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

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

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.

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