We’re doing a research paper in my Humanities course where we’re supposed to choose a “new medium” (message board, weblog, E-Mail list, IM, etc.) and analyze its viability as a public sphere. I’m choosing the SDMB, and my thesis is probably going to be that the SDMB’s greatest strength, having such intelligent and confident (sometimes arrogant) members, is what keeps it from being a viable public sphere; as a community it can seem very exclusive and intimidating to new members. I might also discuss perceived biases in discussions on the SDMB, such as the alleged liberal bias of the board.
I’d like to cite pertinent discussions from the board itself in addition to scholarly works, and I’d like some help finding relevant discussions.
I’m working on searching the board myself, but it would be helpful if any of our members had specific threads or posts in mind that stand out as particularly insightful on this subject.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but I’ve always thought this board was fairly welcoming to new members. I’ve also thought we had a fairly broad representation of political views. I always figured these were two of the reasons that accounted for the growth of this board.
I agree with you, I was just oversimplifying for brevity and because I haven’t actually written a thesis yet. I think that while many different types of people are members, there are probably some groups that are underrepresented. I don’t know what those groups are (or if there are really are underrepresented,) but I’d like to find out. The paper is really in its early stages.
I really appreciated Cervaise’s description of a way to consider posters, found in this recent Pit thread. Other than that, it’s hard to think of threads that exemplify the board, simply because there’s so many of them.
One thing I’ve always found interesting about the boards was the evolution of the forums. Polling or e-mailing some people who’ve been around for the various changes could provide some insight into the character.
If I were to do a research paper on the SDMB, I’d focus on the community aspect of it, and relate it directly to Robert Putnam’s concept of “social capital” in his book Bowling Alone. The idea is that our society has grown less and less accustomed to widening our circle of real friends and acquaintances, as exhibited by a massive decrease in bowling league involvement of all things! Of course, he also cites piles of research he conducted that all sorts of other community involvement has decreased. Those connections we make are “social capital” that we exchange.
There’s a new addendum where he discusses internet message boards (I believe), and how they are most certainly NOT real connections in this sense. But I personally believe there to be many concrete examples of real connections and relationships that have been made (many of those examples being babies and wedding rings), and this board offers many avenues for the creation and exchange of that social capital.
At one time members could actually get a tally of all their posts by thread. I disocvered that the large majority of my posts were to General Questions, a very small number to Great Debates, and almost nothing in the Pit.
It’s my impression that (at least) at one time, a large number of, although certainly not all, posters tended to stick in one or two forums. IMHO, for example, has always been considerably more light-hearted than GD, even when they touch on the same topics. I have no idea whether the current group of posters has the same habits, but if so, it might lessen the concept of “community.”
Not only is it a viable public sphere; it’s an unusually successful one. I don’t think there is an exclusiveness so much as an expected code of conduct not usually found on other internet boards. The only way we’ve been able to keep such intelligent members is because of this code, not in spite of it. The single most basic unwritten rule is : Don’t talk out of your ass. This keeps claims and declarations rigorous and arguments succinct and thoughtful. The sometimes harsh modding keeps people in line. Immature behavior is either outlawed or punished by witty pittists. IMO, anyone worth having around won’t be so intimidated as to leave the board entirely.
I did a research paper a couple of years ago that looked at whether messageboards could be considered viable communities. I particularly focussed on the SDMB and the Aussie off-shoot, G’Dope and submitted a questionaire to posters there to get feedback about their experiences. Being able to understand the boards from a personal as well as an academic perspective gave me a huge advantage, and made writing the paper a fun rather than an arduous task.
References I found useful were:
By Wellman and Gulia, Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone in Communities in Cyberspace (Smith and Kollock eds, 1999).
Rheingold (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. (or anything by Rheingold really).
Blanchard and Horan, Virtual Communities and Social Capital in Social Science Computer Review, 1998, 16, 3.
Baym, *The Emergence of On-line Communities * in Jones (ed) Cybersociety 2.0 1998.
I was actually thinking about your questionnaire not too long ago, Kam.
Made me smile to think of the answers I provided back then, and how different my answers would be today. Funny, considering it wasn’t that long ago
When I saw this topic, I wandered upstairs to see if I could find the paper in my filing cabinet (i.e. under the bed with all the other years of essays, accumulated bills, tax returns etc etc). Geez, I didn’t realize what a bloody mess it was under there!
Reading it again after time and changes both here and on G’Dope is an absolute hoot. Like you and the answers you would provide to such a questionnaire now, I suspect my own conclusions would be a little less glowing if I were writing it today.
But I still do think that some messageboards fulfill the criteria to be considered real commmunities. The changes and upheavals both here and on G’Dope in recent times (and I’m sure on other messageboards as well) are not any different to changes that occur in regular communities on occasion. It may not always be ‘nice’ or comfortable, but that’s mostly what is encountered in RL communities anyway.
One of the most interesting things I find about this message board is the fact that there is an extremely strong social pressure keeping members in conformity with the unwritten norms of the board. This is entirely apart from the formal function of the moderators and aminstrators ensuring compliance with the formal board rules.
In contrast to many other internet groups, as a board we almost invariably demand of our fellow members that they speak in proper, punctuated, appropriately capitalized English. Minor grammar or spelling screw-ups are tolerated, but when a poster fails to even attempt proper usage, other posters will rather aggressively comment to move the offending poster into line.
Also, as noted above, the board requires most non-personal assertions to be backed up by a formal citation. This too is enforced by social pressure.
