Monday, October 13, 2008

Usenet: The Effects of Free-Riding

As we all may know, the technologies and advancements in computers has come a long way from when it first had started. If we go back in time to the days of pre-world wide web, you can see communication was different than it is today. I have decided to be and observer or a spectator if you will within a Usenet group. “The Usenet is one of the largest computer-mediated communication systems in existence” (Kollock and Smith, p. 111). This thought led me to have a positive outlook for the observations I was about to witness. Usenet has over thousands of people participating in groups that discuss the issues that concern them the most. Within these so called “communities” people have a chance to have their voice and opinions heard, and are able to receive feedback from other viewers through an asynchronous discussion. An asynchronous chat is when people can post a message and wait for another member of the group to message back their opinion or feedback (Kollock and Smith). After some browsing I had chose to observe in a New York Rangers group through Google Groups, which you can find by going to alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers. The common problematic theme of free-riding had begun to surface very quickly and you will begin to see the impact it has on online communities.

After realizing that Usenet is one of largest communication systems online I was very shocked to see only a few hundred people within this New York Ranger group. There were not many posts to begin with, with the addition of a few spam postings that contained inappropriate material. The issues that were discussed in this group really clashed with the facts. It seems that not many people that were participating were aware of the biased opinions they were posting. On top of all of this, there were judgments made towards other teams and players that held no truth but just a biased voice. When username “Bender” states that Jay Pandolfo from the New Jersey Devils “sucks,” he has no factual basis for his claims. The responses to this statement are not even relevant, which can leave an observer like me baffled how a group is so unorganized. According to Kollock and Smith, the authors of “Managing the Virtual Commons: Cooperation and Conflict in Computer Communities,” I would be considered a “lurker” for reading but not participating within these discussions. The difference between a lurker and a free-rider, is that a free-rider is conceived as someone who “uses and abuses the conversation without contributing to its maintenance” (Kollock and Smith, p.115).

Free-riding is one of the most common problems that we can come across through Usenet groups and computer mediated communication (CMC). I visited a different Usenet group for the New York Rangers at OutsidetheGarden.com, the contrast in quality and quantity of the conversations was mind blowing. People were never off topic and always managed to contribute positive information which enhanced the quality and quantity of conversations. There were 0 spam postings and it was a complete reverse image of the Google group I had been observing for days. There were no clear boundaries defined within this Google group, and it is not a shock why there are practically no members or quality discussions that have meaning. Practically every rule of free-riding is exemplified within these posts that lack everything to have any substantial meaning. Originally I was going to participate in these discussions, but it is frustrating when no one in the group can have a discussion with any sort of relevance. This group was just filled with random opinions that no one can back up. When people did respond to a false point that was made, they would make fun of someone with crude humor; ironically enough those rough comments held the most truth. This is the act of “trolling” which was discussed by Kollock and Smith. Trolling is when a person responds to another in an impolite manner trying to seek a rise out of them. This was blatantly obvious in the 2 rude responses to members within this group. Although the act of trolling was obvious, the members who were ridiculed put themselves in that situation.

Comparing the two different Usenet groups put a lot of things in perspective; clearly showing me the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful group. Although I did not go into deep conversation about the other Usenet group, they did exemplify what it is to be organized and successfully function within computer mediated communication. The signs of trolling were not significant, the jokes were friendly and humorous. Questions and debates were backed with facts, which made it amazingly easily to be a lurker like myself. It goes without saying that groups such as the one I have observed on Google harm online communication amongst people. There was no standards, no rules and pretty much nothing at all that can be considered useful. The other group showed that there are groups that exist that perform in perfect harmony. Free-riding seems to be a problem that will always drag along but depending on the group its impact can vary a great deal. The Rangers group on Google was solely derived off of free-riding, which is no wonder why it fails to be successful. The other was beneficial because free-riders can contribute more when the facts are present.

Bibliography

Kollock, Peter & Smith, Marc. (1996). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and conflict in computer communities. In Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Susan C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 109-128). Philadelphia: John Benajmins.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.hockey.nhl.ny-rangers/browse_thread/thread/6ea8f7b5b627e1ef#

http://www.outsidethegarden.com/

No comments: