Discussion about Site Admin

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Judith Box on November 22, 2009 at 13:32

The problem with taking something out of its original setting is you lose its context. Pulling it out on it's own - and then posting it with what I believe constitutes an inflammatory title only adds gravitas to what Matt was alluding to.

So actually what could have been an interesting discussion about what constitutes effective moderation/administration becomes lost in a sea of high emotion and drawing of battle lines.

I know that to run a site like this takes a huge amount of personal input and commitment from all involved. But also for it to be an effective online forum - there needs to be clear, effective, fair and transparent moderation.

However, building something like this takes time. No-one is going to get everything right - we are all human and prone to emotional responses.

I think this is an interesting discussion to have and I think it's an important as it will contribute to the ongoing success of HOL. So maybe we could talk about it in terms of what makes effective adminstration/moderation? Some forums admin/mods have separate log-ins so that the users know when someone is posting something 'official'. In effect separating the personality from the role.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by matt on November 22, 2009 at 13:43

The problem with taking something out of its original setting is you lose its context. Pulling it out on it's own - and then posting it with what I believe constitutes an inflammatory title only adds gravitas to what Matt is alluding to.

Thanks Judith. Those are my thoughts too. Consequently I have replied in context here.
But you are right Judith, this is a useful discussion. I'd like clarification from Hugh as to why there is a copyright symbol next to his name, at the bottom of the website, on the left.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 22, 2009 at 14:02

Re copyright Matt - because Ning put it there. If you trawl through Ning's terms of service my guess is you'll probably find an explanation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 22, 2009 at 14:01

Thanks for that Judith. You're right - a good area for discussion. Perhaps I could start off by answering some of the questions you raise in your useful posting.

The reason the original posting was pulled out of context is because it felt inappropriate and disrespectful to continue having a conversation of this sort in a posting about a violent attack.

The title was designed to be plain, descriptive, unemotional and matter of fact. Re-reading it, I still think it is, but please correct me if I'm wrong. It was certainly not seeking to be inflammatory or sensational. This is no Soaraway Sun headline.

You raise the issue of moderation. A good topic for discussion, but for the sake of clarity, the issue in the post about Pemberton that started this discussion wasn't about moderation. It was about a complaint made about site admin.

However, I'd be delighted to have a discussion about moderation. Currently any moderation decision is made with clear reference to our terms of service. Nothing is hidden and Liz and I end up spending huge amounts of time debating what we do on the site with a small number of members for the sake of transparency.

Because we use our terms of service as a basis for our moderation decisions, my belief is that we're pretty good at making judgements on the facts against given criteria, rather than being prone to emotional responses.

If your sense is otherwise or if you feel that the moderation isn't "clear, effective, fair and transparent", we'd welcome hearing your views about where you feel things aren't working. Any ideas of how it might be done differently are also welcome.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith Box on November 22, 2009 at 19:33

I don't think that the moderation here isn't clear etc etc - that is my blue sky wish list for any forum, and certainly wasn't meant to imply that those things are lacking here.

I didn't agree with Matt that your comments were unprofessional - but I think it taking it out of the original thread made it into a admin/moderation issue. And shows for me the problems that can be faced when trying to de-lineate between personalities and 'roles'.

I just think that it's difficult to keep personality/emotion out of moderation issues. (and this again in generic rather than specfic) And it would be horrible really if these things were run by autotrons.

Yes - I have read the user agreement - and there are bits of it I don't totally agree with - but that's just life - and I can live with that and work to change things. Hence contributing to these discussions. Online communities change and evolve - there are some fascinating articles out there on this stuff - I shall try and pull out the links.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 22, 2009 at 20:07

Thanks for that clarification Judith. We'll have to agree to disagree on the wisdom of dealing with a member complaint with the context of a very distressing post about a violent sexual assault.

I truly appreciate your contributions and welcome your willingness to discuss the issues rationally.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on November 22, 2009 at 14:03

On context, why not just have a single thread on the website, that way nothing could ever be taken out of context %)

Hugh remember that its the moderator's job to take flak from left and right, above and below and from front and rear. Just think of it as your punishment for sins in a previous life. You'll never get it right because with nearly 2,100 people, there're bound to be some tricky customers (increase their entrance fee?) and you can't be all things to all of them. Paradoxically the fact that there are 2,100 members proves to me that the reputation of HoL is spreading and that, by and large, you are getting it right in terms of moderation as far as humanly possible.

I'm glad Matt is inspecting your pages for copyright notices: this may indicate he is taking care to avoid infringing the name "Harringayonline" if he starts up his own community site and takes responsibility for moderating that.

Is it possible to discuss Moderation too much? Can it become overly introverted?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on November 22, 2009 at 16:11

There are some important and fascinating general issues raised here. Almost none of them are specific to Harringay Online website.

One group of issues is about applying principles of good journalism to online media. For instance, when someone posts information – rather than comment – it’s helpful if people give their sources. Both Hugh and Nilgun Canver relied on a trusted sources. But even a trusted source can be wrong. Not long ago the Leader of the Council was given incorrect information about armed police patrols.

It’s exciting to feel we’re getting the inside story from an email, tweet, photo, or video sent by an on-the-spot eye witness. But they could easily draw misleading conclusions from an incomplete view.

Journalists use the phrase “killing your babies” – for ruthless editing-down (and self-editing) of your lovingly produced words. Occasionally Hugh and Liz have removed my posts; always explaining why. Initially this was irritating. I got over it.

A second group of issues relates to self-managing, egalitarian organisations. There seem to be at least two huge holes in the otherwise illuminating theories of Prof Clay Shirky. One is his lack of any feminist perspective or insights.

The second is the absence of a historical dimension - apart from comparing the internet with the invention of the printing press. His book “Here Comes Everybody” is subtitled: “the power of organizing without organizations”.

Now this is plain silly. Just to take obvious and recent examples, from the 1960s onwards. thousands of groups organised as collectives, co-ops, and communes. Of course, some were disorganised and incompetent. (Though probably no more than many conventional hierarchical businesses and agencies.)

HoL is no less an organisation because it’s not owned by Rupert Murdoch. And it relies entirely on a number of other organisations: from Ning to the infrastructure of the internet. But what’s happening inside HoL as it changes and grows, mirrors developments and tensions inside many thousands of collaborative groups past and present. These are tensions which can be worked through and solved.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Judith Box on November 22, 2009 at 19:56

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

This is a bit long - but is really interesting reading about social software and some of the problems and challenges of online life.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hugh on November 22, 2009 at 20:03

Shirky's brilliant. His most relevant work in this area is Here Comes Everybody (I've been accused of working for commission on this book!) As it happens they're giving copies away at one of the conferences I'm speaking at on Community websites this week. I already have a well-thumbed copy so if people would like to read it, let me know.

Whilst ultimately optimistic, in Here Comes Everybody, Shirky does deal with some of the difficulties involved with groups including the application of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons to the social media context.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on November 22, 2009 at 22:57

Thanks, Judith. Obviously I owe Clay Shirky an apology; and must stop generalising about his work ─ at least without reading a lot more of his writing. I felt Here Comes Everybody was super-optimistic about social media. So it's especially interesting that his piece draws on Wilfred Bion's psychoanalytic explanations about things that go wrong in groups.

I'm looking forward to coming across Shirky's take on Jo Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 22, 2009 at 20:03

You know what I would like to see Hugh? I would like to see Nilgun Canver post this stuff on the site herself. Who the hell does she think she is getting you to do it for her? It just exposes you to the accusation that we're a residents association and you're the president.

I notice we don't get any postings from The Met/SNT anymore either. Did we do something wrong there?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page