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.
Norms and engagement A major factor governing engagement in online communities is a sense of belonging @cite_54 , which in many communities engenders the emergence of community-specific norms, such as specific patterns of language @cite_51 @cite_28 @cite_48 @cite_14 . Wikipedia is no exception: it relies on group dynamics to promote editing productivity @cite_18 and quality @cite_56 , as well as participation in governance @cite_52 @cite_40 .
@cite_18 @cite_14 @cite_28 @cite_48 @cite_54 @cite_52 @cite_56 @cite_40 @cite_51
2110158471 2963492501 2962815454 2570325132 2169495811 2890240742 2117134415 2127411301
Peer production systems rely on users to self-select appropriate tasks and "scratch their personal itch". However, many such systems require significant maintenance work, which also implies the need for collective action, that is, individuals following goals set by the group and performing good citizenship behaviors. How can this paradox be resolved? Here we examine one potential answer: the influence of social identification with the larger group on contributors' behavior. We examine Wikipedia, a highly successful peer production system, and find a significant and growing influence of group structure, with a prevalent example being the WikiProject. Comparison of editors who join projects with those who do not and comparisons of the joiners' behavior before and after they join a project suggest their identification with the group plays an important role in directing them towards group goals and good citizenship behaviors. Upon joining, Wikipedians are more likely to work on project-related content, to shift their contributions towards coordination rather than production work, and to perform maintenance work such as reverting vandalism. These results suggest that group influence can play an important role in maintaining the health of online communities, even when such communities are putatively self-directed peer production systems. Platforms like Reddit have attracted large and vibrant communities, but the individuals in those communities are free to migrate to other platforms at any time. History has borne this out with the mass migration from Slashdot to Digg. The underlying motivations of individuals who migrate between platforms, and the conditions that favor migration online are not well-understood. We examine Reddit during a period of community unrest affecting millions of users in the summer of 2015, and analyze large-scale changes in user behavior and migration patterns to Reddit-like alternative platforms. Using self-reported statements from user comments, surveys, and a computational analysis of the activity of users with accounts on multiple platforms, we identify the primary motivations driving user migration. While a notable number of Reddit users left for other platforms, we found that an important pull factor that enabled Reddit to retain users was its long tail of niche content. Other platforms may reach critical mass to support popular or “mainstream” topics, but Reddit’s large userbase provides a key advantage in supporting niche topics. This paper presents a model of the behavior of candidates for promotion to administrator status in Wikipedia. It uses a policy capture framework to highlight similarities and differences in the community's stated criteria for promotion decisions to those criteria actually correlated with promotion success. As promotions are determined by the consensus of dozens of voters with conflicting opinions and unwritten expectations, the results highlight the degree to which consensus is truly reached. The model is fast and easily computable on the fly, and thus could be applied as a self-evaluation tool for editors considering becoming administrators, as a dashboard for voters to view a nominee's relevant statistics, or as a tool to automatically search for likely future administrators. Implications for distributed consensus-building in online communities are discussed. Wikipedia has a strong norm of writing in a 'neutral point of view' (NPOV). Articles that violate this norm are tagged, and editors are encouraged to make corrections. But the impact of this tagging system has not been quantitatively measured. Does NPOV tagging help articles to converge to the desired style? Do NPOV corrections encourage editors to adopt this style? We study these questions using a corpus of NPOV-tagged articles and a set of lexicons associated with biased language. An interrupted time series analysis shows that after an article is tagged for NPOV, there is a significant decrease in biased language in the article, as measured by several lexicons. However, for individual editors, NPOV corrections and talk page discussions yield no significant change in the usage of words in most of these lexicons, including Wikipedia's own list of 'words to watch.' This suggests that NPOV tagging and discussion does improve content, but has less success enculturating editors to the site's linguistic norms. Social media sites are often guided by a core group of committed users engaged in various forms of governance. A crucial aspect of this type of governance is deliberation, in which such a group reaches decisions on issues of importance to the site. Despite its crucial — though subtle — role in how a number of prominent social media sites function, there has been relatively little investigation of the deliberative aspects of social media governance. Here we explore this issue, investigating a particular deliberative process that is extensive, public, and recorded: the promotion of Wikipedia admins, which is determined by elections that engage committed members of the Wikipedia community. We find that the group decision-making at the heart of this process exhibits several fundamental forms of relative assessment. First we observe that the chance that a voter will support a candidate is strongly dependent on the relationship between characteristics of the voter and the candidate. Second we investigate how both individual voter decisions and overall election outcomes can be based on models that take into account the sequential, public nature of the voting. Vibrant online communities are in constant flux. As members join and depart, the interactional norms evolve, stimulating further changes to the membership and its social dynamics. Linguistic change --- in the sense of innovation that becomes accepted as the norm --- is essential to this dynamic process: it both facilitates individual expression and fosters the emergence of a collective identity. We propose a framework for tracking linguistic change as it happens and for understanding how specific users react to these evolving norms. By applying this framework to two large online communities we show that users follow a determined two-stage lifecycle with respect to their susceptibility to linguistic change: a linguistically innovative learning phase in which users adopt the language of the community followed by a conservative phase in which users stop changing and the evolving community norms pass them by. Building on this observation, we show how this framework can be used to detect, early in a user's career, how long she will stay active in the community. Thus, this work has practical significance for those who design and maintain online communities. It also yields new theoretical insights into the evolution of linguistic norms and the complex interplay between community-level and individual-level linguistic change.