Sense of community online
Joe Firestone has raised some issues / questions about how people operate in communities, particularly worrying about how some communities operate when participants raise questions or ideas that don't sit well with the community members. A big motivation for his writing about this is that he has seen rather negative reactions to his participation in several online communities associated with knowledge management. He discusses Rules and Learning in List Servs and then goes into deeper discussion of the nature of email-based communities with The Poverty of Communitarianism.
Joe describes experiences where he has attempted to enjoin the conversation, but has been rebuffed in fairly negative style: either personal attacks to (apparently) impersonal writings and / or having group members ask the moderators to kill the conversation. Of course, Joe is not the only person to whom this happens, and it will continue happening for as long as humans remain human. And Joe also suggests that he belongs to other online communities, where his ideas are not "attacked" but are discussed openly in the way he would expect. In the weblog posts mentioned above, Joe wonders why online communities permit this negative behavior and proposes both some rules as to how communities should operate and two models of communitarianism.
In my own experience with email "list servs," Usenet groups, web-based fora, as well as many live communities, it is clear that all communities have their norms and accepted practices. Frequently, community norms are not recorded except in the minds of the participants. Thus, for newcomers to a community, it is very difficult to know what to expect other than by observing for a time. This is one of the key things I've learned about communities: Observe the community discussion and even check the archives before asking questions or posting comments (for online communities). The topic may have already been discussed, and it annoys regulars to rehash the same issues. In addition, observing for a time gives you the opportunity to see how the community operates and gives clues as to how best to participate in the community. This gives you a sense of the level of discussion people normally employ in the community.
Back to Joe's discussion. While I don't think Joe has ever intentionally written to anger or inflame people to attack, people have done so because they perceive him stepping outside the bounds of the community's normal "style." It's easy to complain about the length of his posts - that it takes too long to read within a larger email discussion. What I see as the real problem is that the articles have the tone of speaking down to the participants in the group. Restated, people perceive that Joe is being pedantic - talking down to them - rather than discussing the idea with them. On top of this, these articles are frequently the first time the community has heard from Joe. Or his only participation is in pages-long essays on a topic that is being discussed within the community. In this light, I am not surprised that Joe's writing gets under people's skin, even if it comes with good intentions.
I hope we all recognize that Joe is not alone in this. I'll bet anyone that participates in online communities has the opportunity to "step outside the bounds" of the community and engender their wrath at some level or another.
How does one participate in communities and hold in-depth conversations without finding oneself at the wrong end of a flamethrower? In some cases it is difficult, but I think good preparation helps immensely.
- Get the lay of the land. Don't start writing without understanding the nature of the community.
- Let people get to know you. Don't assume that everyone is familiar with your website, books, writings in other fora, etc.
- Begin participation slowly. Respond to existing discussion with a few sentences, and if people get interested begin to build more detailed arguments. In some cases, it may make more sense to take conversations "off line" with the people who really want to delve into it.
- Prepare people for the "big discussion" or potentially contentious articles. Help them by summarizing first, since not everyone will have the time or inclination to read long articles. Maybe even summarize for the group and post the long article separately on your website.
- If all else fails, join a community that enjoys your style of discussion. This seems like a cop-out, but there are many communities, and there have to be some that prefer your style.
For more reading, Timothy Campbell has a thorough description of how online arguments get out of control: Flame Wars and Other Online Arguments. He identifies a dozen different ways online "flame wars" get started and then summarizes by reminding that once the argument gets going, it is flamed not by facts and figures but by pure emotion.
4 Comment(s)
Jack,
Thanks much for your post. It's always good to have discussion of these issues in a serious and cordial way. And I think your post qualifies as both serious and cordial. Over the next week, I'll be putting up a six posts about interactions in the act-km group, and after that I'll move on to other groups, and beyond that to some general considerations about the point of view both Shannon and yourself are expressing.
Without going into detail here, I think both of you approach how people ought to behave in communities from the viewpoint of the community and its continued integration, and not from the viewpoint of the political and knowledge processing rights of individual members of communities and of the need of communities to adapt. In fact, I think the whole CoP movement is without a conception of individual rights or constitutionalism. This will be the major theme I'll be developing in the coming weeks. I hope that both of you will be part of the ensuing discussion.
Best,
Joe
Joe, You are right in that I haven't thought about "the political and knowledge processing rights of individual members." But I don't think my description precludes the rights of individual members. In my mind, the cohesion of the community is a higher priority than the ability of individuals to do as they please. Within the standards of the community, I don't see explicit restrictions on the members.
In fact, some well-formed communities essentially do create "consitutions" of how to operate and the purpose of the community. These are typically seen with internal corporate communities that need to respond to governance requirements of their organizations.
Speaking of community standards this statement concerns me: "Over the next week, I'll be putting up a six posts about interactions in the act-km group..." On the surface, this sounds like the same behavior that engenders anger elsewhere. How are you planning to engage the community members in your conversation, rather than simply telling them your opinion about the operation of communties without looking for discussion.
Jack,
I don't know that your description precludes the rights of individual members, but, I don't see that it includes any such rights, either. Specifically, what I have in mind is the right to free speech in the community, given that such speech conforms to rules of civility such as the ones I laid out in my blog post at http://radio.weblogs.com/0135950/2004/06/03.html#a21.
Further, I do not suggest,as you seem to imply, that individual members should have the right to DO as they please in a KNOWLEDGE PROCESSING community, only that they should have the right to SAY what they please, for as long as they please, SO LONG AS THEY ARE POLITE about their expression. Such a right does not exist in any of the KM communities except for the KMCI list servs at the moment. As for the cohesion of the community having a higher priority than free, polite speech, I do not agree with this position (and I hope you are not suggesting it). Knowledge Processing CoPs are for knowledge processing, and when free and autonomous speech cannot occur in such communities their knowledge processing purpose is undermined, and therefore they no longer deserve to exist. I'm afraid CoPs are a means to an end, not an end in themselves, and therefore the cohesion of the community is not the first priority, either in open societies or in open communities.
Concerning how I'll engage the act-km members in my conversation, I can suggest three ways. (1) They can comment on my blogs. (2) They can take up the discussion in either of the KMCI list servs I moderate. I assure everyone that as long as respondents follow the rules presented in the blog post cited above, I will publish whatever they'd like to say, for as long as they wish to say it. (3) I'm prepared to carry on the conversation either in act-km or in neutral fora such as K-Board in Europe, or AOK in the US, provided Jerry Ash is willing. Don't you agree that these possibilities provide ample opportunity for anyone who disagrees with my view to state their own?
Best,
Joe
Having been a part of online communities since around 1991, and in a few cases even earlier, a few comments and continuations of Jack's suggestions.
First, always, always, read a bunch of the community by being a "lurker" before jumping on in. In most cases online communities will have archives you can read, in other cases join but don't do anything for a while and see the ebb and flow of the group.
Second, adher especially to the norms of the group in terms of setting expectations. Many online lists (or discussion boards) have a convention something like (long) as part of the subject of a particularly long entry/email. As well, make sure that your subject lines and style (especially quoting of previous messages) is in keeping with the formatting (however loose) of the group.
Third, sign your posts (at least in the manner of the community) and it is usually polite to include something that might help people get to know you/verify that you are who you say you are (i.e. online boards especially often have people claiming to be a particular celebrity, if you are one - don't mind some initial questioning if you join a discussion in person. Post about that participation on your own official site, get the story out in the press, do something to help verify your identity if it is relevant)
Fourth, give more than you "take" from all groups (this holds true offline as well). Specifically focus on the value of what you are offering to the rest of the group, more so than just in getting your perspective/message/advertising out. Generally when people are geuinely contributing to a conversation, even if disagreeing with the rest of the group, they are respected IF the contributions are seen as more than just self-serving.
In the past 15 years or so, I have been active in online (mailing list) discussions about future technology, about IETF standards, about Chiagoland food, about science fiction (many different lists), about writing (many lists), about conferences/events, about various websites, and probably dozens of other lists.
On nearly all of them, at least a few times, posters join in who ignore these suggestions and leap in head first - usually in a way that is clearly self serving as well as showing a lack of commitment to the group (by showing a lack of preparation). Sometimes the mistake has been caught and cleanly dealt with (i.e. by reference to a FAQ, to something that suggestions how to contribute, to another discussion such as this one etc), but more often than not the conversation devolves and is diminished for all.
Keep in mind as well that not all lists and communities are discussion forums, some of the most useful and valuable lists I belong to in fact avoid ALL discussion (or in the case of USNET move it to another board), in favor of solely having "on topic" posts and contributions.
Shannon