The Virtual Commons

Kollock and Smith identify a problem that exists in Usenets- a collection of thousands of discussion groups with over two million users worldwide (discussion boards, threads etc). People are attracted to online communities because of its absence of social status. People are able to cooperate more along with each other, however can behave selfishly. Users have an individual rather than collective rationality. Meaning, that there is a temptation to feed off common grounds and benefits of the virtual world rather then contributing to production.

They refer to a discussion board as a common floor and threads as a public good, and that “the interactional work that is necessary to keep a conversation going is a kind of public good in the sense that it is possible to free-ride on others' efforts, using and abusing the conversation without contributing to its maintenance.”

One dilemma they discuss is bandwidth- the lengthiness and relevancy of threads. They argue that users stringing along too much unnecessary information disrupt the order. In this situation a user takes advantage of the generous bandwidth limit while other users “regulate” their discussion behavior.
Other dilemmas occur when there are users asking questions but never answering, getting off topic, flaming, and lurking- reading discussions but never posting.

They discuss research of groups in general, finding that cooperation exists when group (size) boundaries and rules exist, people’s behavior can be monitored, sanctions are used, and members have access to low-cost conflict resolution mechanisms

They point out that most of these qualities are implausible via CMC. The believe setting group boundaries is most important, so that only those who contribute most into a “good” and receive a greater “return.” A way of reaching this point would be to have newsgroup membership restrictions. They suggest that newsgroups should allow people to view discussions but only admitted users to post and reply threads. They also suggest a democratic newsgroup community where users can modify rules and regulations.

Here are some questions for discussion:

Have you seen any of these dilemmas occur online? Where? How did you feel about it?
Do you think this is a valid concern and that Usernet groups should consider remedying these problems?
What other ways can we contribute to its maintenance, if at all possible?

Personally I think the discussion of how general groups are regulated wasn’t very helpful because almost everything discussed can’t be applied in Usenet.
More importantly, people don’t want to be bothered by rules and regulations online. I even think flaming can be interesting and entertaining. If users are so concerned with people not cooperating, want to limit users, and keep people on topic, then they should just turn to using a blog.
I do recall one time, however, when a discussion board I frequently participated in was getting disrupted. I’m a huge Lord of The Rings fan, and when the Fellowship came out I would monitor and participate in the AOL “LOTR” discussion board. It got annoying when teens started posting, “who’s hotter- Elijah Wood or Orlando Bloom?” It was so off topic. But when can you do, it’s just the little price to pay with an endless plethora of freedom of speech over the Internet.