Conversational Qualifiers
I read a single sentence today which struck me as an expression of an idea that is not usually written out. First, a bit of an introduction: I frequently search out conversations online that are carried on by thoughtful, considerate people. I can tell you from experience, you will not find such comments at the following places: Engadget (or any site owned by Weblogs, Inc.), Gizmodo, any site that is part of a “blogging network”, any newspaper website (these are particularly bad), ESPN, corporate blogs, and on and on. As such, I still use these websites for information, but I consciously force myself to avoid the comments — they’ll bring nothing but strife.
Certainly, stimulating respectful yet interesting discourse when participants have the total anonymity provided by the internet is difficult, but it can be done.
But back to my main point.
I was reading an interesting discussion, and at the end of a post, one participant wrote this:
I just remember hearing this though, so if you find information contradicting it, well, listen to that.
It’s almost profound in its modest, self-deprecating tone. I think that mentally appending that statement (or a variation thereof) to online discussions could be quite useful.
Comments
Peter
I continue to appreciate your thinking. I would suggest that communities that coalesce around repeated identities (whether these be known people or pseudonymous identities), seem to anchor good discussions, combined with active shaping of tone and quality by moderator.
I really like, e.g., Making Light, Unfogged communities. Scatterplot (at wordpress) has lots of sociologists I know personally so it’s good that way. Political blogs generally make me cringe as it seems so often to devolve into a couple trolls taking over the conversation and others limping off in frustration.
Dan McKeown
I know you have touched on this before, but YouTube is the absolute worst when it comes to worthless comments.
Peter, I completely agree with your last sentence. I think it can be taken even further, however. Most online forums, of any type, degenerate to just two or three people going back and forth until both are making bizarre accusations and claims and anyone who had been reading the “discussion” stops out of pure frustration. I have seen this on most sites from those based on politics to those focusing on soccer (or football, depending on your regional dialect). It is frustrating and it reminds me of a journal that Alex wrote back in January if memory serves me. It was concerning how typing the word “is” into the Google search bar brings up four different questions, compiled by Google to reflect those topics most searched using the words you type, concerning Obama’s religious preferences. (Just as a side note here, I just tried again and you will be happy to hear that not a single option came up regarding Obama or Islam. This might have something to do with the more recent “controversy” concerning his former pastor from Chicago.)
Again, I go back to my previous comments on that subject by saying that the individual is dumb, but humanity is much smarter. Add the anonymity of the internet and the individual person devolves into an amoeba.
I still have faith in humanity…
Sagert +1
While the great minds are discussing humanity and such, I’d just like to laud some props for the Penny Arcade link. That was a brilliant comic (and, ironically, the PA forums are amongst the worst of the worst, really the Mos Eisley Cantina of forums - hive of scum and villainy and all that).
Dan McKeown
Sagert, enjoy the heart I just gave you. It was well earned.
Peter +1
There was an old piece by Julian Dibble called “A Rape in Cyberspace” (http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html), where he argued that the net has always had a unique ability to confer identity while keeping anonymity - the trick is force people to maintain something of a reputation, irrespective of whether they are revealed or anonymous. I always found that insightful, that you can have community without ‘true’ knowledge of identity (ie anonymity), but without the community/reputation aspect, it seems to revert to individuals’ ability to be humane (which, as Dan notes, is increasingly infrequent) and/or a moderator.
Interesting conversation.
Dan McKeown
Wow, that was one heck of an article you linked to, Peter. It has taken me awhile to read through it but I made it. I will reserve comment for the time being (because I am at work and really should get going on some things here..) but the author brought up many interesting points that I would love to hear Alex’s thoughts on.