I’ve been redrafting and tweaking my thesis after handing in the initial draft for grading in May at ITP. Here are the first two chapters – more to come soon. Below are the background and introduction. Methodology, results and conclusions will be up here over the next few weeks. I’d be really interested to hear your comments and feedback. Thanks, Catherine.
The Noisy Idiot Dilemma:
How To Make Participatory Online Conversation Easier
Catherine White
Interactive Telecommunications Program
Tisch School of the Arts
New York University
catherine.white[at]nyu.edu
May 3, 2010
Abstract
How do we improve participatory online group collaboration? More specifically, how do we work together online in groups when there are noisy, dominant and often unhelpful people in the group? Especially when these people are not necessarily breaking forum rules, instead they often just make group collaboration and decision making difficult, if not impossible. This paper provides a high level overview of this disruptive behavior through the study of various online forums and proposes optimization methods for online group collaboration.
Keywords
online collaboration, decision making, participation, groups
1. Background
In March 2009, I wrote a mid-term paper [1] on this topic for the ITP Social Facts class. The paper was centered around the Debate Europe Forum. [2] The European Commission set up a forum in the attempt to engage European citizens in debate over several issues including climate change and energy, women and politics and the future of Europe. The main driver for setting up the site was a lack of interest in the EU elections in 2009. It turned out more British people voted in the UK reality TV show Big Brother than in the 1999 European elections. [3] As of February 28, 2010 the site has closed. [4] I spent time looking at a specific conversation within the Debate Europe forum, where people with loud voices on single issues had filtered into the discussion, the result being that the group was often sidetracked by this noisy behavior. A member of the forum attempted to engage the group in finding a solution to this issue, such as ignoring these people. However, this person was accused of stifling debate, and issues of free speech were called into play. In the end, the person who raised the concerns about this single issue, dominant, Noisy Idiot behavior left the group as a result.
The conclusion of the study into the attempts by the group as a whole to deal with Noisy Idiot behavior by members of the forum lead to a dissatisfactory conclusion: that democracy sucks. Why have open conversation and debate if this is the result? On further reflection, I realized that ‘Noisy Idiots’ and their impact on democratic decision-making is a huge dilemma. And yet so very important. [1] The idea that a group as a whole can find it hard, if not impossible to deal with this kind of behavior and for their discussion be completely derailed as a result is truly concerning. Especially given that online forums are the method my generation are increasingly turning to as a conversational arena.
In June 2009 I lead a seminar on the topic of the initial paper on Debate Europe at the NYC Participation Camp and received some great feedback, it sparked a interesting and enthusiastic debate, which continued online after the conference. In July 2009 Craig Newmark used the term ‘Noisy Idiots’ at the Personal Democracy Forum 2009 conference, this again sparked more debate and confirmed this was an issue that really bothered people. That’s fun. During the summer of 2009 I worked for a short while on the concept of creating online conversations and community as part of the team on the HerdictWeb project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. [5] We wanted to investigate if the level of participation in an online group was affected by remuneration of the participants in the group. This confirmed my interest in this type of subject matter and that I wanted to expand my study of conversation within online groups further.
Dealing with difficult people, yet not shutting them out is a really juicy issue: hard and tough, with concepts of the right to free speech and not silencing minority viewpoints coming to the front of the discussion. This project looks at existing theories in the field and analyzes current online conversation. It should be noted that this issue will never be completely fixed; there is no solution to a ‘problem’ here. We can merely try to optimize. This fact adds to the challenge to find ways to really help people to work together given that this dilemma will always be present due to the very nature of group conversation online. One final note, this thesis analyzes the concept of ‘Noisy Idiot behavior’ – not ‘Noisy Idiots.’ There is a difference. The term is meant to be provocative and memorable but in no way labels people, rather – behavioral traits.
2. Introduction
Online conversation is increasing. Fast. The rise in group discussion and collaborative decision making is evident in most online environments. These include attempts by corporations to build community around their brand or a product, [6] by nonprofits to raise awareness of causes, and in classrooms through the use of class wikis. The list is long and varied. However, compared to how long we’ve been conversing offline, quite simply – we haven’t been talking in groups online for very long. Our Roberts Rules of Order for the management of these online conversations is in its elementary stage compared to the hundreds if not thousands of years of experience of governing real-world conversations. And the ‘discussion around the dining table’ is different online, the parameters are different, and hence a different approach is needed.
2.1 Order Order, And Please Pass Me The Salt
The dynamics of conversation are fascinating: the ebb and flow of a discussion or debate, volume rising to reach a crescendo, peaking and then falling back as members reach a conclusion, the personalities in a conversation: the steerers, the silent listeners, the rowdy ones, the peacemakers, the controversy courters. The variety of conversational forums is breathtaking. Before even venturing into the online world, it is worth looking at this variety and diversity in the sort of places conversation and debate occurs in the physical world, in order to frame the further discussion in this paper:
i) Geography
The uninitiated Brit would likely keel over at the exuberance of some of the social interactions found in various Manhattan restaurants. At the dining table in London, politics, religion and money are strictly off limits for some, but go to dinner in any New York restaurant and you’ll hear the Mayor, Albany, Seder dinner and the tax season debated and dissected. However, there is an order to these discussions: people take social cues from others, and while the volume and temperature of the debate may rise; lively conversation and debate usually occur in a good natured and constructive manner.
ii) Age
The F bomb. If you’re under 30, chances are you’ll drop it in your social group without the need to peel someone’s eyebrows off the ceiling. Start using it in grandma’s knitting circle and chances are you’ll be told in no uncertain terms this is not an acceptable expression of feelings in that particular forum. Different age groups have different acceptable social practices.
iii) Voting Mechanisms
The corporate shareholder meeting is a classic example of decision making following informed discussion within large groups of people. All sorts of techniques have been honed for this over years of corporate jostling. Complex approaches to classes of shares, proxy systems, methods of dealing with vexatious shareholders have lead to a sophisticated decision making system dealing often with many different interests and agendas.
iv) Government
One of the best known forums for hearty, loud, challenging debate is the UK House of Commons. Prime Minister’s Question Time is noted throughout the world, not only as a place where the people (via their elected representatives) speak directly to power, but also – a place where often loud, noisy jeers are somehow parsed into constructive debate.
v) The Town Hall
Another example of people speaking directly to power is in the traditional town hall meeting, seen most recently during the 2008-2009 election campaign in the US.
vi) The Board Meeting
Hand in hand with the shareholder’s meeting, this is a type of group conversation that results in decision making, with a variety of rules and traditions governing how the meeting is structured.
vii) The Grad School Seminar
Through the management of a professor, lively classroom debate is kept on topic and time managed with the aim of letting everyone be heard – not just the noisy few.
Common to the above conversational forums are various techniques for effective group discussion to ensure orderly debate occurs, and without the discussion being derailed, for example by being overwhelmed by a noisy majority or minority; these must haves include -
i) An effective moderator;
ii) the ‘Collective Eye Roll;’
iii) an established and known format; and
iv) personal accountability.
2.2 The Variety Of Conversation Online
As seen in the above examples, our methods of keeping order and ensuring fair debate in real-world conversational sphere are pretty established. In addition to actual strategies for keeping order in group conversations, there are a variety of behavioral factors influencing the motivations of members in groups. For example, we are drawn to that which is similar: ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ In looking to join groups with those of similar sociodemographic, behavioral and intrapersonal characteristics, we seed groups in this manner. [7] The more you have these kinds of similarities in a group, the more likely it is the conversation will be less confrontational.
Another important concept to consider when looking at how we interact in groups is that of Axelrod’s Shadow of the Future. [8] According to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, if we interact just once, parties get the most reward by defection. However, if interacting more than once, there is a memory of past behaviors and it is of more benefit to the parties to behave in a cooperative manner. In groups, individuals gain most by playing fairly, it pays to care about your future interactions. [ibid.] The above concepts are factors to consider in online as well as offline group interactions, with specific issues in the application of these theories to online groups.
In beginning to look at the online conversational sphere, a veritable Pandora’s Box of separate issues is opened. Specifically, there is a disconnect, or a lagging behind between the development of techniques used to moderate discussion in the real world vs. conversations taking place online. This disconnect, can in some cases render participatory, collaborative group discussion (and in some cases, collaborative decision making) arduous, unproductive and inevitably, not fun. There is a need though to deal with this disconnect – because, as shown in the section below, we are increasingly collaborating online.
2.3 Why Is Online Conversation So Very Important?
With the rise in usage of social media tools by pretty much every type of organization: academia, corporations, nonprofits – to name a few, people expect to have a voice in a variety of arenas. This section outlines some success stories.
Corporations are tweeting [9] as a method of conversing with their customers and trouble shooting problems quickly. Blogging has become a natural partner to an corporate website; a place where news can be disseminated quickly, in perhaps a more informal and conversational manner. [10]
Facebook pages are appearing in the most unexpected places as a tool for engagement with an organization and the public. The US Department of State has been a real pioneer of this approach. Speaking in March 2010 at the Policy Making in the the Digital Age conference at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs school (SIPA), [11] Kimberly Harrington of the State Department’s Office of Innovative Engagement spoke of the State Department’s successful use of Facebook in engaging with communities in other countries. As of March 2010, the State Department had over 180 Facebook pages for various embassies and consulates, 50 twitter accounts, 20 Flickr sites, 15 blogs and 45 YouTube sites. One specific example of conversation between an embassy and people using a Facebook site was by the US Embassy in Cairo. They started a Facebook group to engage with Egyptian students wanting to study in the US, specifically post 9/11. They set up a group called Study USA Egypt. It was deemed a good medium to reach people as Facebook usage is popular in Egypt (2 million Egyptians use it). Every day the embassy posts information and has committed to responding to queries within 24 hours of receiving them. Also posts are public so reach a wide audience. The page has over 8000 fans and the embassy reports an increase in applications for students to study in the US as a result of this. In addition the quality of applications has also increased due to students being better informed about the process.
These are great examples of organizations opening up a dialog, not just broadcasting to their audience. These days, there is more of an expectation of this kind of conversation: to be able to engage with a company, government, museum – the list goes on. Hence the importance of looking into how we can converse together online more effectively.
Footnotes
[1] Modifying an existing online group: European Union – Debate Europe or What to do about Noisy Idiots, White, C., March 2009
[2] Debate Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.html, accessed April 18, 2010
[3] BBC Online, The EU’s Democratic Challenge, November 21, 2003, http://bbc.news.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3224666.stm, accessed April 18, 2010
[4] Debate Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/archives/debateeurope/index_en.htm, accessed April 18, 2010
[5] HerdictWeb, http://herdictweb.org, accessed June 6, 2010
[6] The Barbarian Group were hired by Kellogg to build an online community around their cereal brand Kashi, http://www.barbariangroup.com/portfolio/kashi_com, accessed April 11, 2010
[7] McPherson, M. et al., Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2001. 27:415-44
[8] Axelrod, Robert; Hamilton, William D. ‘The Evolution of Cooperation‘, Science 211: 1390–96
[9] Jetblue Engages in Real Conversation on Twitter, Socialized Blog, March 18, 2009, http://bit.ly/1k1mVj, accessed April 10, 2010
[10] Edelman and Intelliseek, Talking From The Inside Out – The Rise of Employee Bloggers, Fall 2005, http://bit.ly/dzZvmS, accessed March 20, 2010
[11] The Morningside Post, Blip TV channel (Kimberly Harrington), http://themorningsidepost.blip.tv/, accessed March 20, 2010
