Hello again, Citerar Ellis Godard <egodard@csun.edu>:
But I don't know what you intend to mean by "naturally occurring". Is flaming somehow unnatural?
Actually yes, if I look at my data. It is of course sometimes hard to know whether a conflict is naturally occurring or if it is provoked by a hostile member. In my data most of the conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. Example: a: shut up just shut up shut up b: what?! b: do you mean that I should shut up??? c: she sings black eyed peas: shut up a: I'm singing black eyed peas b: ah, ok, good :-) Sometimes the members talk about the verbal duels they are taking part in which can be very intensive and rough. That intentionally conflict-seeking behavior I would categorize as flaming. But as I said these things will and have to be discussed in the dissertation. Also the cultural differences have to be taken into account: my data is from a public chat-room for the Swedish speaking minority in Finland. Similar data in Finnish would be much more aggressive and I assume it has partly to do with the sense of community the members create in different chat-rooms. regards, Jonna -- Ms. Jonna Ahti PhD student NORDICA - Department of Scandinavian Languages and Scandinavian Literature P.O.Box 24 00014 University of Helsinki Finland tel. +358-40-5625497 jonna.ahti@helsinki.fi
I believe that a fruitful area of research in this areas would involve insights from a game-theoretic approach to social interactions to analyze how the rules of various kinds of software people are using to interact influence social behavior, sometimes in predictable ways, and sometimes in unpredictable ways. In a totally unmoderated forum, where the members of the community have no means or ability to exclude people, the only remaining form of punishment for bad behavior seems to be more of the same kind of bad behavior: flaming. Wikis introduce some great benefits for the creation of a less hostile social environment. Flaming comments can be easily hidden by other community members before they cause a general flame war. Editors can be banned by the community in a transparent and open way. Pages can be temporarily locked to allow for a cooling down period. But there is much room for research here, I think, because each change to the software induces further changes to the social norms. What is the impact in a wiki setting of turning on or off the ability for not-logged-in users to edit? (In practice this mostly means allowing people to edit anonymously rather than pseudonymously... an important distinction.) What would happen if adminship were given automatically based on number of edits? What would happen if adminship were given through a strict voting process? What would happen if adminship were given through a strict voting process by existing admins? What if everyone was an admin by default? --Jimbo
wikipedia is public scholarship with fewer or perhaps more guardians. It still requires skills to write a good entry but the dinosaurs of academia are not in the way meaning the snobs quotient is lower. It is also much cheaper than a course at school. I suppose a page and the edits could be modelled as turns in a game theory model. but quantifying wikipedia content is going to be like Leibniz's algebra of life perhaps impossible. See Berlinski, David the Advent of the Algorithm (New York: Harcourt, 2000) and others on similar themes. Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa (2006-2007). just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week. On 27-Mar-07, at 10:39 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Wikis introduce some great benefits for the creation of a less hostile social environment. Flaming comments can be easily hidden by other community members before they cause a general flame war. Editors can be banned by the community in a transparent and open way. Pages can be temporarily locked to allow for a cooling down period.
Johna Ahti wrote:
It is of course sometimes hard to know whether a conflict is naturally occurring or if it is provoked by a hostile member.
What do you mean by "naturally occurring", if the phrase excludes provocation observed to have occurred; and what do you mean by "conflict", if it excludes hostility? ...
Sometimes the members talk about the verbal duels they are taking part in which can be very intensive and rough. That intentionally conflict- seeking behavior I would categorize as flaming.
Okay. But in what way is it unnatural? -eg
Hi Jonna, Like others I am a bit confused about the meaning of "naturally occurring". My PhD thesis, entitled 'Coprolalia and Shibboleths', devotes a number of chapters to chatroom disputation of the sort I think you would categorise as 'flaming', and I found Labov on ritual insult, and Bakhtinian accounts of 'carnivalesque' language quite useful. Do let me know if you'd like to see the relevant chapters. I'd be very interested to hear of more recent references on dispute and conflict in synchronous CMC. Best, Andrew
Hi all, we would like to announce our free service that easily protects Web forms against spamming by implementing an easy way of including human-readable images as a gate to the Web forms: http://www.onlinemethodik.net/captcha/captchalinkgenerator.php Maybe you have seen Web sites where you could only advance to the next page by typing text that was displayed in an image. Maybe you wondered how to install this on your own site, because you were plagued by SPAM entries to your Web forms (like we were in our web experiment list at http://genpsylab-wexlist.unizh.ch/ ). Now you can protect your forms by simply using a modified URL on pages leading to the form you would like to protect. Please help distributing the information about this free service and send it to colleagues and friends who might be in need of this solution. Ulf & Frederik -- PD Dr. Ulf-Dietrich Reips Editor, International Journal of Internet Science (http://www.ijis.net) *new address* Universität Zürich Psychologisches Institut Binzmühlestr. 14/13 8050 Zürich, Switzerland iScience portal (http://psych-iscience.unizh.ch/)
participants (6)
-
Andrew Whelan -
Ellis Godard -
Jimmy Wales -
Jonna Ahti -
Peter Timusk -
Ulf-Dietrich Reips