Difference between revisions of "Regaining a community"
(Created page with "Category: IWoMI") |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | Regaining a community | ||
+ | |||
+ | 3 platforms represented in this breakout | ||
+ | |||
+ | Who owns and has responsibility for community? How to maintain community? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Every platform is unique and has its own means of establishing/maintaining/regaining community, policing, layering of roles, responsibilities, interests Wikimedia – with mine, no one can own it; no editor-in-chief of a topic area; just organically formed projects (wiki projects); loosely formed groups; organization tries to provide structure. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Is it bad when community breaks up? Sometimes part of the healing process – certain members within a community being sent off by others in a form of P2P policing. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sometimes members falsely identify themselves as part of a community and sabotage other communities, sabotage themselves. Sometimes the platform helps them do the latter. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Graduated approach to enforcement. If not too bad and no previous violation, might be a tweet delete (and here are our content guidelines and here's your phone no.) | ||
+ | |||
+ | In some communities, enforcement varies with what violation is, e.g., first offense you're given a "timeout"; the more violations the longer you're blocked. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In some sub-communities, admins create their own rules, can remove and ban users, delete posts, etc. | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Giving ppl power engages them." The foundation has only blocked 7 ppl ever. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lack of transparency is so people won't game the system. "There's a trade-off in transparency that's little discussed." | ||
+ | |||
+ | Balance needs to be struck in user access to tools, in transparency, agency to user base (more potential for abuse), cultural norms; "consistent response has been important for us" – consistency in itself helps regain the community | ||
+ | |||
+ | There's always room for more int'l consistency; awareness of cultural & political sensitivities so citizens in more repressive societies aren't harmed. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
[[Category: IWoMI]] | [[Category: IWoMI]] |
Latest revision as of 23:02, 13 July 2015
Regaining a community
3 platforms represented in this breakout
Who owns and has responsibility for community? How to maintain community?
Every platform is unique and has its own means of establishing/maintaining/regaining community, policing, layering of roles, responsibilities, interests Wikimedia – with mine, no one can own it; no editor-in-chief of a topic area; just organically formed projects (wiki projects); loosely formed groups; organization tries to provide structure.
Is it bad when community breaks up? Sometimes part of the healing process – certain members within a community being sent off by others in a form of P2P policing.
Sometimes members falsely identify themselves as part of a community and sabotage other communities, sabotage themselves. Sometimes the platform helps them do the latter.
Graduated approach to enforcement. If not too bad and no previous violation, might be a tweet delete (and here are our content guidelines and here's your phone no.)
In some communities, enforcement varies with what violation is, e.g., first offense you're given a "timeout"; the more violations the longer you're blocked.
In some sub-communities, admins create their own rules, can remove and ban users, delete posts, etc.
"Giving ppl power engages them." The foundation has only blocked 7 ppl ever.
Lack of transparency is so people won't game the system. "There's a trade-off in transparency that's little discussed."
Balance needs to be struck in user access to tools, in transparency, agency to user base (more potential for abuse), cultural norms; "consistent response has been important for us" – consistency in itself helps regain the community
There's always room for more int'l consistency; awareness of cultural & political sensitivities so citizens in more repressive societies aren't harmed.