Forum Moderators: open
There are, however, I think, about half a dozen things that are broadly true of all the groups I've looked at and all the online constitutions I've read for software that supports large and long-lived groups. And I'd break that list in half. I'd say, if you are going to create a piece of social software designed to support large groups, you have to accept three things, and design for four things.
[shirky.com...]
Thanks for posting it!
Jim
Cheers!
Facinating!
ATOB
Chris
That is without doubt the most facinating thing I have read about communities EVER (and I've been doing alot recently). What an astonishing insight.
A couple of the highlights for me:
The downside of going for size and scale above all else is that the dense, interconnected pattern that drives group conversation and collaboration isn't supportable at any large scale
Reminds me of a certain webmastering forum (no, not this one!) I visited recently hehe!
The downside of going for size and scale above all else is that the dense, interconnected pattern that drives group conversation and collaboration isn't supportable at any large scale.
He does go on to say that that doesn't mean a system can't scale though. It's what I think I see on some of the busier forums here. We have groups within groups here at WebmasterWorld (who said that just a day or 2 ago?) and as those groups get 'over populated' they lose cohesion and for some, value. Splitting of forums into subsections and private forums etc is one way of handling it but I wonder what else we might do to keep the wonderful feel we have in certain areas here?
If you want a good reputation system, just let me remember who you are. And if you do me a favor, I'll remember it.
Like those excellent discussions we had on post count recently when BT took it off of the visible user details
<---------
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.
An excellent point I think. Though it's a bugger to implement I'm sure...
Excellent stuff, as pretty much everyone has said it's a scorcher and a must for those that care deeply about WebmasterWorld.
Nick
Democracy doesn't work, voting is bad, the group, not the individual counts, some things should be made difficult, group within a group, moderation necessary ... it's all happening here folks, and presumably that's not down to luck, although the author seems to sum it all up by saying 'who knows what works and what will survive'.
Again, compliments to the shepherds here for still being on track.
And boy, you don't miss a leased line 'til it's busted.
Thanks for posting this RC.
>>a proper unbiased study
There's plenty done in the way of studies in certain types of environments that could be considered controlled and limited in growth potential, like within academic environments.
There isn't enough history to get enough statistical data to have it near "scientific" for open enviroments, but the saying goes about history being the best teacher.
>>a group is its own worst enemy
The same type of process evolves over time with any open environment. First of all, those who are or were on the inside who might know are often loathe to make anything public or available for studies, and it's to a great extent dependent on observation and interpretation - and different perspectives from different viewpoints.
I'm sure there's been more, but in a certain huge online community I'm personally aware of, there have been 3 different implosions that resulted in mass exoduses.
First off, with the type of growth they experienced, there was no choice but to segment, organize and delegate in order to survive and continue. That was done beautifully and growth flourished. The problems came with differences in viewpoints between management, volunteer staff and members, who all saw things from a different perspective.
In spite of massive image management, there was still an evolution in thinking on the part of individuals - members and volunteers. Given the fact that it was a profit-making organization, people still volunteered willingly and freely based on a love for and commitment to the "community."
Once they were involved at that level on the inside, it's at that point that they began to experience the dichotomy, the inevitable corporate politics, favoritism, backslapping and what they considered hypocracy, and began to realize that the organization at its core wasn't what they'd once thought it was.
There was the same exact type of environment with regard to communications that exists in off-line institutions that reach a certain size as well, and the same type of phenomenon that occurred as in any group tht depends on a group dynamic for its survival and continued health.
The end result over time was that there were "pockets" of disillusionment that operated within an "OK/not-OK" gag order type framework, the same type that exists in large corporations. There were literal implosions in different segments at different times. Honest communication was non-existent, if not discouraged, making the operation of resolution or reconciliation impossible.
They've got one foot on the proverbial banana peel at this point in time, with the last exodus happening in May of this year, and the other foot in the proverbial grave in the financial realm.
It's the exact same type of dynamic that happens when political groups splinter off into factions. Bill Clinton got elected because of Ross Perot, simple as that. It's also the same type of phenomenon that's behind church splits. Different factions, differences in motivations and goals.
Once it becomes "us" and "them" in varying degrees - it becomes "a house divided against itself.." etc, etc. Unity is strength; "us" and "them" and disunity is the kiss of death.
Every great society in history has eroded and fallen from within, and a society is nothing more than a group of people on a different scale.
Perhaps if we are mindful of some of the issues raised WebmasterWorld can be an example of a community that managed its growth well... and the subject of future white papers. ;)
