Session 7--Management and conflict

While Session 6 focused on how social sites work from the perspective of users, in our final session we'll look at how social sites work at an administrative and policy level. Designers of social sites may have general rules and scenarios in mind for scripted common interactions, but when the site goes live, unexpected conflicts, issues and other breakdowns continuously challenge the integrity of a site and its community.

The role of editors, moderators and admins may not be immediately obvious, but they create, enforce and (ideally) continuously re-evaluate the rules governing people's interactions. As you'll see in this session's readings, it often takes a conflict, disagreement, troll attack or other instance of disturbing the online peace to both reveal and refine the official rules of a given site. However, perhaps even more important are the unofficial rules, formed from a combination of aggregate practice and open debate by the participants themselves. Both individually and in groups, users of social sites have a voice in identifying, reporting and responding to inappropriate behavior. It is the nature of social computing for users to create one another's online experience, sometimes in concert and sometimes in conflict with the designers and administrators of the site.

Session 7, Week 1--complete by Sunday, April 19, 11:59pm

1. After completing the readings, find the official rules governing the site you're studying for your final project--keep in mind that there may be more than one official document. Post a link (or links) with some brief explanatory text.
   
2. Find three examples on the site where one or more rules have been broken, specifically in the form of interpersonal conflict (i.e. not just spam posts). Give a brief synopsis of each, along with any admin or user reactions if available, and provide a link or screenshot.
3. For each of the three situations, discuss what you believe is the most appropriate response by site admins, and by other users. This may not be straightforward; for example, removing inappropriate content on sight also removes the opportunity for users to confront and debate the infraction, which might increase their investment and engagement with the site.
4. Relate your examples and discussion substantively to at least three of the Session 7 readings.

Session 7, Week 2--complete by Sunday, April 26, 11:59pm

You know what to do by now. While I'm sure you will continue your fine tradition of exchanging ideas in your blog comments out of pure intellectual interest and altruism ;), also keep in mind that this will be your last chance to contribute to the participation component of your grade.


And finally...

Though we'll be exchanging emails individually in the weeks leading up to your final projects, since this is my last post, I'd like to thank you for taking a chance on this new course, taught in a new online format, by a nearly-new faculty member. If you're like me, you probably didn't know quite what to expect going in, but if the course provided you enough structure, flexibility and ideas for you to explore the aspects of social computing that interest you, I'd call that success.

The course evaluations will be conducted through the eCAFE system (http://www.hawaii.edu/ecafe), and while some of the questions aren't directly applicable to the online environment, I encourage you to give me suggestions on how to improve the course, either in the free response section of the evaluation form, or directly via email anytime.

Thanks and aloha,
Rich