Scott's March Post - It's a Free Foruuuuuum

[Scott Nesler]

I believe the current internet forum tools are lacking when it comes
to facilitating dialog which provides meaningful, respectful, agreed
upon solutions. This could be blamed on the forum moderator, but I
would suggest the tool should provide a more seamless interface for
promoting respect and meaning.

Excluding the House of Junto forum, what is the groups experience with
various internet collaborative websites.

My goal is to develop an essay for the DGG describing the benefits and
obstacles of existing internet forums for developing mass
comprehension.

[Adam Webster]

For me, the experience has been mostly negative. Unmoderated forums, which most are, end up being cussing matches for the most outspoken jerks.  Even the moderated forums seem to lack coherency and direction.  Moderators often help in promoting respect, but meaning is something that escapes most forums.

[empire...@gmail.com]

Agreed. On a local newssource's blog people were bantering about a
guy who fell off his horse and was severely wounded. A couple of
people were extremely offensive. The victim happened to be a friend
of my dad's, and he got on and told them all the real situation and
that he knew the guy and some of them felt really bad about the things
they had written.

First of all, anonymity on the Internet allows people to take no
responsibility for what they post. If one ID loses credibility I can
just construct another and all's well. The few moderators I've seen
let pretty much everything through and then let the other contributors
vote on the post. We have never really had a terribly offensive or
derrogatory post here on Junto so I'm not sure how Publius would
handle that (though I'd love to find out).

By far the most successful collaborative website is Wikipedia. But
even they will have problems. I know some opinionated people have
taken gross liberties when it comes to certain controversial topics,
and those topics are edited and CLOSED.

It seems to me that the best way to really moderate a website is to
restrict the membership.

On Mar 6, 7:44 pm, Adam Webster <gqwonder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me, the experience has been mostly negative. Unmoderated forums, which
> most are, end up being cussing matches for the most outspoken jerks.  Even
> the moderated forums seem to lack coherency and direction.  Moderators often
> help in promoting respect, but meaning is something that escapes most
> forums.
>

> On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Nesler <sile...@dogoodgauge.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I believe the current internet forum tools are lacking when it comes
> > to facilitating dialog which provides meaningful, respectful, agreed
> > upon solutions.  This could be blamed on the forum moderator, but I
> > would suggest the tool should provide a more seamless interface for
> > promoting respect and meaning.
>
> > Excluding the House of Junto forum, what is the groups experience with
> > various internet collaborative websites.
>
> > My goal is to develop an essay for the DGG describing the benefits and
> > obstacles of existing internet forums for developing mass

> > comprehension.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Scott Nesler]

The analogy of "Lord of the Flies" fits well in describing the state
of internet blogs and forums.

I see a parallel between the maturity of an argument and human
growth. Blogs and forums are in their infancy. Though an
adolescent need to be understood, traversing the noise and chaos to
get to the rhetoric can be a difficult task. As a teacher, I'm sure
Adam can attest to this. Most adolescents mature to a state where they
can express themselves in an exceptable manner.

A complex argument traverses the same chaotic path. Naive,
ignorant, and spiteful avenues are often visited before the target of
understanding is within focus.

Internet tools of the future should not throw out a naive or even
ignorant point of view. Reducing the value would be a better
suggestion. Brett can provide some insight on the leeway the
criminal justice system gives an adolescent. Collaborative
internet tools of the future should provide the leeway to be wrong in
attempt to understand. Future tools should provide the dynamics to
allow an argument to grow to its maturity as it approaches a common
truth.

In my growth toward argument maturity, I need to learn how to write a
post which doesn't sound like an end. Please continue the dialog.

[houseo...@gmail.com]

Just to describe a situation in House of Junto where I might have been
needed:

There was one post a while ago that we thought might be offensive. We
resisted the urge to make any comments until it got a reaction.
Instead of becoming inflamatory, the members diffused the comment and
the discussion went on to be very informative and dynamic.

This goes to show that you members of the House of Junto have made all
the difference. You have kept the discussions mature and in the
incidence cited above, you kept things formal and appropriate. For
that I thank you.

On the other hand, it makes our job boring.

[Brett Kraus]

As to the nature of the internet and the change that gives to the way
news is being reported, an interesting book came out a while ago, by
David Baldacci (a fun author to read if you get the chance), the book
is The Whole Truth. Part of the book surrounds itself with something
called PM firms, which are beyond PR firms. He explains that PM firms,
or Perception Management firms create reality using the fluid and
chaotic nature of the internet. They post information claiming to be
reality and factual, although it is really only what they want people
to believe the facts are.

There are claims that PM firms were used to make people believe there
were WMD in Iraq to push public opinion in favor of the war.

The blogs I have enjoyed involve intelligent collaborators who tell
you who they are, and their credentials. They are often University
Professors and have a reputation to lose if they reveal facts that
aren't at least reasonably accurate.

That is one area, where I think this blog helps. We deal with each
other every month, and there is the risk of retaliation for negative
posts, and I think the value of our past involvement adds weight and
depth to our discussions. Also, we are a little exclusive (not very),
but we only admit those who are willing to accept the rules and agree
to abide by them. As such, this format is more conducive to the kinds
of discussions we want to nurture.