<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy</title></head><body>
<div>I don't know how many people have seen this, but it's rather
interesting -- an essay by Clay Shirky titled "<font
color="#000000"><b>A Group Is Its Own Worst
Enemy</b></font>":</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Shirky mentions Wikipedia several times, calling it "<font
color="#000000">the most interesting conversational artifact I know
of, where product is a result of process</font>." More
interestingly, though, he examines the nature of human group dynamics
and makes a number of observations that I think are worth bearing in
mind when thinking about how to deal with problems like trolls and
arbitration. Here are some relevant excerpts:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">"The
likelihood that any unmoderated group will eventually get into a
flame-war about whether or not to have a moderator approaches one as
time increases." As a group commits to its existence as a group,
and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance
that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to
defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very
high.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>[SNIP]</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"> So the core
group needs ways to defend itself -- both in getting started and
because of the effects I talked about earlier -- the core group needs
to defend itself so that it can stay on its sophisticated goals and
away from its basic instincts.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>[SNIP]<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"> All groups of
any integrity have a constitution. The constitution is always partly
formal and partly informal. At the very least, the formal part is
what's substantiated in code -- "the software works this
way."<br>
<br>
The informal part is the sense of "how we do it around
here." And no matter how is substantiated in code or written in
charter, whatever, there will always be an informal part as well. You
can't separate the two.</font></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>[SNIP]</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000"> Users have to
be able to identify themselves and there has to be a penalty for
switching handles. The penalty for switching doesn't have to be total.
But if I change my handle on the system, I have to lose some kind of
reputation or some kind of context.</font></blockquote>
<div><b><br></b></div>
<div><b>[SNIP]</b></div>
<div><b><br></b></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">Second, you have to
design a way for there to be members in good standing. Have to design
some way in which good works get recognized. The minimal way is, posts
appear with identity. You can do more sophisticated things like having
formal karma or "member since."</font></blockquote>
<div><b><br></b></div>
<div><b>[SNIP]</b></div>
<div><b><br></b></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">Three, you need
barriers to participation. This is one of the things that killed
Usenet. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if
not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some
kind of segmentation of capabilities.</font></blockquote>
<div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div>
<div>--Sheldon Rampton</div>
</body>
</html>