On metafilter, there is a bottom up approach to the policing of public space. Ie, citizens flag “bad” posts and then have meta discussions which really serve as trials by a peer group, if you will. The analogy breaks though because the jurors are not randomly selected and thus usually have a vested interest in the decision (which can lead to name calling, etc). Ultimately, these discussions are formed such that mathowie and jessamyn have moderating powers “in check” by the people. They can weigh in on the issues, make decisions, and face public scrutiny when a decision is made, especially if the decision is vastly unpopular. What are some of the other ways that you can think of to police public on-line spaces?
posted by |n$eCur3 to etiquette/policy at 5:49 PM (32 comments total)
On places like digg.com, there is a mob mentality, which is in my opinion just as undesirable, because sometimes unpopular, but important ideas can be buried. This has also happened here at times (remember dios?).
My question is... what are some even more revolutionary ways to police on line space? Do you guys have any links to such systems? What is the fairest way to come to a group decision? My intention is not to criticize metafilter, but rather find out all of the ways that people have dealt with the on-line policing problem and how to limit trolls while at the same time hearing all opinions whether popular or unpopular and keeping the community experience enjoyable and "noise" free.
posted by |n$eCur3 at 5:50 PM on March 29, 2006