibility in mind

    Regine M Gilbert. 2019.Inclusive design for a digital world: Designing with accessibility in mind. Apress

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Henner Gimpel, Stefanie Lahmer, Moritz Wöhl, and Valerie Graf-Drasch. 2024. Digital facilitation of group work to gain predictable performance.Group Decision and Negotiation33, 1 (2024), 113–145

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Peiyuan Gong, Jiamian Li, and Jiaxin Mao. 2024. Cosearchagent: a lightweight collaborative search agent with large language models. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2729–2733

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Jarod Govers, Eduardo Velloso, Vassilis Kostakos, and Jorge Goncalves. 2024. AI-Driven Mediation Strategies for Audience Depolarisation in Online Debates. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Shirley Gregor and Alan R Hevner. 2013. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS quarterly(2013), 337–355

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Rafik Hadfi, Jawad Haqbeen, Sofia Sahab, and Takayuki Ito. 2021. Argumentative conversational agents for online discussions.Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering30 (2021), 450–464

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Qiushi Han, Haitong Chen, Haoxiang Fan, and Zhenhui Peng. 2023. ReDBot: Exploring Conversational Recommenda- tion for Decision-Making Support in Group Chats. InProceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of Chinese CHI. 73–80

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. InProceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    Caroline Haythornthwaite. 2005. Social networks and Internet connectivity effects.Information, Community & Society 8, 2 (2005), 125–147

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Wanrong He, Mitchell L Gordon, Lindsay Popowski, and Michael S Bernstein. 2023. Cura: Curation at Social Media Scale.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–33. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: August 2018. 111:30 Trovato et al

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Brent Hecht, Jaime Teevan, Meredith Morris, and Dan Liebling. 2012. Searchbuddies: Bringing search engines into the conversation. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 6. 138–145

    work page 2012

  50. [50]

    Ming Shan Hee, Karandeep Singh, Charlotte Ng Si Min, Kenny Tsu Wei Choo, and Roy Ka-Wei Lee. 2024. Brinjal: A Web-Plugin for Collaborative Hate Speech Detection. InCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. 1063–1066

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. 2004. Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly(2004), 75–105

    work page 2004

  52. [52]

    Enamul Hoque and Giuseppe Carenini. 2015. Convisit: Interactive topic modeling for exploring asynchronous online conversations. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 169–180

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Enamul Hoque, Shafiq Joty, Luis Marquez, and Giuseppe Carenini. 2017. CQAVis: Visual text analytics for community question answering. InProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 161–172

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Alicia Iriberri and Gondy Leroy. 2009. A life-cycle perspective on online community success.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)41, 2 (2009), 1–29

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    Takayuki Ito, Rafik Hadfi, and Shota Suzuki. 2022. An agent that facilitates crowd discussion: A crowd discussion support system based on an automated facilitation agent.Group Decision and Negotiation31, 3 (2022), 621–647

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Farnaz Jahanbakhsh, Yannis Katsis, Dakuo Wang, Lucian Popa, and Michael Muller. 2023. Exploring the use of personalized AI for identifying misinformation on social media. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–27

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Samireh Jalali and Claes Wohlin. 2012. Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. 29–38

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-machine collaboration for content regulation: The case of reddit automoderator.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)26, 5 (2019), 1–35

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Does transparency in moderation really matter? User behavior after content removal explanations on reddit.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (2019), 1–27

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    eternal september

    Charles Kiene, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2016. Surviving an" eternal september" how an online community managed a surge of newcomers. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1152–1156

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Hyunwoo Kim, Haesoo Kim, Kyung Je Jo, and Juho Kim. 2021. StarryThoughts: facilitating diverse opinion exploration on social issues.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–29

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Changhoon Oh, Bongwon Suh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2020. Bot in the bunch: Facilitating group chat discussion by improving efficiency and participation with a chatbot. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Joseph Seering, and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Moderator chatbot for deliberative discussion: Effects of discussion structure and discussant facilitation.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–26

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Barbara Kitchenham, Stuart Charters, et al. 2007. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Aniket Kittur and Robert E Kraut. 2008. Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia: quality through coordination. InProceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 37–46

    work page 2008

  66. [66]

    Daria Korobenko, Anastasija Nikiforova, and Rajesh Sharma. 2024. Towards a privacy and security-aware framework for ethical AI: Guiding the development and assessment of AI systems. InProceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 740–753

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    2012.Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design

    RE Kraut. 2012.Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-based Social Design. MIT Press

    work page 2012

  68. [68]

    Rohit Kumar and Carolyn P Rosé. 2014. Triggering effective social support for online groups.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS)3, 4 (2014), 1–32

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Bum Chul Kwon, Sung-Hee Kim, Sukwon Lee, Jaegul Choo, Jina Huh, and Ji Soo Yi. 2015. VisOHC: Designing visual analytics for online health communities.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics22, 1 (2015), 71–80

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    Vivian Lai, Samuel Carton, Rajat Bhatnagar, Q Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, and Chenhao Tan. 2022. Human-ai collaboration via conditional delegation: A case study of content moderation. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    Cliff Lampe and Paul Resnick. 2004. Slash (dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 543–550

    work page 2004

  72. [72]

    Cliff Lampe, Rick Wash, Alcides Velasquez, and Elif Ozkaya. 2010. Motivations to participate in online communities. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1927–1936. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., Vol. 37, No. 4, Article 111. Publication date: August 2018. Designing AI-Infused Interactive Systems for Online Com...

    work page 2010

  73. [73]

    Rabindra Lamsal, Aaron Harwood, and Maria Rodriguez Read. 2022. Socially enhanced situation awareness from microblogs using artificial intelligence: A survey.Comput. Surveys55, 4 (2022), 1–38

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Reeva Lederman, Greg Wadley, John Gleeson, Sarah Bendall, and Mario Álvarez-Jiménez. 2014. Moderated online social therapy: Designing and evaluating technology for mental health.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)21, 1 (2014), 1–26

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    Fion SL Lee, Douglas Vogel, and Moez Limayem. 2003. Virtual community informatics: A review and research agenda. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA)5, 1 (2003), 5

    work page 2003

  76. [76]

    Sung-Chul Lee, Jaeyoon Song, Eun-Young Ko, Seongho Park, Jihee Kim, and Juho Kim. 2020. Solutionchat: Real-time moderator support for chat-based structured discussion. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Uichin Lee, Jihyoung Kim, Eunhee Yi, Juyup Sung, and Mario Gerla. 2013. Analyzing crowd workers in mobile pay-for-answer q&a. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 533–542

    work page 2013

  78. [78]

    James R Lewis. 2018. The system usability scale: past, present, and future.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction34, 7 (2018), 577–590

    work page 2018

  79. [79]

    Haotian Li, Yun Wang, and Huamin Qu. 2024. Where are we so far? understanding data storytelling tools from the perspective of human-ai collaboration. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Chengzhong Liu, Zeyu Huang, Dingdong Liu, Shixu Zhou, Zhenhui Peng, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. PlanHelper: Supporting Activity Plan Construction with Answer Posts in Community-Based QA Platforms.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–26

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.