Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums
Crowdsourcing civility: A natural experiment examining the effects of distributed moderation in online forums
复制标题
众包文明：一项检验在线论坛中分布式审核效果的自然实验
DOI：
10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.005
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
E. Johnston
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cliff Lampe;Paul Zube;Jusil Lee;Chul Hyun Park;E. Johnston
技术可以促进参与关于公共利益的讨论，但也可能创造一种环境，使参与者被信息和论点的数量、质量和多样性所淹没。政治参与比非政治活动处于更不利的地位，因为来自不同党派的参与者在开始时就已经存在分歧，这要求他们在取得进展之前达成某种形式的共同点。那些寻求真正审议的人在面对不文明和煽动性的言论时不愿参与。这些问题往往在网上讨论中加剧，因为缺乏身份线索和低门槛可能导致参与者之间的不礼貌行为加剧，通常被称为“煽动”和“拖钓”。本文探讨了在何种程度上版主系统，工具在线论坛使用管理的贡献，可以减少信息过载，并鼓励在虚拟讨论空间的民间对话。以流行网站Slashdot为例，在公共话语环境中进行合理的审核，我们发现用户对哪些评论以及如何评论值得审核达成共识。利用这些研究结果，我们探讨如何转移这些系统是参与公共事务，特别是政治讨论的独特属性。Slashdot的政治论坛提供了一个比较组，使我们能够找到政治帖子，评论和适度的定量和定性差异。我们的研究结果表明，大规模的，民间参与是可能的，一个分布式的节制系统，使定期活跃的辩论进行积极的，因为该系统为人们提供了工具，以执行规范的文明。
Participation in discussions about the public interest can be enhanced by technology, but can also create an environment in which participants are overwhelmed by the quantity, quality, and diversity of information and arguments. Political participation is at a greater disadvantage than non-political activities in that participants from different parties already start out with established differences, which requires them to reach some form of common ground before progress can be made. Those seeking authentic deliberation are discouraged to participate when confronted with uncivil and inflammatory rhetoric. These issues are often exacerbated in online discussions, where lack of identity cues and low barriers to entry can lead to heightened incivility between participants, often labeled as “flaming” and “trolling”. This paper explores the extent to which moderator systems, tools online discussion forums use to manage contributions, can reduce information overload and encourage civil conversations in virtual discussion spaces. Using the popular website Slashdot as an example of sound moderation in a public discourse setting, we found that users move toward consensus about which and how comments deserve to be moderated. Using these findings, we explore how transferable these systems are for participation in public matters specifically to the unique attributes of political discussion. Slashdot's political forum provides a comparison group that allowed us to find quantitative and qualitative differences in political posting, comments, and moderation. Our results show that large scale, civil participation is possible with a distributed moderation system that enables regularly lively debates to be conducted positively because the system provides tools for people to enforce norms of civility.