Internet Comments As Tragedy Of the Commons, Franklin Paradox, Society Writ Large

I am very happy to blog for TMV because I have cultivated a few online acquaintances and more importantly it makes me feel important to imagine thousands of people hanging on my every word. But yeah, pretty much the only reason I write posts is for comments, so I'm sad to see them go and which is why I am going to cross post everything at a blog with the sole purpose of having comment threads (http://mikkelattmv.blogspot.com/). A link to the post will be at the end of every post at TMV and I hope that at least some of you follow it to comment.

That said I don't begrudge the decision and have a few things to throw out there. First of all, I think this is a classic example of tragedy of the commons. We all (including me) have benefited from the work of a very few and the disconnect between the effort and reward leads to changed behavior. I also think that the reaction on the post announcing the change shows the Franklin paradox. "The Ben Franklin effect is a psychological finding: A person who has done someone a favor is more likely to do that person another favor than they would be if they had received a favor from that person." Instead of relationships being close to zero sum quid pro quo, in reality they tend to default into favor-receiver relationships where the favor side feels obligated to continue providing and if at some point they decide not to then the receiver side will be upset that they lost something they expected. In all the comments on the prior thread, only a few every had any shades of thanking the moderators that have spent countless hours to keep the site civil thus far. This isn't an accusation, just an observation. Even though I am saddened by the decision my primary impulse is to give a big Thanks to the site moderators, especially Dr. E, because ever since I found out how much work she puts into the site I knew that it was allowing me to get something out of it I wouldn't otherwise.

To me these two templates really go a long way in describing the social framework of what has happened and I (perhaps naively) look for them as a source in which to look for future correction. For instance work done on the tragedy of the commons has shown that the outcome is very dependent on the source of governing authority. When authority is centralized into a hidden source that passes down the rules then it tends to lead to negative outcomes, while if authority is localized and created amongst the people that use the shared resources then it tends to lead to positive outcomes. A recent Nobel winner used historical examples to build models explaining how decentralized authority with shared broad intent will lead to the best outcomes. When it comes to comments, this suggests that instead of having the burden be on a single individual or small group, that many authors and select long term commenters should share the burden of regulating comments by agreeing to general broad rules of intent and then sharing the task of actual policing.

When it comes to the Franklin effect, the key is to realize that both sides come into play: yes if you are a receiver in a relationship then it is wise and just to extend help when the giver expresses distress, but it's also the giver's responsibility to communicate their viewpoint and ask for help. Some relationships will break down because the receiver just wants to be a leech and that's OK, in some relationships the receiver actually feels somewhat guilty about their role but doesn't know what to do (or believes that the giver likes the job and would be upset if they couldn't do it) and in some relationships roles will switch. It's hard to know a priori, the key is to have open communication and see if resolution is possible. Only a few comments even hinted at valuing the comments enough to put any work into it (and in general I try to offer contribution if I'm the receiver and something has changed) but I also feel like TMV editors should have reached out sooner.

I do think that internet communities are good analogs of "real life" communities in many ways, and have noticed that comments are a particular sticking point that really mirror it. In general sites that are more general audience have a much harder time than sites that have arcane interests -- there aren't too many trolls that will visit 19th century basket weaving blogs. Sites that have explicit institutional order with different commenter roles and advancement up the ranks to moderator tend to form larger and longer lasting communities than those that don't have this. Sites that have high purity tend to get more participants but at the tradeoff of losing interesting ideas and real engagement.

Anyway I want this post to sound pretty neutral and more observational and will leave it to you guys to say what you will. I look forward to having my delusions of elegant explanation torn to shreds once I'm the one that has to deal with the real life ugliness of moderation...and really appreciate the time that everyone at TMV has spent to shield me from that (and web design, hosting, so on and so forth) thus far and any work in the future.