Posted by laura s on June 2, 2006 at 3:01am
...whatever this group ends up being. This is a group to talk about -- well, the description above tells it all.
So why not kick of things here by sharing your thoughts? What should we talk about? What makes for a good online community?
Possible starter: The Netsquared conference has been abuzz on community building. Did anyone attend? What was your take?
Comments
Thanks!
Thanks for this, Laura.
I've been working on this very question -- what makes for a good online community -- since 1980-85 involvement with Western Behavioral Sciences Institute, the EIES community, Murray Turoff, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz.
I'm most interested in interactivity -- how to create and sustain high-quality online conversations. Software can help, or it can get in the way, but I think the primary issue is getting people to talk into a void. That's what starting a conversation, such as this one, is always about: Is anyone listening? Who? What does silence mean?
I think it's difficult to claim that one has a community until the participants are actually interacting in some fashion, and for me community really is what I'm interested in.
Another interesting thing is the role that geography plays. Early on, we developed communities of interest (such as this group), because there weren't enough people in a locale with online connections to get a conversation going. Now, interestingly, there are enough people connected, even in a small town, to have a useful site that centers on local issues. Craigslist is one of the first, best examples of how geographic communities are finally coming into the online picture. (There's also local Drupal user's groups.)
One more topic, and then I'll shut up. What do people think about the role of anonymity in community? Anonymity is what allows some people to talk into a void, but also allows them to be unaccountable for flames, rudeness, etc. And that doesn't, in my experience, promote good conversation.
Perhaps these interests are too atechnical, too academic. If that's the case, I can talk about software, too! (:^)
Darrell Icenogle
I agree. Thanks, Laura!
The topic of building a community around a Web site has been a big question mark for me. Maybe it's because I have no experience in building communities, and really don't even know where to begin. I certainly have ideas and opinions, however. :^)
Regarding interactivity, I'm interested in that also. I think that's probably the primary goal in creating a community Web site. My big question relating to that and building community Web sites, is how do you present the blank paper/wall/whatever in such a way that people with a common interest/goal/whatever will start writing/drawing/whatever on it? When one creates a community Web site, there is a certain amount of content or filler (i.e.: what the site is about, who the main people are that are involved, etc.), but the real content will be filled in by the users -- the community -- through forums, blogs, etc. How do you design the site and the blank framework in such a way that will encourage the community to start drawing on the wall, even if it is currently mostly blank?
Sure a comment like "Jump in and say what you will," will do some good, but I think it goes deeper than that, and I think that has only a limited effect. I think laying out forums, for example, in a particular way can both encourage and/or discourage users to participate. So, how do you determine how to best organize forums (and the rest of the site) to encourage participation and for the best advantage for the entire community? I think that comes back to your "Software can help, or it can get in the way", Darrell, but I also think there's more to it than that.
Regarding geography, I've never personally thought much about it, since most of the sites I am working on (or planning) have a rather small geographic location. I guess that might change, but I think that may be the primary reason I focus more of my thoughts on the previous topic: interactivity.
Regarding anonymity, I believe it really has no place in a community Web site. How can one build a community when people won't identify themselves and be held accountable for their comments? That's just not a community.
-- Jason Flatt
Re anonymity, I think it depends
Or should everyone risk being Dooced or stalked or harrassed? I think it's especially true on political sites, where convictions run deep, tempers can run hot, and crazy people do crazy things to people with whom they disagree. Yet it can happen on regular blogs, too. Someone writes something about work or about the dumb thing a friend did or offends the wrong person, and suddenly the phone is ringing, the job is lost,
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I wonder, what difference does it make to me if someone is anonymous? How do I know if the name they give is even their real name, anyway? I look for consistency and insight, as well as eloquence, when it comes to posters I follow. It doesn't matter if the person uses his or her name or goes by Zipadeedooda. I'm more interested in what the person says than checking their ID.
I think the difference comes in tone of conversation, and that can be great on an anonymous site and awful on an ID-verified site ... and vice versa. And I feel that has a more direct effect upon the success and nature of an online community.
Laura
pingVision, LLC
PINGV | Strategy • Design • Drupal Development
Re anonymity
Yes, but how does that connect up with community?
I don't think you're in the minority. Using one's real name seems more the exception than the norm, in most of my online haunts. I understand the motivations for it, but I'm still not sure I like it. I confess to not having been stalked, or harassed, or even having been concerned about it.
My counter example is having participated in tight, moderated discussions that were interspersed with face to face meetings. The f-t-f guarantees you know who you're talking to. The important ingredient that emerges is trust. These are some of the best, most intelligent conversations I've ever been party to.
I guess my question is, to what extent can community emerge without trust?
My current example is in getting a Parent to Parent forum off the ground. People are talking about their kids, and so they are right out there on the risk scale. They really need to know who they're talking to. I had to figure out what combination of Drupal modules to use to get the a combination of pubic and private, membership-based forums. With private forums, you not onl know who is talking, but who the lurkers are listening in. (This is a geographic community, so that effects things, too.)
What kind of trust?
I think you're right about trust. But where is the essential trust? Between the members? Or between members and "management"? And how much does that depend upon knowing people's names?
In technical forums (at least in more computer-oriented areas), you often are dealing with avatars and pseudonyms. Yet a fictitious handle can earn some great credibility. As long as we know it's really the same person, though, trust can be built. Interestingly, in video media forums you see much less anonymizing, at least in my experience. I suppose the level of anonymity that's accepted/expected really depends upon the community itself. Your example of a parents forum is easily one where anonymity could be a definite barrier to any sort of meaningful dialogue.
On the other hand, in political forums I think there's usually very little trust. When I look at a site like Daily Kos, it really is quite an abrasive site where people can be quite abusive to each other. My guess is that there's not a lot of trust between the members there, except for those who happen to know each other. The community there operates on a different level, where they're not trying to make connections but are more trying to convince each other of their own views.
Sometimes anonymity is a requirement for trust. AA meetings are notoriously anonymous (first name only) and private. Many women simply cannot post openly about some things without being anonymous. There simply is too much risk of violence when it comes to topics like domestic abuse, divorce and separation, etc. It can be very hard to trust others on the site if one is required to expose too much personal information just to meet some arbitrary standard of disclosure.
Backing up a bit, though, I feel that even more important is the relationship the community members have with the community management. Ultimately the community is right. One of the mantras today is that you really need to let the community take over (without letting the trolls define it) for the community to thrive. An overly strong or seemingly arbitrary hand in content control or user censorship can violate any sense of trust that members have with management, and that can weaken or kill a community altogether. People don't want to post where they feel their content could disappear for crossing some arbitrary line or disagreeing with the officially accepted doctrine adopted by the people in control of the site. (Clear terms of use can be a great help in this area, but ultimately it comes down to how enforcement is applied, imho.)
So I'm with you on trust ... in that having a trustworthy site makes for an environment where community can grow.
Laura
pingVision, LLC
PINGV | Strategy • Design • Drupal Development
Trust is really an interesting topic these days
Have you seen this. I haven't intalled it yet. But I am going to one of these fine mornings
http://getoutfoxed.com/
"There are over 8 billion web pages. Most of them suck. Outfoxed uses your network of trusted friends and experts to help you find the good stuff and avoid the bad. (And a lot more, too.)"
Totally changes the idea of who is in charge of building trust networks.
I agree with you that the site managers need to say away from content.
I think sometimes that most of a sites "ahem" trust based manipulation comes at the point where the user interacts with the interface and security. So it sometimes feels like the designer is as responsible for building a trustworthy space as the editor/manager is for maintaining trust in the community.
For example; If I put the link to a sites political content editorial disclaimer so far down on the page no-one sees it, and do not make sure to repeat the salient points above any content input form, and then some neo -nazi posts something slanderous and despite a hands-off approach the editor has no choice but to erase the content. That creates a climate of distrust for the users, who's to say when they 're content will be erased, How are they going to know what the criteria are for posts that get erased etc...
Who's most responsible? Probably the neo-nazi, but in a preventative sense, it should have been more obvious what the site boundaries were.
scaling
Hi, I don't know if this group is interested in the topic of scalability, but reading about how drupal2 just went down has me concerned. Certainly sending an email newsletter to a large community is a useful function, but it looks like a fragile and complicated process. If the group is interested in discussing this, I'd be quite interested.
Also, I didn't see any buttons for starting a new post, as opposed to just replying to an existing post on this page.
In the block to the right,
In the block to the right, under the heading "Community", there is a link called "create story".