Self-Regulating Online Communities

[ucsspirit15]

One reason why Slashdot is deemed a successful user generated content system by Johnson is the fact that it has rules. It is not a basic positive feedback system that constantly spins out of control past the climax stage. Every user has the power to filter and rate posts; however, they must do so within given limitations. They are only given temporary moderator status, and are asked to judge based solely on quality and not whether they agree with the post or not. Because users are given temporary moderator status, this regulates the different types of material that makes the cut and reduces the occurrence of cranks. Another self regulating online community that comes to mind is 4chan.org. This is a forum for threads of every topic which is based off of a similar site used in Japan. Because of their model, a large demographic represented within the site is anime. It, too, has rules, but they are much looser than those of slapdot. The rules generally state all that is welcome to a particular board, and if you violate such rules, you will be flagged or banned.
After spending some time on the slashdot website, it does seem to be a successful self regulating community. I think this relies on the rating system of the comments. They are created by users to help other users. They also allow a user to filter the ratings when they are looking at comments which can help make it more user-friendly.

[mrschreck]

@ sdematteo

I think that it is very true that the fact that the users get to go through the process of editing the website lets them take more ownership in it and rely more on the information that is presented. Also when it is their turn to be a leader in the community they can have an impact which gives them a reason to keep going back to the site and caring about the content.

[response to Anna11Banana]

@anna11banana

I like that you described this site to a democracy. I feel like the need for a democratic communication space was the reason why this site was created. In real life, it's hard to be democratic because there are simply too many opinions and people to work around. In an online community such as slashdot, you are able to acquire useful information in a media that is convenient and customized (rated) to your needs.

[Bethany Shirilla]

According to Johnson, user-generated content systems like Slashdot.org are successful as a result of the communities’ ability to “change the system.” They have “the message, the medium, and the rules.” “Karma” can also be credited for making a user-generated content system successful. These communities are built on two basis of feedback, positive and negative, and two types of persons, lurker and contributors; therefore, the “community could find its own balance,” of both quality and diversity. There is a distinct separation of powers. Just like any community, self-regulating online communities have three distinct purposes. From Catherine Latterell’s “Three Assumptions of Communities,” Slashdot.org follows the three assumptions: 1. Provide us with a sense of stability. 2. Serve our needs. 3. Accept us for who we are. I greatly related Latterell’s article to my analysis of Slashdot.org’s success as a user-generated content system.

I am not familiar with self-regulating online communities. Previously, I have never engaged myself in exploring these types of systems, so I do not have another example that relates to Slashdot.org.

I believe that Slashdot.org is still continues to exhibit the qualities that Johnson discusses. It is also a successful self-regulating community. This community is successful for many reasons. One, it is user friendly. It addresses a broad audience, welcoming members into its community. It is customizable and organized. Another reason for its success is the interest of its members. Because members9 feel responsible and respected, due to the fact that each individual plays a role in the success of the community, members upon members want to contribute to its success. Feedback creates an unending loop around itself, making the site a reliable source of reliable members. A first time user of this site, I was very pleased. It did not take long to familiarize with the way in which the community works. It is also quite obvious that the members are focused on creating a reliable community and it is a pleasure to feel that if I ever contributed my work to this site, that I would play a part in its success, as well.

[dancergirl1393]

According to Johnson, what makes user-generated content systems like www.slashdot.org successful? Can you think of other examples of self-regulating online communities?
Spend some time exploring slashdot.org. Does it continue to exhibit the qualities that Johnson discusses? Is it still a successful self-regulating community? What makes it successful? Use your response to the previous question in your evaluation of the site.

Read more: psucompandrhetoric.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=discuss&action=display&thread=25#ixzz1RxSLwG4s

As previously stated, Johnson seems to think that the main reason that user-generated content systems can run fairly smoothly is because it gives all users the ability to update and edit the site to their liking at any time. Because of the unlimited amount of people that are able to give their opinions on the website it is kept as a more neutral source of information because you don't have one bias person writing it. The feedback that the users give all of the posts can help direct newer users to know if information they are receiving is reliable or not and you can get even more takes on the same idea from other people who also have opinions on the post. The ratings are a great way to help users successfully know which items are worth spending time on and which ones are full of inaccurate information.

Slashdot does seem to fit the criteria that Johnson states in his writings and because of this it seems to be a good way to discover reliable information. It seems to have quality information that is commented on by a vast amount of people, therefore making the highly rated posts seem very believable. The fact that it is, as someone previously state, like a democracy keeps the site from becoming taken over by one person or a small group of people. This is important because if only a few number of people were allowed to edit the website you would be much more likely to have false information go unnoticed. The main key for sites like this to survive is that the users must keep their passion for examining posts and deciphering which ones are good and which are not. These key points seem to still be in place in the site and therefore I feel that it is a reliable place to go and get some information on different topics.

[dancergirl1393]

@ucsspirit15

I think you bring up a very good point that if there weren't specific rules that users of the site had to follow when editing the site it would spin out of control. I agree that if it weren't for the rule that you are only moderator for a specific time the site would all be the same because the person would only allow posts that they agree with. If that were the case the site would loose the appeal that it has for being open minded and not bias and the site would no longer be successful.

[atomisk]

Jul 12, 2011 21:41:56 GMT -5 @ndesai said:

Ah! So glad you brought up 4chan.org. I would definitely agree with you that this site has lost control in terms of regulation and rules. I think this is a perfect example of how an online community can go array. There's this pervert mentality at that site and I feel as though users don't feel welcome unless they also adopt it. Groupthink maybe?

Yea, that's exactly how i'd describe 4chan's /b/ board. Most of 4chan actually isn't that bad, although nowhere as nice as sites like Reddit, wikis or specialized forum. However, I don't think it's fair to say that /b/ has spun out of control - there was never any control in the first place. It's a board that was made with the sole purpose for people to be able to express themselves about anything anonymously - meaning it was meant to be the way it is now.

I think that one of the main problems with /b/ nowadays is the speed in which it's updated. It's impossible to find the same thread twice, as things get posted so fast that if you refresh the page once, the thread you wanted to view might be gone.

[bg6]

What makes places like Slashdot so successful is that they are built on things like both negative and positive feedback, structured randomness, neighbor interactions, and decentralized control. They use moderators to rate contributions made by others, which requires a little bit of work. After spending a few sessions as a registered logged in Slashdot user you are then able to serve as a moderator for a limited amount of time where you rate contributions made by others. In using organized strategies like these it makes a place like Slashdot user friendly as you find reliable reviews in an organized and orderly fashion.
I have no prior experience with self-regulating online communities. After reading through a website like Slashdot though, I definitely see myself using a site like this as a future reference for finding out more about a product before making a purchase. It seems like it has all the resources to help make an informed and confident purchase.
After reading through Slashdot for the first time with no prior experience with the website, I found that it was very similar to what Johnson discussed in self-regulating community. It had the qualities that Johnson talked about with negative and positive feedback and neighbor interactions. Everyone had room to voice their opinion on one level or another on so many different topics. That is what I found really interesting, as I knew I was getting reliable information from people who were eager to contribute to a site that makes it the success it is.

[atomisk]

According to Johnson, the single most important trait for a successful user generated community is the ability for it's users to create it's content. The range of topics within the system are also important. The topics (seen on the menu bar on the left side of slashdot) need to be focused enough to cover the interests of many different people, however they also need to be broad enough as to not limit discussion. The fact that everyone can submit a story or create a thread also leads to a lot of participation from the community - everyone feels important, and keeps supplying the community with entertainment. Slashdot is very similar to a message board such as the one we're on right now - we can all contribute to the discussion. If every message we made had to be moderated by Ms. Lockett, there really wouldn't be much point in the board.

I believe that Slashdot's self regulation is actually the reason why it's successful. The main "stories" news feed is great, as a story needs comments on it to make it to the front page. If you look at the "recent" tab, however, you'll see that most stories are just advertisements are spam.

Just the first 3 headlines at the time of writing: "Monster Beats By Dre Pro Headphones,Beats Pro Head->", "Vehicle Insurance->" & "Bath And Body Works Outlet->" show how cluttered and useless this site would be without the comments system. It would end up looking something like 4chan.

[gigglegutgates]

Johnson attributes the success of user-generated content systems to feedback and interconnectivity. "The likelihood of a feedback loop correlates directly to the general interconnectedness of the system," says Johnson. The mere fact that users are allowed to express, challenge and share ideas freely over any number of communal cites gives them the power to control the system of publishing whatever they feel. This brings to our attention the idea of "negative feedback." This notion aids in the successfulness of these user-generated systems because it provides an opportunity of reaching equilibrium within an issue. This concept reminds of the Bedau reading from yesterday. While discussing critical though process he stated that thinking is positive: good, bad or ugly. You can think or write something that refutes, does not correlate, challenges or ignores the previous idea or concept all together but it still moves the conversation or in this case the system forward. On a larger scale I think this idea can be tied into negative feedback because it's feedback, that although not always positive, contributes to the medium and feel for the argument or issue at hand. The beauty of all this, as stated by Johnson is that, "hundreds of affiliates participate in the creation of a story." That's precisely the nature of the content systems that allow for a community to be built upon the foundation of these peoples posts/comments/critiques, etc. In addition, the success of feedback and interconnectivity all meets back into one word: community. The second reading does a good job of explaining the essence of these communities and how they can be some of the most connected types of people discussing issues that they seem important in society while having the freedom of being able to discuss what they want, or not to discuss at all.
SlashDot does in fact exhibit the qualities that Johnson claimed were variables that contributed to a successful user-generated system. The primary quality was feedback. While looking at the cite, you can browse topics of interest and easily see that each topic has a plethora of positive and negative topics that tie back into the thesis or issue. This creates a conflict, points of interest, brings new claims to the surface and also provides a way for the users to form their own opinions on the topic or devise reasoning for why something happened. It's all good stuff. I think the cite is very successful at creating a sense of community because it welcomes all feedback.

[foresquared]

@ Ben Yedwabik

I find that you brought up an excellent point about how slashdot has a wide range of topics. As you mentioned, this allows readers to stay on slashdot for almost any topic discussion. Keeping a large amount of topics covered creates a sense of loyalty as users do not have to navigate from one site to another to read reviews concerning a large variety of ideas and products.

[mskolnick03]

Johnson talked about the brain and how self-regulating communities act in a similar way. The online community is constantly growing and changing because of responses. Feedback is the key in that one idea is put up and shoots across the web and people from all over can respond quickly with many other completely different ideas that each spark their waves of feedback.
Slashdot is successful because of these neurological cycle that is described in Johnson's article. The site basically takes care of itself. Comments are filtered so that there is nothing damaging to the community posted and so that only comments that will help it continue to grow and transform for the better can be seen and spread.

[mskolnick03]

I think you bring up an excellent point that it's the combination of both positive and negative feedback that allows it to be a stable online community that is able to thrive and build up off of that positive and negative comments.

[elm318]

Johnson states that sites like slashdot are successful because they have rules and the rules are enforced by the community. The users have the right to flag something as inappropriate. This helps make the site successful because it is the users and the people of the community that are controlling what they want to see. They also have to give a reason for why they feel it is inappropriate, it can't just be because they don't agree with what is said.

[ndesai]

Johnson's article was very interesting. There were multiple factors that helped make sites like slashdot successful. I really liked the idea of Internet "currency." It made the site self-regulating, which was neat and innovative for its time. In forums, where more than 10,000 people visit/post daily, set standards and guidelines in key to having a healthy, thriving community. Also, it makes the site "fun" and slightly competitive. This will make users keep coming back daily. Another factor that really added to the success of this site was how the posts that people enjoyed the most or created the most extreme responses were given rewards and therefore were able to have a larger viewership. This, I think, helped the forum open up its community to its people's diverse interests. Groupthink is actually avoided by rewarding posts with not just good responses but "extreme" ones.
What I find fascinating about sites like these, and others such as reddit.com, is that small scale stories have the potential to make headline news. I've been "lurking" on reddit for a long time now and there have been many cases where small stories, posted on these sites, made headline news. Its great to see how much leverage these small, internet communities possess. On the site reddit, it works the same way as slashdot. People will hand out upvotes or downvotes to posts. From these votes, the poster will receive karma. This determines what makes the front page. What is so great about this site is that the front page will change about 5-6 times every day! New topics and pictures are uploaded daily. Surfing through slashdot.com today, I find that it has lost the diversity that was claimed in the article. Clicking on "popular" the top three stories included "computer learns language" /"fired IT workers file lawsuit"/"is there any hope for the gaming industry" That is a big turn-off for me. It was all about technology. While I can understand the reason behind this, I don't think everyday, inexperienced users like me would feel the site very welcoming.