ThinkWrite: Design Interventions for Empowering User Deliberation in Online Petition
Abstract
Online petitions have served as an innovative means of citizen participation over the past decade. However, their original purpose has been waning due to inappropriate language, fabricated information, and the lack of evidence that supports petitions. The lack of deliberation in online petitions has influenced other users, deteriorating the platform to a degree that good petitions are seldom generated. Therefore, this study designs interventions that empower users to create deliberative petitions. We conducted user research to observe users’ writing behavior in online petitions and identified causes of non-deliberative petitions. Based on our findings, we propose ThinkWrite, a new interactive app promoting user deliberation. The app includes six main features: a gamified learning process, a writing recommendation system, a guiding interface for self-construction, tailored AI for self-revision, short-cuts for easy archiving of evidence, and a citizen-collaborative page. Finally, the efficacy of the app is demonstrated through user surveys and in-depth interviews.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the Formal context, planning support is focused on extending and organizing the user's ideas, often through analogies and cross-domain reasoning.
“Planning support in this context is focused on extending and organizing the user's ideas, often through analogies and cross-domain reasoning [38,62].”
From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [62]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process
Reza, M., Thomas-Mitchell, J., Dushniku, P., Laundry, N., Williams, J. J., & Kuzminykh, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757566 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kim, J., Kim, C., & Nam, K.-Y.
- Affiliations
- Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
- Venue
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-04-27
- Pages
- 1-8
- OpenAlex
- W4225103200
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- KAIST Venture Research Program (N11210094)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- online petitions, citizen participation, writing behavior, gamification, citizen collaboration, persuasive language
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
