Community norm violations can impair constructive communication and collaboration online. As a defense mechanism, community moderators often address such transgressions by temporarily blocking the perpetrator. Such actions, however, come with the cost of potentially alienating community members. Given this tradeoff, it is essential to understand to what extent, and in which situations, this common moderation practice is effective in reinforcing community rules. In this work, we introduce a computational framework for studying the future behavior of blocked users on Wikipedia. After their block expires, they can take several distinct paths: they can reform and adhere to the rules, but they can also recidivate, or straight-out abandon the community. We reveal that these trajectories are tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and justified. Based on these insights, we formulate a series of prediction tasks aiming to determine which of these paths a user is likely to take after being blocked for their first offense, and demonstrate the feasibility of these new tasks. Overall, this work builds towards a more nuanced approach to moderation by highlighting the tradeoffs that are in play.
Effects of moderation Prior work has examined the effects of different kinds of moderation on online platforms. Community-driven moderation can affect overall user participation @cite_8 @cite_42 and comment quality @cite_43 in conversations. Centralized moderation can also have effects on conversation, mainly through the moderator's role as an authority figure @cite_3 . These existing studies of moderation effects have focused on the short term, largely operating at the level of individual conversations. By contrast, in this work we intend to study the long term, level effects of moderation: what happens to a user in the days, weeks, and months after a moderator takes action against them?
@cite_43 @cite_42 @cite_3 @cite_8
2053522862 160646531 2077724862 2788708648
Can a system of distributed moderation quickly and consistently separate high and low quality comments in an online conversation? Analysis of the site Slashdot.org suggests that the answer is a qualified yes, but that important challenges remain for designers of such systems. Thousands of users act as moderators. Final scores for comments are reasonably dispersed and the community generally agrees that moderations are fair. On the other hand, much of a conversation can pass before the best and worst comments are identified. Of those moderations that were judged unfair, only about half were subsequently counterbalanced by a moderation in the other direction. And comments with low scores, not at top-level, or posted late in a conversation were more likely to be overlooked by moderators. The rapidly increasing popularity of Web 2.0 online communities originates in the ease of collaborative content creation and its sharing. As a result, more community members actively participate in the community and its data growth rates are continuously increasing. This poses the challenge for community platform operators on efficient administration and moderation to ensure the quality of content and to prevent violations of laws (e.g. copyright, privacy, illegal content) and community rules. Involvement of employed administrators who read and approve every piece of user-generated content is clearly the safest way of quality assurance. Since this is a time consuming task it does not scale up with Web 2.0 dimensions. So administrative functions are delegated to members of the community, the moderators. The strategy for choosing trustworthy moderators in big anonymous communities is specified in policies based on user reputation that is measured in bonus points. The proper balancing between community self-management and administration is crucial for the quality, attractiveness, and scalability of the entire community. Therefore understanding the mutual influences between community actors, reputation systems and platform policies that employ user reputation is crucial to ensure the overall quality, user acceptance, and success of the entire online community. Our objective is to predict the behavior in an online community for different policies, which may result in different overall quality of the community content. For this purpose we present our community analysis framework CoSiMo (an acronym for Community Simulation and Modeling), which employs the model-based approach for predicting the impact of policies on community dynamics and health. Through systematic variation of simulated quality assurance mechanisms we show that our model plausibly captures the influence of policies to content quality and can be therefore exploited for optimization of real online communities. We investigated participants' preferential selection of information and their attitude moderation in an online environment. Results showed that even when opposing views were presented side-to-side, people would still preferentially select information that reinforced their existing attitudes. Preferential selection of information was, however, influenced by both situational (e.g., perceived threat) and personal (e.g., topic involvement) factors. Specifically, perceived threat induced selective exposure to attitude consistent information for topics that participants had low involvement. Participants had a higher tendency to select peer user opinions in topics that they had low than high involvement, but only when there was no perception of threat. Overall, participants' attitudes were moderated after being exposed to diverse views, although high topic involvement led to higher resistance to such moderation. Perceived threat also weakened attitude moderation, especially for low involvement topics. Results have important implication to the potential effects of "information bubble" - selective exposure can be induced by situational and personal factors even when competing views are presented side-by-side. Users organize themselves into communities on web platforms. These communities can interact with one another, often leading to conflicts and toxic interactions. However, little is known about the mechanisms of interactions between communities and how they impact users. Here we study intercommunity interactions across 36,000 communities on Reddit, examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community. We show that such conflicts tend to be initiated by a handful of communities—less than 1 of communities start 74 of conflicts. While conflicts tend to be initiated by highly active community members, they are carried out by significantly less active members. We find that conflicts are marked by formation of echo chambers, where users primarily talk to other users from their own community. In the long-term, conflicts have adverse effects and reduce the overall activity of users in the targeted communities. Our analysis of user interactions also suggests strategies for mitigating the negative impact of conflicts—such as increasing the direct engagement between attackers and defenders. Further, we design classifiers to predict whether conflict will occur by creating an LSTM model which combines graph embeddings, user, community, and text features, and we also use these techniques to predict if a user will participate in a conflict. Altogether, this work presents a data-driven view of community interactions and conflict, and paves the way towards healthier online communities.