Comparing different interaction forums

Dear Bob …

I have run into an interesting situation that probably is fairly common.

Actually, what makes it interesting for me is not the situation itself, but rather a possible opportunity to learn something.

I was involved in a discussion through a Yahoo discussion group in which the topic was the suitability of using a wiki to maintain a business data dictionary.  One fairly common theme among the nine participants was freeing people up from the constraints of bureaucracy.  One thing notably absent from the discussion was a comparison of the merits of various tools and governance methods, in spite of my effort to introduce those topics into the discussion.  I also mentioned at least two requirements I am facing that I believe can’t be addressed by using a wiki.  Not one of the other participants addressed either of these concerns, either to agree or to disagree.  It seems to me that these people were so focused on their particular agenda that other concerns didn’t even register.

Now, here is what I am asking you.

Are you aware of any research that anybody has done to determine in an objective fashion how online discussion groups in general deal with issues that individuals raise, and how this compares with other approaches to seeking assistance, such as face-to-face informal meetings, facilitated meetings, etc?  One issue is how likely it is that a discussion might be hijacked by someone with an ideological point of view.

Another issue is what kinds of people tend to take an active role in maintaining publicly accessible documents such as are found in Wikipedia.

How likely is it that the type of people who take it upon themselves to contribute to such repositories will also be the type of people who would introduce an ideological point of view?  This could vary according to subject matter.  More controversial subjects would likely attract more ideologues.

What I am really after is a way to assess whether the experience I described above is the exception or the rule.  Opinion based on first-hand experience is a little helpful, but I would place much more value on the results of formal research by sociologists, cultural anthropologists, psychologists, and other qualified people.

Are you aware of any such research?

– Archie

Archie …

I don’t know of any formal research, which doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent, merely that I haven’t run across it. Much of the comparison is straightforward and doesn’t require research, though. Just list the different media (face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations, on-line chat and so on) as rows in a matrix; list attributes to be considered as columns (synchronous vs asynchronous; sequential vs parallel “posting,”; impact of personality; potential for one person to dominate; potential for a group to invade and hijack … whatever is important to the analysis). Then rate the attributes for each of the media. It becomes pretty easy to figure out where each is strong and each is challenged.

Just remember to be sufficiently fine-grained. There are open wikis and edited ones, for example; they’ll have different characteristics in some of the attributes.

I’ll post this to Advice Line; keep an eye on the Comments section to see if any of those posting know of the kind of study you’re looking for.

As you do, take note of those posting. To date, while plenty of ideologues post, none have hijacked the blog, for the simple reason that there’s no way of hijacking a blog. You can post whatever comment you like; that doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s ability.

What can happen to on-line discussion forums of all kinds is that a group of “loudmouths” (print version) flood them with postings that can range from pointless to annoying to offensive. Especially with an internal business forum, that’s easily dealt with: Track down the offenders and say, “Don’t do that anymore.”

Also, you’d have the same control I do with the Comments to my blog, which is to not approve them. In my case I only delete the increasing tide of spam and commercial comments, and one or two that are clearly irrelevant and offensive. In yours, you could impose whatever guidelines seem most appropriate to the situation.

I’m less familiar with wikis. I understand that the technology does provide for editorial control when that’s desirable, which is another way of referring to governance.

Just my opinion, which I’m forming soley from your account of events, so I’m doing a lot of inferring and imagining: What you experienced wasn’t the influence of ideologues. It was the influence of people who had no interest in the topics you were raising. They were excited about the potential of the medium to free people from the constraints of bureaucracy. You were raising the importance of governance. But one person’s governance is another person’s bureaucracy. To me, it’s unsurprising that none of the participants had a lot of interest in discussing it.

Again, I know of no studies. My guess is that people who contribute to forums like Wikipedia are enthusiasts – amateurs and professionals who love a particular field and want to share their knowledge. Many enthusiasts in any field also have strongly held opinions about it. If you’re on the other side of those issues, you’ll consider them to be ideologues.

And most likely, they’ll consider you to be an ideologue for disagreeing with them.

– Bob