|
Post by beckie on Jul 13, 2011 9:58:41 GMT -5
I think that slashdot is a successful self-regulating online community because it is very well organized and conforms to certain rules within the website. Because reviews are filtered, the website is not "spammed" with hate comments or irrelevant comments. Also, because the members of slashdot's community take part in a sort of editing of the website, it is more their own product.
|
|
|
Post by hdolphin411 on Jul 13, 2011 10:00:59 GMT -5
According to Johnson, feedback systems are a perfect way to regulate the Slashdot community site. Not giving ultimate power to certain users and making sure users are rewarded for posting well-liked comments is a great way to encourage quality posts and ratings. I cannot think of any other sites quite like Slashdot, but even facebook has some of the self-regulating qualities. Facebook, a growing community each day, cannot possibly be managed by a single person, and therefore they denote the power to users to mark pictures and comments as spam. On every facebook page there is also an option to “report this person”.
Slashdot.org as an online user site has maintained as a stable and reliable site for information because of its self-regulating community. By implementing Malda’s thoughts of using the site as a negative-feedback as well as a positive-feedback site, each post is properly classified as scrap material or given a high rating by the moderators. The effect of the “karma” points and giving moderators a small time of regulation, is that the moderators feel special and ultimately give good feedback for each comment. This site is still running well, even with the many followers and posts each day.
|
|
|
Post by sxs1108 on Jul 13, 2011 10:05:23 GMT -5
What makes successful self-regulating online communities according to is that its content originates from a bottom-up rather than coming from the top- down. The content and its regulation are interconnected. The content that any successful self-regulating online community has, spreads to the site's users who become involved, bouncing around thoughts that derive from an original idea, a concept that Johnson defines as a "feedback loop". Additionally in order for such as site to work though, Johnson defines as the idea of "negative feedback" the act of balancing that must occur occurs between users to bring extremist ideas back to the center. A balance that must be achieved but through the actual posting of responses as well as regulation of that thread. Such as site, must have a set of rules in place in order to achieve this, no one person or group is have to much control for their views will only be reflected. Control must come from the bottom-up in order for content to be diversified rather than just one point or several points of view.
I do not have much experience with online communities but I can say as a intense Harry Potter fan, fan sites such as the Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet offer a similar online community that fall in line with the ideas of Johnson.
After exploring the slashdot.org I find that it does fall in line with the ideas that Johnson proposes. The rules governing the system establish a online community in which no one person has to much power.
|
|
|
Post by emma on Jul 13, 2011 10:09:08 GMT -5
According to Johnson, user-generated content systems are successful because of the respectful people involved in using the site. There are people who are willing to spend their time detecting spam and nonsense in the systems, allowing it to run successfully. They also demand that you participate in the site, instead of having a “silent majority” – users who are on the site but you can’t really tell and they don’t participate. There are set guidelines to follow to use the site, and if you can follow those guidelines then you are free to do as you please on the websites. This site is probably appealing to users who like to be in control.
I believe Slashdot is still very successful. It seems like a very active site, with many people responding every hour. There is not spam all over the site, and the information is not totally useless. It is substance up for debate and conversation. It does not appear like you need to participate in the site in order to view certain things though, probably creating a silent group of users or “lurkers.” They exist but not really. The majority of users probably log onto the site every day and give input, they are active users. In a way, everyone owns a little bit of the site. You own what you are putting out there, and the other users own what they are posting on the site. Although, without more reading up on this site I would not have known that it is entirely self-regulated. Which, in essence, could probably be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by emma on Jul 13, 2011 15:38:09 GMT -5
sxs1108I find it very interesting you are a part of the Harry Potter communities; I think it is extremely neat. It is like your own little community outside of your “real” community or hometown. It is a completely chosen community, not like other communities are not chosen, this one just seems like you have more control over it because you are the one reading the Harry Potter and doing things on the site. I wish I would have continued to read Harry Potter, as there are so many interesting things that go along with it!!
|
|
|
Post by nickisonlyme on Jul 13, 2011 16:24:28 GMT -5
Foresquared: There is a community for virtually every interest you or anyone else could think of. If you're intrigued by gaming, as gmfreeman explained, you can tap into any MMO's (Massively Multiplayer Online) forum on the web and get a sense for what an online homeostatic community is like. Additionally, if you explore the game itself, you would find a vast world of economies, self-imposed public figures, ect. that emulate real-life and expand on the idea of a self-regulating ideologue. But here the user-base exceeds the limitations that inhibit those that frequent Slashdot or most other online discussion boards. But gaming is a single gradient in the entire spectrum of communities. There exists a hue and shade for every interest, talent, hobby, daily activity, and they're mostly accessible via the web!
|
|
|
Post by nickisonlyme on Jul 13, 2011 16:59:37 GMT -5
User-generated content systems like Slashdot are successful because the website has time and time again managed to prevent "the Crank" and other factors from destroying the sense of community using an ingenious, self-regulating user-based feedback system, with some help from its own willingness to keep alive. The community's success comes with no surprise: A place where people if similar interest can actively gather and discuss things that range from computer hardware to a change in market. The little ramifications coupled with the perpetual source of news and insights draws in new users as well as entertain the Slashdot veterans. The website also implements a filtering akin to karma which funnels out false, annoying and irrelevant posts such as spam, advertisements or those who endeavor to ruin the Slashdot experience. This ability to shroud useless information conversely surfaces the most important and pertinent posts. Slashdot's features almost remind of mysims.ea.com, a website centered around a popular video game the Sims.
Johnson's description of Slashdot is accurate. Although it was personally difficult to navigate the website, I noticed the relative helpfulness of some threads I stumbled upon. Its rating system is both practical and intriguing. It almost makes me wonder how anyone could want to contaminate another's post with inane, unhelpful, nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sxs1108 on Jul 13, 2011 19:45:07 GMT -5
mrschreckI am glad you mentioned the idea of homeostasis. Any successful self online community needs to have tools that enable the system to balance itself out slashdot use of the karma system is one of these tools, and thus enables the system to find equilibrium. A tool, which has made the sight successful thus far. I am also very happy you brought up wikipedia, for I too was thinking about it. However, wikipedia after some thinking, in my opinion does not conform to the rules that Johnson had established as what to what a successful self online community needs. Wikipedia, although while anyone can edit it, does not provide a tool for feedback nor a rating system. Most importantly however, some have more power than others. Moderators exist that will removes an edit to the page if it is not true or supported by facts, a power in which they can abuse and is not regulated. They theoretically could remove an edit that does not fall in line with there views (even though there not supposed too, its possible). Additionally Wikipedia is only as good as the sources that back up the info, these sources in most cases are ones that come from the top down rather than the bottom up.
|
|
|
Post by elm318 on Jul 13, 2011 19:53:57 GMT -5
@emma I agree that the site is successful because of respectful users. If the users of the site weren't respectful and constantly littered the site with spam then people would stop viewing the site and stop trying to edit it with helpful and useful comments.
|
|
|
Post by jerry11111 on Jul 13, 2011 20:23:10 GMT -5
• 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? According to him, what makes it successful is the fact that people will edit each other's work, thus in effect creating a self correcting organism. Generally, people who take the time to sign up for such a sit are quit passionate and enthusiastic about it, and thus will create, edit and correct entries as an end in itself versus for profit or gain. Another prominent example of a self-regulating community is of course Wikipedia, which has managed to evolve into a stunning example of what a collective effort of enthusiasts can do online. • 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. Yes. Slashdot.com relies entirely on its users to generate and self-correct content, thus doing what Johnson intended. What makes it successful, again, is its users individual enthusiasm towards contributing towards and online community and in specific subject areas.
|
|
|
Post by beckie on Jul 13, 2011 20:54:05 GMT -5
@jerry11111
I think you're correct in saying that because the people of the website are able to edit each other's work, the website is a successful self-generating community. Also, you made a good point in saying that people who sign up for these kinds of online communities have some sort of special connection to the topic at hand, so they put time and energy into perfecting the entries.
|
|
|
Post by jerry11111 on Jul 13, 2011 22:18:05 GMT -5
Wikipedia is like Slashdot because it relies entirely on unpaid volunteers to produce and edit its content. Poe keenly notes that there is nothing driving a site such as Wikipedia except the enthusiasm of its editors. Poe ponders on why someone would be driven to engage in a project such as Wikipedia without any material compensation, and concludes it is simply for the fun of the editors.
|
|