The starting point to map the controversy was to formulate right queries that could gave interesting results to the chosen theme: that was all about asking the right question. So, starting from the complexity of the controversy, it was necessary to disassembly the problem into simple part, the controversy atlases: what, who, how, where and when.
This first section shows which are the speakers dialoguing on the examined debate. Who are the fighters and for what they stands.
In the graphic are positioned all the speakers taking part of the debate according to the corpus. The dots on the top represents each single speaker and they are divided into categories according to what they belong: a blog, an educational institution (for the biggest part universities), an association, a newspaper, a magazine or a governmental institution.
The graphic is meant to link each speaker to its quality. It is possible to read the name of the single speaker passing over (with the computer cursor) each dot. They are positioned in their belonging groups and they are linked to their action field (news, law, rights, technologies and so on).
In the analyzed controversy there are not principal protagonists leading the debate but just many characters taking part of it. The decision made at the beginning of the research was to divide them into groups according to their category. This was a need to better understand and to simplify the the study and the reading of the controversy.
The alluvial diagram was made through the help of Raw software while the dots have been added later manually.
The graphic shows which are the categories interested in anonymity and freedom of expression controversy. It is possible to understand that there are different fields of interest taking part in the debate; there are lawyers, there are politicians or activists in human rights or people interested in technologies. It is easy to read through the visualization that the principal categories are educational institutions and associations following the blog group.
What is clearly visible is that the blog group (blog are considered personal pages in which a single person writes about something) are the biggest part of the corpus. The speakers belonging to that group are active in many different fields. Splitted quite equally among the quality groups: someone talks about general news, some about law, some about rights, some about technologies and others about digital media or politics.
About educational institutions it is possible to see that the majority are law universities and about associations, instead, it is interesting to see that they are for the biggest part activists in human rights.
For the investigation of the theme we can understand with this visualization which environments the speakers belong to and which are the issues they debate. It is interesting to see that there are many members of a legislative field, that many debaters are interested in rights and in particular in human rights. It is an important starting point to analyze the theme and to map the controversy.
