Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Turning the jerk dial down
Like most communities, both online and off HoL has a few moments of tension and some grumpiness. That's life. However, it doesn't mean that we can't improve on things.
A few people have told me that they know someone who's been put off from contributing or even visiting HoL because of some of the behaviour on the site...and that's a shame. Liz and I work hard to try and make the overall tone positive and the environment safe. Our visitor statistics show that HoL is getting more and more popular. We're growing the number of unique daily visitors every month and according to figures provided by the Hornsey Journal, we get twice the number of visitors as their sites, but could we do more to make HoL and even better place to visit?
The other day I was reading social media guru Clay Shirky writing on dealing with bad behaviour in online forums:
That provides some options for turning the jerk dial down. One is to make identity valuable........... Another approach is to partition public platforms, thus reducing the incentive to publicly act out.
Both points resonate with me when thinking about forums in general and left me with two questions:
- Do we have a need to turn the jerk dial down on HoL?
- If so, how should we put Shirky's insights into practice?
On partitioning the platform, the obvious answer is to do away with, or make less central, the latest activity feature. I've tried that before and was met with a storm of protest. It remains an option.
Any thoughts on the general issues and HoL responses most welcome.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Oh John D, don't jump on the bandwagon too quickly..
It might not have been Crouch End, but you've too have been known to make some 'unkind' remarks about a place and it's residents before now.. OK, a bit further away - but nevertheless.. :o)
-
Permalink Reply by Angela on
-
Stephen, Why have you put mothers in inverted commas? Do you think I'm making this up?
And as I said before they are members, some of them have been for quite a while and have signed up for the weekly round up. It's not just one quick look.
Anyway, what Hugh said.
-
-
I only put Mothers in in 'inverted commas' because you yourself singled them out and I was referring to them...
This is silly, I'm not having a go at you.. I'm actually trying to help.. and really do think the answer lies with your 'friends' dipping their toes in the water (so to speak) and trying out commenting..
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Hugh's starting point for this thread was Clay Shirky's article. And in particular his description of a problem.
"Some of the conversations taking place there [on the internet] are less than civil. We could expand that thought: The ignorant and repulsive tantrums now appearing daily on the global stage mark an all-time low in public discourse."
Several regulars have rushed to deny this is in any way true of HoL. Repulsive? Absolutely not. Ignorant? Never. Tantrums? How dare you! Any such critics of HoL are utterly misinformed and probably just one or two uncivil people who accost Hugh in the street.
Now let me suggest a possibly more helpful way of looking at this.
Shirky describes and analyses how the internet and social media are changing our society, But unlike many others who do this, he includes the pitfalls as well as the positives. He is not selling IT and social networking as a panacea. Nor is he condemning it as the dumbing down of society.
Shirky suggests that:
. . . bad discourse isn't a behavior problem, it's a design problem. This year I'm studying how to design for better conversation.
I for one am keen to learn from his ideas and insights. Not principally because I want to see better manners on website discussions. But because I want to see the development of more open, generous and welcoming discussions in all our democratic institutions.
If I'm in a group I value, I take it seriously when either former members or newcomers tell me they found it unwelcoming and off-putting. Of course, that's not always the case. As the saying goes, some people give pleasure when they enter a room; with others it's when they leave. But if people seem willing to share their ideas and experience; as well as to listen to and think about the view of others, then their 'exit' is a loss.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Alan, I have seriously considered deleting my account over this post. I have had years of Hugh's niggling that he would have more/better members if it wasn't for the "jerks". Excuse me if I got my back up but I am not going to sit here and have "quiet and shy" of Hampden Rd mess with my life because of their wing mirrors, even if aristocratic of Hewitt says it's OK. And just where is sensible of Warham in all this?
This is our LIVES we deal with on here, not our remote controlled car hobby or volkswagon campers. Excuse me if the debate gets a bit heated at times but it blimmin well needs to.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
John, although some people would argue that forums like this should be left unmoderated, I'm not one of them. My view is that as with any social environment HoL needs a broadly agreed code of behaviour to be recognised and observed. In real life social norms generally ensure that happens. On forums people sometimes behave in ways they wouldn't do in real life since the virtual world sometimes leaves us feeling free of the constraints of social norms.
My concern to ensure that HoL is as welcoming an environment as possible is hardly unusual amongst people who manage forums. What you say you experience as niggling are, I take it, my occasional requests to you to moderate a post you've made. It's me managing the forum to try and make HoL work as well as possible. I've said to you many times that I don't think I have all the answers, but I do think a lot about how this site and sites like it work. I deal with it on a daily basis and do my best to create a nice environment. I don't think I've ever expressed the thought that the site would be better off without certain members let alone referred to any user in the disrespectful tones you suggest. What I have discussed with you previously is my desire to keep the site as welcoming as possible. For me It's not about having 'more or better' members; thankfully for the time being that seems to be happening anyway.
This post was intended to provide an opportunity for people to consider and discuss the behaviour code in their local virtual space. It touches (or has the potential to touch) on the lives of every other user as well as yours. So surely every user has a right to express their views. (By the way, I'm not clear on what you're referring to when you say that, in the context of this post, people are messing with your life).
-
-
Hugh, this is a "local" website, this is where I live. This website has an effect on my life (a good one so far!). If it existed before that madman on Hampden started his letter writing campaign about one-way streets to the council perhaps I wouldn't be so "engaged".
-
-
Local, for us all, yes. My point was therefore all should have their say. I'm glad that it's had a good effect so far for you, J. What I'm after is that it has as good an effect as possible for the maximum number of locals. At the point it stops doing that for a significant number of people it should probably be left to wither on the vine.
'fraid you've lost me with the Hampden Road reference.
-
-
The ladder one way system was introduced by the council after a campaign by a Hampden Rd resident who was suffering from damaged wing mirrors. Of course he was horrified when they introduced the speed humps and I bet he didn't even get one outside his house.
-
-
John, I see posting on a website as similar to public speaking. And not everyone is comfortable speaking in public. Confidence comes with practice. I can still remember my knees wobbling the first time I got up at a public meeting with over 100 people engaged in noisy, hostile debate.
Nobody is suggesting that a community forum - online or off line - shouldn't deal with real issues which affect people's lives. Nor that such issues won't sometimes lead to passion and anger. But I hope for more than the expression of people's views. I want dialogue. Labelling someone who disagreed with you as a "madman" cuts dialogue short.
But when we keep it going we have the possibility of better understanding, and better collective action.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
