Anonymity and online communities: personal identification matters
Anonymity: Ferrets in the Coop
Anonymity is a double-edged sword when it comes to networking communities. On the one hand, anonymity gives users a sense of greater freedom, encouraging participation in discussions on sensitive or inconvenient topics, on the other hand, it can also become the worst enemy of the community.
Anonymity allows users to hide behind their computers while they write whatever they want. Psychologists know that network communication is much more relaxed than face-to-face communication ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). Add this looseness to anonymity - get a recipe for a potential disaster.
Some sites have invented amazing varieties of permitted anonymity, however, they also suggest filtering out the inevitable manifestations of bad behavior. Slashdot, one of the oldest "technological" blogs, practices the use of a well-thought-out moderation system, which allows registered users to vote on the quality of comments on articles. Thus, even if the user decides to leave an anonymous (for some reason) comment, this comment may well be deemed sufficiently suitable to be read by other people.
')
The use of a pseudonym — a form of anonymity that hides a person behind his online incarnation by means of a username — is a common practice on the Web. Internet users have many different names that they call themselves on the Web, which gives them the opportunity to manifest various aspects of their personality, interests, or hobbies. In addition, the use of pseudonyms is also a key aspect of user systems (membership systems), as it allows community members to learn to identify favorite or unloved colleagues in the community, basing their opinions on the behavior and personality of the latter. Pseudonymic systems (pseudononymous systems) balance the human need to hide themselves on the Web, while at the same time allowing people to build a reputation tied to their usernames. Such systems have already shown suitability for work in online communities.
People build a reputation, and as soon as it acquires a clear outline, they want to protect it. It is unlikely that community members who have invested something in its development will go to break their reputations by inappropriate or bad behavior.
Freedom to the masses
Let's look at Wikipedia as an example. Until recently, it was almost completely open, does not require registration system. Wikipedia does not have a built-in formal checking and balancing system capable of separating accurate information from false and incorrect. This is the greatest strength, and one of the weakest points. The system relies entirely on visitors acting as checkers and editors. It is accepted to think that Wikipedia provides a kind of trustworthy, reliable information comparable to that available from other sources (see 4 , 5 , 6 ). However, before the existing registration rules were implemented, anyone could - and did - add any kind of information, of any quality, without any fear of the consequences of antisocial behavior. Since Wikipedia was not interested in who its users are, it had very limited and cumbersome tools for fixing problems in the community (for example, a complete ban on editing an article by anyone at all).
Community member versus Visitor
By building relationships with users, you expect to receive from them valuable, useful information and adequate behavior. They invest in the service precisely because they are its users. And community membership gives certain privileges (as American Express has promoted for decades). If the difference between a community member and a simple visitor is small (for example, both can do about the same thing with the site), then most users have little motivation to become a member of the community ("registered user", in the network language).
Wikipedia’s recent reaction to the fact that members of the US Congress made significant changes to their biographies (and biographies of their opponents, by the way), is a case in point. The only answer was to block IP addresses (IP addresses identify specific computers that are connected to the Internet at any time). The Wikipedia manual knew nothing about the majority of its users, practically had no means of sharing access control to the most valuable information. Therefore, all IP addresses were blocked at once, including those related to innocent users. Users who did not violate the order established in Wikipedia, were also blocked for any attempts to access the site from computers geographically located in the same building. Subsequently, the lock was removed.
Community participation, old school
The old-fashioned Network has provided us with very clear membership systems. The most common three-tier:
Your system may have other levels (registered users, paid users, etc.), but the one above is the most common. A registered user - one who did something more than a regular visitor to confirm his human nature - entered an email address, clicked on a verification link, or the like.
Community participation as a filter
If registering in communities would cause serious troubles, then no one would have bought anything from Amazon.com or eBay and would not have joined their online community. People happily and readily go through the registration procedure, if they clearly know what exactly it will give them - the opportunity to buy a product, write in the forum, etc. Registration should not be difficult, and people will gladly pass it if they are properly motivated.
If registration benefits are not obvious (as is the case with Wikipedia), most users will ignore it. Wikipedia was able to quickly build a huge information base because was deprived of an invisible psychological barrier in the form of a registration procedure, which opens up the possibility to edit and add new articles. A huge amount, unknown quality. However, this approach does not apply to everything on the Web.
True truth - you can’t know about users beyond what they themselves wish to tell you - a “one-off” email address, a pseudonym, etc. But this is not the quality of registration information - it is a process in itself. Encouraging users to fill in registration information (which requires some effort on their part), the process filters out some of the potential bullies from interested users. In addition, such registration conveys to the user the perceived value of the benefits of membership in your community (even if these benefits lie only in the ability to write in the community or read and comment on articles). Registration can not completely save the community from problems, but it is able to create a small but important psychological barrier that will cause many potential hooligans to leave.
6 steps to strengthen the community
Results
User systems are not a panacea, they cannot stop a person who is thinking of harming your site. Nevertheless, they represent an important means for the community to connect with a real person, and a person with his actions. The registration process works as a kind of restrictor of the emancipation that people often feel on the Web, and creates subtle, but important psychological differences between an anonymous visitor and a well-known representative of the community. A person who contributes to the community through the user system is one of the least expected sources of problems for the community.
Reference material
Anonymity is a double-edged sword when it comes to networking communities. On the one hand, anonymity gives users a sense of greater freedom, encouraging participation in discussions on sensitive or inconvenient topics, on the other hand, it can also become the worst enemy of the community.
Anonymity allows users to hide behind their computers while they write whatever they want. Psychologists know that network communication is much more relaxed than face-to-face communication ( 1 , 2 , 3 ). Add this looseness to anonymity - get a recipe for a potential disaster.
Some sites have invented amazing varieties of permitted anonymity, however, they also suggest filtering out the inevitable manifestations of bad behavior. Slashdot, one of the oldest "technological" blogs, practices the use of a well-thought-out moderation system, which allows registered users to vote on the quality of comments on articles. Thus, even if the user decides to leave an anonymous (for some reason) comment, this comment may well be deemed sufficiently suitable to be read by other people.
')
The use of a pseudonym — a form of anonymity that hides a person behind his online incarnation by means of a username — is a common practice on the Web. Internet users have many different names that they call themselves on the Web, which gives them the opportunity to manifest various aspects of their personality, interests, or hobbies. In addition, the use of pseudonyms is also a key aspect of user systems (membership systems), as it allows community members to learn to identify favorite or unloved colleagues in the community, basing their opinions on the behavior and personality of the latter. Pseudonymic systems (pseudononymous systems) balance the human need to hide themselves on the Web, while at the same time allowing people to build a reputation tied to their usernames. Such systems have already shown suitability for work in online communities.
People build a reputation, and as soon as it acquires a clear outline, they want to protect it. It is unlikely that community members who have invested something in its development will go to break their reputations by inappropriate or bad behavior.
Freedom to the masses
Let's look at Wikipedia as an example. Until recently, it was almost completely open, does not require registration system. Wikipedia does not have a built-in formal checking and balancing system capable of separating accurate information from false and incorrect. This is the greatest strength, and one of the weakest points. The system relies entirely on visitors acting as checkers and editors. It is accepted to think that Wikipedia provides a kind of trustworthy, reliable information comparable to that available from other sources (see 4 , 5 , 6 ). However, before the existing registration rules were implemented, anyone could - and did - add any kind of information, of any quality, without any fear of the consequences of antisocial behavior. Since Wikipedia was not interested in who its users are, it had very limited and cumbersome tools for fixing problems in the community (for example, a complete ban on editing an article by anyone at all).
Community member versus Visitor
By building relationships with users, you expect to receive from them valuable, useful information and adequate behavior. They invest in the service precisely because they are its users. And community membership gives certain privileges (as American Express has promoted for decades). If the difference between a community member and a simple visitor is small (for example, both can do about the same thing with the site), then most users have little motivation to become a member of the community ("registered user", in the network language).
Wikipedia’s recent reaction to the fact that members of the US Congress made significant changes to their biographies (and biographies of their opponents, by the way), is a case in point. The only answer was to block IP addresses (IP addresses identify specific computers that are connected to the Internet at any time). The Wikipedia manual knew nothing about the majority of its users, practically had no means of sharing access control to the most valuable information. Therefore, all IP addresses were blocked at once, including those related to innocent users. Users who did not violate the order established in Wikipedia, were also blocked for any attempts to access the site from computers geographically located in the same building. Subsequently, the lock was removed.
Community participation, old school
The old-fashioned Network has provided us with very clear membership systems. The most common three-tier:
- Visitor
- Registered user (“user”, “member”)
- Administrator or Moderator ("privileged user")
Your system may have other levels (registered users, paid users, etc.), but the one above is the most common. A registered user - one who did something more than a regular visitor to confirm his human nature - entered an email address, clicked on a verification link, or the like.
Community participation as a filter
If registering in communities would cause serious troubles, then no one would have bought anything from Amazon.com or eBay and would not have joined their online community. People happily and readily go through the registration procedure, if they clearly know what exactly it will give them - the opportunity to buy a product, write in the forum, etc. Registration should not be difficult, and people will gladly pass it if they are properly motivated.
If registration benefits are not obvious (as is the case with Wikipedia), most users will ignore it. Wikipedia was able to quickly build a huge information base because was deprived of an invisible psychological barrier in the form of a registration procedure, which opens up the possibility to edit and add new articles. A huge amount, unknown quality. However, this approach does not apply to everything on the Web.
True truth - you can’t know about users beyond what they themselves wish to tell you - a “one-off” email address, a pseudonym, etc. But this is not the quality of registration information - it is a process in itself. Encouraging users to fill in registration information (which requires some effort on their part), the process filters out some of the potential bullies from interested users. In addition, such registration conveys to the user the perceived value of the benefits of membership in your community (even if these benefits lie only in the ability to write in the community or read and comment on articles). Registration can not completely save the community from problems, but it is able to create a small but important psychological barrier that will cause many potential hooligans to leave.
6 steps to strengthen the community
- KNOW YOUR USERS
A community that “knows” its users through a registration profile becomes only stronger. It’s easier to moderate user messages, it’s easier to contact the user (by means other than regular e-mail) to resolve any issues if necessary. In the case when the user starts to deliver troubles, the community, “knowing” its participants, can more flexibly respond to the problem before giving a tough response (for example, ban IP by mask). - SIMPLE REGISTRATION IS NON-ORGANIZED
Some sites do not have a registration system, because their creators see the registration process as a barrier that prevents users from immediately getting satisfaction from interacting with the site. Such sites receive short-term benefits from increased user activity, while at the same time sacrificing the knowledge of these users. Users often do not have problems with registration on the site, if the benefits of it are well understood, and the registration process is simple.
Lack of user knowledge may further complicate decision-making within the community. For example, Wikipedia uses a number of tools (such as blocking IP, and a tool to combat vandals ) to combat the “editorial wars” that flare up between users and sometimes lead to the need to “protect” or even ban some articles from editing . It is impossible to call these solutions elegant, they would not be so necessary if the traditional system of users had been introduced from the very beginning. - SHARE YOUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM
Most users will register if they understand the benefits of registration, and the registration process itself will be simple and straightforward. Please fill in the form with 20 questions instead of 3 will significantly reduce the number of registrations (true for most sites). Ask the user to fill in a short form containing the basic information for the registration record - username, email address, password (and confirmation of the password). If necessary, you can use CAPTCHA . More information will be available after the user has started using your site as a registered user.
Once you have registered a user, you can later ask or request (if you have enough courage) to indicate in the profile more detailed information. Users go to this in the event that they become regular visitors to the site, and want to strengthen and expand their position among other users. Requiring additional information may discourage users. A simple reminder in the form of a private message is usually more efficient. - CHECKING A USER EMAIL OR NO?
Many registration systems involve checking the email address by sending a letter to it containing a link that needs to be followed to confirm the existence of the email address specified by the user. This scheme works for most sites, but it doesn’t suit all commercial sites or online communities. The fact is that this process can guarantee the existence of a verified email address only in a relatively short period of time. If you need to have a reliable way to communicate with your users (for example, because they pay you for some services), then you need to consider the need for this additional method of confirmation.
When implementing a verification system, keep in mind the following considerations. First, some of the addresses very quickly turn out to be invalid. Among users there are those who use “one-time” addresses for registration. Another part of the address becomes obsolete because users are switching to using other email addresses. Someone even scared of registering as soon as he sees that he needs to confirm the email. Finally, some users cannot confirm registration only because the letter with the link is “killed” by spam filters; users who have not received the letter often completely forget that they were trying to register somewhere. - GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR RATING OR REPUTATION
eBay and Amazon understand the importance of reputation systems. Users of eBay determine the reliability of the auction by what reputation has its creator. Reputation can be manipulated, which, however, did not prevent it from becoming the cornerstone of eBay's growth and popularity. Amazon.com's reputation system allows users to rate product reviews left by other users. In addition, there is the ability to evaluate purchases.
In more traditional communities, ratings and reputation systems can take many other forms. The simplest of these is based on the number of messages made by the user. The more messages, the more “weighty” they are. Registration date can also be a measure of the user's “weight”. More complex systems allow users to rate each other, and some systems combine these techniques.
Most people value their ratings and reputation built within the community. This is a kind of investment, something like “accumulative pension provision”. Once users have invested in a reputation, they hardly want to spoil it.
A reputation system is often associated with a role-playing system, so users with a good reputation can be given greater access to opportunities or greater responsibility within the community. Users without reputation (or small) do not have access to the capabilities of the system or service, which encourages them to raise their reputation. - COMMUNICATE WITH USERS
Network communities often have problems when they do not take into account the expectations of community members and speak to them in "clerical" language. You will achieve more by clearly stating the essence on one page of the help section, rather than in a twelve-page user agreement. Users need to understand what they need to do, if trouble happens, and what will be the measures on the part of the administration. Will the warning follow the profanation, or will they immediately turn off for three days? You can achieve location by simply letting users know what you expect from them and what they can expect from you.
Your relationships with community members should be clear, direct and permanent. Since information is power, providing even simple information can be a powerful force in a community. For example, the phraseRecently, our forum has experienced some difficulties, but now everything is in order.
practically nothing will tell the user. It would be better to write this:Yesterday, programming errors were discovered that prevented us from storing the names of users who registered between February 12, 2006 and February 13, 2006. We contacted all interested users, letting them know about the problem, and no further action is required. We have already fixed the problem and apologize for any inconvenience.
Just as users learned to appreciate the power and ease of communication with each other, they still highly value communication and contacts with site owners, their representatives and managers.
Results
User systems are not a panacea, they cannot stop a person who is thinking of harming your site. Nevertheless, they represent an important means for the community to connect with a real person, and a person with his actions. The registration process works as a kind of restrictor of the emancipation that people often feel on the Web, and creates subtle, but important psychological differences between an anonymous visitor and a well-known representative of the community. A person who contributes to the community through the user system is one of the least expected sources of problems for the community.
Reference material
- “Contemporary media forum: The online disinhibition effect,” Suler, John, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, Vol 2 (2), Apr 2005; pp. 184-188.
- “The Online Disinhibition Effect,” Suler, John, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 7 (3), Jun 2004; pp. 321-326.
- “Causes and implications of disinhibited behavior on the Internet,” Joinson, Adam and Jayne Gackenbach, Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications, Academic Press, Inc., 1998. pp. 43-60.
- http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
- http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
- “Wikipedia: Encyclopedia or Not ?,” O'Leary, Mick., Information Today, Sept 2005, Vol. 22 Issue 8; pp 49-53
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30921/
All Articles