Nancy White writes I'm wondering about the distinction between "Flame Wars" and the ongoing occurrence of conflict in online group interactions. Heck, conflict happens. Sometimes it escalates to what would be an argument F2F. Is that a flame war? Or is that a relic of previous time.
When I wrote my master thesis on communicative norms in german mailing-lists, I came across flame wars quite frequently. When going through my data, I got the impression that it was quite easy to distinguish between flames and "normal" conflicts. Flame wars in my data normally included, as mentioned before, comments about the attacked person which are totally unrelated with the content of the disagreement. Characteristics of flames can be categorized as follows: - name-calling - detailed "discussion" of previous mails of the victim in relation to orthographical, syntactical or other language offences - systematic research on traces the victim left on the internet in other forums, homepages etc. In many cases flame-wars originated in somebody not observing netiquette or specific mailing-list rules, mostly new people to the list.
One more thought. I also believe that conflict (which is the source of some flames -- not all is baiting for fun!) plays an important role in groups.
How a community, such as a mailing-list, handles these conflicts, is a sign of its quality as a interactional community. If a community is able to sort out these kinds of conflicts, is able to find solutions and formulate problem-solving strategies for the future, conflicts can turn out to be very supportive in community-building. Mirjam Weder
Since no one has mentioned it, let me offer this reference regarding flaming published WAY BACK in the dark ages! They argue a number of things, including that there is no good definition, that flaming is normative rather than medium-caused, and that flaming is probably no more common online than off but that people think it is because it is more _visible_ online than off (and they offer a number of compelling reasons this is so). I haven't seen a better piece on the topic than this one... Lea, M., O'Shea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). 'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication: observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication, (pp. 89-112). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf. The best definition I have found so far is Walther et al. (1994) who, in a meta-analysis, defined flaming operationally as name calling, swearing, insults, impolite statements, threats and put-downs, crude flirtations of a demeaning or sexually explicit nature, and attacks on groups or individuals Walther, J. B., Anderson, J. F., & Park, D. (1994). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social and anti-social communication. Communication research, 21, 460-487. I've always wanted to see a comparative analysis of flaming online vs. behind the wheel of a car. Talk about a medium that causes anonymity and hostility! I'll take computers over cars any day! Nancy _________________________________________________________ Nancy Baym nbaym@ku.edu http://www.ku.edu/home/nbaym Communication Studies, University of Kansas 102 Bailey, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA Association of Internet Researchers: http://aoir.org
participants (2)
-
mweder -
Nancy Baym