[Vision2020] Libel, Group Norms, and Some Good Articles

[Melynda Huskey]

Doug Farris (whose *nom de clavier* is "lemeno Doug") writes:

"As I recall you, B.J. Swanson, Joan Opyr, Melynda Huskey, Keely
Emerine Mix, JeanC, Shirley Ringo, Bill London, Darrell Keim, Sunil
Ramalingam, Barrett Schroeder and Nils Peterson, were all silent for these
instances!"

Intemperate, ignorant, or repulsive anonymous attacks have been a part of Vision 2020 for a long time--Edna Wilmington, Faul Ottomatix, New Man, etc.   Mostly they've alleged that people are corrupt, foolish, ill-informed, or venal.  There's been only one attempt on Vision 2020 to insinuate that a member of our community is implicated in a local murder.  Can you not see the difference?

Like Dan Carscallen (good luck on the campaign trail, Dan!), I prefer to delete most of the time.  If you're not willing to put your name to it, why should I bother to read it?  But some anonymous postings are significantly worse than others.  

Nils' recommendation of "A Rape in Cyberspace" is a good one--it's an interesting article, although not for the faint-of-heart.  I also recommend Clay Shirkey's "Group as User:  Flaming and the Design of Social Software" 

http://shirky.com/writings/group_user.html

He writes:

"Mailing lists were the first widely available piece of social software. . . . Mailing lists were also the first widely analyzed virtual communities. And for roughly thirty years, almost any description of mailing lists of any length has mentioned flaming, the tendency of list members to forgo standards of public decorum when attempting to communicate with some ignorant moron whose to stupid to know how too spell and deserves to DIE, die a PAINFUL DEATH, you PINKO SCUMBAG!!! 

"Yet despite three decades of descriptions of flaming, it is often treated by designers as a mere side-effect, as if each eruption of a caps-lock-on argument was surprising or inexplicable. 

"Flame wars are not surprising; they are one of the most reliable features of mailing list practice. If you assume a piece of software is for what it does, rather than what its designer's stated goals were, then mailing list software is, among other things, a tool for creating and sustaining heated argument." 

The tension between individual freedom and group benefit is a very difficult one to resolve.  Shirky floats some excellent recommendations in another article, "A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy" 

http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

Vision 2020 operates under certain constraints:  by choosing an unmoderated environment, we maximize openness and minimize accountability.  You might even argue that we maximize the likelihood that unproductive communication will overwhelm productive communication (at least from time to time).  But nevertheless, Vision 2020 has social stickiness.  People stay on for the occasional really good post, the hope of winning an argument, the free flow of information, the excitement it engenders, the chance it offers of making connections in the community, of engaging in conversation about whatever seems important to us about our town.

We choose to be here.  We're obviously getting something out of it, despite all our complaints.  And we've got some norms--we draw the line at accusations of murder.  

That's something of a relief to me.

Melynda Huskey