# Collective Intelligence in Polish-Ukrainian Internet Projects. Debate Models and Research Methods
## 4 Discussion  
Based on both the literature review and the opinions of the participants in our study, we conclude that the presented CI research methods and debate models can significantly help to develop internet communities that will create bridging capital between Poles and Ukrainians. The presented models of civic debate, both the deliberative model and the agonistic model are applicable to our case. The deliberative model, focused on consensus-building and rational argumentation, happen to be good at mitigating the contentious and emotional themes, increasing group cohesion, and increasing interest in the common good reduced to a universally acceptable outcome of the debate. This model is especially relevant for the debate on issues of local communities or labor law. On the other hand, the agonistic model can also be used, because preserving group identities and supporting competition draws the debate out of apathy, and even becomes a method of realising self-interest. Depending on the topic for debate, both consensual agreement (specific for the deliberative model) and preference ranking (specific for the agonistic model) can be a useful result in an online CI project. In the existing literature, the issue of the public debate model in CI projects has been treated in one way only. Collective intelligence has been implicitly combined with the deliberative democracy model, supplemented by the cognitive diversity criterion [34; 72; 73]. What is more, researchers on this topic emphasise the need for further work due to insufficient knowledge of the actual relationship between the deliberation process and the development of valuable results in internet projects [72]. The conclusions of our research meet this need. Noting the possibility of two alternative debate models in CI projects, that have been identified in social sciences (deliberative and agonistic model), we open the possibility of further work that should be focused on verifying the adequacy of these models to specific public issues implemented in CI projects and the possibility of combining some of the features of these models in the various projects. The impact of cooperation and competition factors on collective intelligence processes has been noticed in some previous work [74; 75; 76], but it has never been thoroughly analysed in relation to online debates on public affairs. The most interesting attempt in this direction was the recent work of [PERSON] and [PERSON] presented in the text: Can agonism be institutionalised? Can institutions be agonised? Prospects for democratic design [38], where practical possibilities of applying the agonistic model in the form of preference rankings in public online projects were pointed out. However, there is still a need for a dedicated, comparative study in this field. The review of the selected CI research methods revealed that each of them is seen as potentially useful, although they can help identify different aspects of CI. So far, the results associated with the use of each of these methods provide examples of their effectiveness in relation to the specific features of online debates. Calculating the metrics of online communication and using it to extract issues, ideas, and arguments, as well as detecting users' relations, decisions, and meaningful patterns, was assessed by [PERSON] et al. as one of the most appropriate factors affecting intelligent decision-making in public deliberation [72]. The outstanding examples of practical use of this method for monitoring the level of collective intelligence have been carried out by [PERSON] and his collaborators. Studies conductedwith the use of Deliberatorium software have included: Large-scale argumentation on the use of biofuels in Italy, conducted in the University of Naples, debate on the controversial questions about possible changes to Italy's election laws [40], and Intel conducted deliberation on the possible use of \"open computing\" [11].