Interesting Google TechTalk by Ben Collins-Sussman and Brian Fitzpatrick (from the Subversion team).
Good question. How does Moodle as an open source project survive poisonous people? Over in this recent discussion on Advocacy, a rather poisonous discussion flared up. I am sure everyone could point at each other and say the other was "poisonous", but that is not important. What I learned from it was:
- don't start a discussion with an "I HATE..." list
- respond sincerely and respectfully even if you suspect a possible trolly-conversation (Martin D.)
- give concrete practical suggestions for action (Martin L.)
- respond with light-hearted humor (Paul and his asbestos underpants)
- it is OK to be passionate (Tim)
- take a step back and reflect on the process (Nicholas: "...can't separate the code from the community...")
- and there no need to be defensive about Moodle and its history--warts and all, we are who we are
That's the exact thread that came to mind when I watched the video. 
I haven't listened to the video but did observe the thread you mention.
The aspects Don mentions were generally admirable but I was very uncomfortable with some of the exchanges. If a Moodler tried to start a discussion about the Moodle layout and user interface (in a more polite fashion that was done in that thread) would this topic be welcomed and discussed openly? Maybe this has happened and I have not noticed it but I do remember that a couple of years ago, someone asked for a forum on HCI and that was turned down. Where do people discuss more holistic issues related to Moodle?
The aspects Don mentions were generally admirable but I was very uncomfortable with some of the exchanges. If a Moodler tried to start a discussion about the Moodle layout and user interface (in a more polite fashion that was done in that thread) would this topic be welcomed and discussed openly? Maybe this has happened and I have not noticed it but I do remember that a couple of years ago, someone asked for a forum on HCI and that was turned down. Where do people discuss more holistic issues related to Moodle?
Have a look at this thread.
Notice that Urs didn't come in and say "Everything sucks! You guys need to rewrite it all to conform to my ideas".
Instead, he got involved with the community, learned how the code worked, and made lots of valuable contributions. Only then did he and Andrew create their new theme editing mechanism.
Here's an earlier thread from Urs. He clearly has opinions on how things should be done, but he's also showing that he's interested in collecting everyone's point of view.
Note that they also did it in a way that meshed well with the existing code. That's not the same as suggesting (or demanding) that an entire million-plus line codebase be rewritten. You'd need mountains of evidence, persuasive interpersonal skills, a thick skin, and the dedication to spend a lot of time (months, maybe years) arguing your case in a logical manner to pull that one off.
And yeah, one or two of the attacks on the poster were completely unwarranted. I hope that no one sees my contributions to the thread as such.
Notice that Urs didn't come in and say "Everything sucks! You guys need to rewrite it all to conform to my ideas".
Instead, he got involved with the community, learned how the code worked, and made lots of valuable contributions. Only then did he and Andrew create their new theme editing mechanism.
Here's an earlier thread from Urs. He clearly has opinions on how things should be done, but he's also showing that he's interested in collecting everyone's point of view.
Note that they also did it in a way that meshed well with the existing code. That's not the same as suggesting (or demanding) that an entire million-plus line codebase be rewritten. You'd need mountains of evidence, persuasive interpersonal skills, a thick skin, and the dedication to spend a lot of time (months, maybe years) arguing your case in a logical manner to pull that one off.
And yeah, one or two of the attacks on the poster were completely unwarranted. I hope that no one sees my contributions to the thread as such.
Thanks Tony and A.T. we can (nearly) always rely on Moodlers to answer our questions 
(and I didn't think you were poisonous Tony)
We should all be grateful to Urs Hunkler for that Chameleon theme.
Tony you said
"Instead, he got involved with the community, learned how the code worked, and made lots of valuable contributions".
That got me thinking. Obviously the coders in Moodle are the key contributors but one of the things that excites me about Moodle.org is the contribution of non-coders who can help by supplying requirements, and giving user support. I wonder if the contribution of requirements is easier for functional rather than non-functional requirements. Maybe NFR are a little more emotive. what do others think about this?
We should all be grateful to Urs Hunkler for that Chameleon theme.
Tony you said
"Instead, he got involved with the community, learned how the code worked, and made lots of valuable contributions".
That got me thinking. Obviously the coders in Moodle are the key contributors but one of the things that excites me about Moodle.org is the contribution of non-coders who can help by supplying requirements, and giving user support. I wonder if the contribution of requirements is easier for functional rather than non-functional requirements. Maybe NFR are a little more emotive. what do others think about this?
Exactly! What I was irritated by in the posters' remarks was his remark that, AS A PROGRAMMER, he hates Moodle. It is the non-coders, the users, whose opinion is most important. Sure it is important that the programmers can fiddle with Moodle easily, but ultimately their opinion is the least important of all, in my opinion.
As a programmer (albeit not one who's a member of the hard-core Moodle development team) what irritated me was his implication that Martin and team were a bunch of amateurs because they weren't using his pet software development methodology --not that there's anything wrong with MVC; I'm rather fond of it myself -- but there's some world-class programming talent at work on Moodle.
Besides meeting the needs of the users (which, as you mention, is the most important thing), Moodle has done an admirable job of creating a system that a) can be installed and maintained by folks with no special programming or system administration expertise b) will run on practically any old spare box you have hanging around, or on a cheap web hosting account and c) is written in such a style that even non-programmers have a fair chance of making a minor tweak without destroying their system.
And with all that == still produce a system that runs rings around the competition in terms of flexibility, expandability, stability, and (getting back to users again) usability. It's a wonderful thing to see our professors (even the ones who aren't tech-oriented) diving right in and taking charge of their own courses design and modifications.
This is an incredible balancing act. Call up Blackboard or Desire2Learn and ask them if you can run a server on an old iMac or a $10/month shared web hosting account. Ask someone who runs WebCT how long it takes before a techophobic instructor is comfortable modifying his or her own course.
Besides meeting the needs of the users (which, as you mention, is the most important thing), Moodle has done an admirable job of creating a system that a) can be installed and maintained by folks with no special programming or system administration expertise b) will run on practically any old spare box you have hanging around, or on a cheap web hosting account and c) is written in such a style that even non-programmers have a fair chance of making a minor tweak without destroying their system.
And with all that == still produce a system that runs rings around the competition in terms of flexibility, expandability, stability, and (getting back to users again) usability. It's a wonderful thing to see our professors (even the ones who aren't tech-oriented) diving right in and taking charge of their own courses design and modifications.
This is an incredible balancing act. Call up Blackboard or Desire2Learn and ask them if you can run a server on an old iMac or a $10/month shared web hosting account. Ask someone who runs WebCT how long it takes before a techophobic instructor is comfortable modifying his or her own course.
"The aspects Don mentions were generally admirable but I was very uncomfortable with some of the exchanges."
Yes, I agree, Frances. I was also uncomfortable, not at the easy-to-bruise ego of Sean, but rather at the reactionary mood of moodle defenders. Let's lighten up, not take ourselves so seriously and listen to criticisms even if delivered in rough language.
Yes, I agree, Frances. I was also uncomfortable, not at the easy-to-bruise ego of Sean, but rather at the reactionary mood of moodle defenders. Let's lighten up, not take ourselves so seriously and listen to criticisms even if delivered in rough language.
Yes, I think it went beyond individuals saying things they or others may regret (we all do that!) but that there was a sort of group behaviour, a pack effect , that it something to be resisted IMHO.
Unfortunately this type of pack behavior also seems to be part of human nature, even in environments where the participants would like to think they're above such things (note: I haven't actually read this book, so don't take this as an endorsement of its content. I think it's probably fair to say that the authors believe that this is a serious problem).
So why do people do this? We want to defend our friends and culture from outsiders who attack them. One could give a variety of reasons for this, ranging from moral/ethical/religious (it's morally correct to defend your friends and society from attack) to quasi-evolutionary (cultures which don't defend against outsiders don't survive as long as those which do). Regardless of what motivation one ascribes, people (and many other animals) have a tendency toward this type of behavior. It's just the way we are.
I don't think a spirited defense against a destructive outsider is necessarily bad, myself -- but we need to be careful that it doesn't cross the line to blind chauvinism, and refuse to consider any outside ideas that don't conform to the prevailing orthodoxy.
So why do people do this? We want to defend our friends and culture from outsiders who attack them. One could give a variety of reasons for this, ranging from moral/ethical/religious (it's morally correct to defend your friends and society from attack) to quasi-evolutionary (cultures which don't defend against outsiders don't survive as long as those which do). Regardless of what motivation one ascribes, people (and many other animals) have a tendency toward this type of behavior. It's just the way we are.
I don't think a spirited defense against a destructive outsider is necessarily bad, myself -- but we need to be careful that it doesn't cross the line to blind chauvinism, and refuse to consider any outside ideas that don't conform to the prevailing orthodoxy.
Fascinating views.
At first glance, the term "mobbing" and the "pack mentality" associations seem to be quite pejorative.
In that "Advocacy" thread, there was an embedded accusation of "cult-like behaviour" by some people and, interestingly, an alternative interpretation of this "unified protection against a mutual aggressor" as an element of community-building. I think the latter is more insightful than the former. I'm obviously biased as a Moodle enthusiast but what's funny is that this type of community-building is exactly what makes me so enthusiastic about Moodle (as opposed to purely technical dimensions of the project, which the thread was focused on).
Not sure I'd really call this type of group behaviour "human nature" (as a culturalist) but it's clearly an important social phenomenon (which clearly has equivalents in the rest of the animal kingdom).
One thing I keep teaching is that group identity has two basic dimensions: sense of belonging (we-ness, "who are we?") and distinction/difference/opposition (otherness, who are our others). Many groups form through conflict. One could even say that the Moodle community is unified "against" the commercial LMS, especially those owned by Balkbored Incorporated. Doesn't need to be confrontational, but there's a notion of working "our own way."
Actually, in work environments, bad leaders often create this sense of cohesion among coworkers. The "we're all on the same boat" thing. I don't know that textbooks in HR would advise rude management as a way to get people together, but there's something to be said about "united and divide to conquer."
At first glance, the term "mobbing" and the "pack mentality" associations seem to be quite pejorative.
In that "Advocacy" thread, there was an embedded accusation of "cult-like behaviour" by some people and, interestingly, an alternative interpretation of this "unified protection against a mutual aggressor" as an element of community-building. I think the latter is more insightful than the former. I'm obviously biased as a Moodle enthusiast but what's funny is that this type of community-building is exactly what makes me so enthusiastic about Moodle (as opposed to purely technical dimensions of the project, which the thread was focused on).
Not sure I'd really call this type of group behaviour "human nature" (as a culturalist) but it's clearly an important social phenomenon (which clearly has equivalents in the rest of the animal kingdom).
One thing I keep teaching is that group identity has two basic dimensions: sense of belonging (we-ness, "who are we?") and distinction/difference/opposition (otherness, who are our others). Many groups form through conflict. One could even say that the Moodle community is unified "against" the commercial LMS, especially those owned by Balkbored Incorporated. Doesn't need to be confrontational, but there's a notion of working "our own way."
Actually, in work environments, bad leaders often create this sense of cohesion among coworkers. The "we're all on the same boat" thing. I don't know that textbooks in HR would advise rude management as a way to get people together, but there's something to be said about "united and divide to conquer."
Actually, in work environments, bad leaders often create this sense of cohesion among coworkers. The "we're all on the same boat" thing. I don't know that textbooks in HR would advise rude management as a way to get people together,
I understand that part of the reason why Sergeants and Corporals treat Army recruits so badly on basic training is to foster a sense of cohesion and teamwork amongst the men. Nothing unites people like a common enemy, so they give them a common enemy in the form of their NCO's.
a way to get people together,
As in "lets all go somewhere else".
In reply to Alexandre Enkerli
Re: How open source projects survive poisonous people
by Frances Bell -
Moodle may be open source but Moodle.org members are not all non-commercial. There are many businesses selling courses delivered through Moodle, and Moodle partners and others make money through hosting, consultancy and training services.
Tony,
I haven't read the book either, but as an academic I know that there is nothing quite so vicious as an academic culture
What I am curious about is what we can and can't talk about in Moodle. The Lounge sprang from quite a disagreement on this very subject.
I haven't read the book either, but as an academic I know that there is nothing quite so vicious as an academic culture
What I am curious about is what we can and can't talk about in Moodle. The Lounge sprang from quite a disagreement on this very subject.
Frances wrote:
"What I am curious about is what we can and can't talk about in Moodle."
Me too. Actually, in building a culture (a community culture, company culture, national culture, etc.) we do not explicitly say rules, they just evolve. I think that is OK and allows fuzzy room for diversity, so I contradict myself by listing some things here that I observed about how our communication norms and boundaries are developing.
Can Talk About
"What I am curious about is what we can and can't talk about in Moodle."
Me too. Actually, in building a culture (a community culture, company culture, national culture, etc.) we do not explicitly say rules, they just evolve. I think that is OK and allows fuzzy room for diversity, so I contradict myself by listing some things here that I observed about how our communication norms and boundaries are developing.
Can Talk About
- anything concerning education
- anything concerning software development
- anything in English
- anything funny, polite, respectful
- anything disrespectful toward dominating software powers
- my hobbies, plans, dreams (on this social forum)
- jokes that don't demean a group (except dominating software powers)
- academic debate
- anything not in English (except for occasional phrases, it is better to go to a language-specific Moodle community)
- political advocacy (occasional sarcastic remarks towards dominating powers no problem)
- flaming, rude comments, swearing, prejudiced comments (a bit hard to define these)
- dating, match-making, off-color (sexual) references
- advertising (except Moodle donations & partners), self-promotion, conducting business
- religious advocacy
- anonymous postings (allowed, but generally people are respected when they show their real name and disclose their background in their profile)
In reply to Don Hinkelman
Re: How open source projects survive poisonous people
by Alexandre Enkerli -
Nice list, Don!
Again, excellent sense of synthesis. And the humour isn't misplaced at all.
About language, as a French-speaker, it seems to me to be par for the course, in many online communities. Although, several groups of French/English bilinguals are doing cool work (e.g. ilesansfil.org doing some of NYC's coolest free WiFi infrastructure). But, overall, the main occasions I get to write in French are either when the topic is directly related to the French language (i.e., localisation) or when there's a "poor relative" subcommunity for French-speakers. I could participate in Quebec's mainstream Internet sites (many of which are media-related) but it seems less relevant in my case.
BTW, just so I don't misrepresent myself... My warm and fuzzy feelings about the Moodle community aren't about the breadth of such tacit rules of communication but about a specific kind of intellectual graciousness.
Negroponte saying that it would be silly to say anything critical about the OLPC project because it has a humanitarian dimension seems quite awkward from an academic point of view. That spirit is kind of common in FLOSS, IMHO. Moodle isn't that different but, at least, people are able to put themselves in someone else's shoes instead of perceiving difference as an inherent problem.
With very few exceptions, I've enjoyed the conversations I've had here on Moodle. Interestingly enough, as opposed to many other online groups I've participated in, very few conversations have happened in private. Maybe something to do with Moodle's messaging system or with the "access to information" attitude of many Moodlers.
Again, excellent sense of synthesis. And the humour isn't misplaced at all.
About language, as a French-speaker, it seems to me to be par for the course, in many online communities. Although, several groups of French/English bilinguals are doing cool work (e.g. ilesansfil.org doing some of NYC's coolest free WiFi infrastructure). But, overall, the main occasions I get to write in French are either when the topic is directly related to the French language (i.e., localisation) or when there's a "poor relative" subcommunity for French-speakers. I could participate in Quebec's mainstream Internet sites (many of which are media-related) but it seems less relevant in my case.
BTW, just so I don't misrepresent myself... My warm and fuzzy feelings about the Moodle community aren't about the breadth of such tacit rules of communication but about a specific kind of intellectual graciousness.
Negroponte saying that it would be silly to say anything critical about the OLPC project because it has a humanitarian dimension seems quite awkward from an academic point of view. That spirit is kind of common in FLOSS, IMHO. Moodle isn't that different but, at least, people are able to put themselves in someone else's shoes instead of perceiving difference as an inherent problem.
With very few exceptions, I've enjoyed the conversations I've had here on Moodle. Interestingly enough, as opposed to many other online groups I've participated in, very few conversations have happened in private. Maybe something to do with Moodle's messaging system or with the "access to information" attitude of many Moodlers.
Good summary Don, as long as it remains a personal snapshot and not group rules 
You wrote "advertising (except Moodle donations & partners), self-promotion, conducting business"
That is an interesting one, that has been at the heart of some fairly hot exchanges. We talk surprisingly little about the commercial aspects of Moodle (yet obviously very important to the diffusion of Moodle) e.g. becoming a partner, etc. This may be explained by the need for confidentiality but I am surprised how little it is mentioned. I have posted a few questions on this when the subject has come up, but they have remained orphan posts.
Open source business models are not yet fixed, and I would have thought that topic might be of interest within this forum.
For example, the issue of 'free support' that is available here but another model is used in Moodlerooms Moodle Mentor Forums, where this is offered as a subscription service.
You wrote "advertising (except Moodle donations & partners), self-promotion, conducting business"
That is an interesting one, that has been at the heart of some fairly hot exchanges. We talk surprisingly little about the commercial aspects of Moodle (yet obviously very important to the diffusion of Moodle) e.g. becoming a partner, etc. This may be explained by the need for confidentiality but I am surprised how little it is mentioned. I have posted a few questions on this when the subject has come up, but they have remained orphan posts.
Open source business models are not yet fixed, and I would have thought that topic might be of interest within this forum.
For example, the issue of 'free support' that is available here but another model is used in Moodlerooms Moodle Mentor Forums, where this is offered as a subscription service.
"Good summary Don, as long as it remains a personal snapshot and not group rules..."
Actually, yes, we do have group rules, and every group on the planet has rules, though mostly unwritten, constantly evolving and (at moodle.org) rarely consciously enforced or codified. Maybe "rules" is not a good word--better to call them norms, or values, or expectations. It is fascinating to watch how you, I, and all of us make a community. From your observations, what do you think are things we can and can't talk about? Or how about this question, "what are the values we hold in communicating with each other?"
Actually, yes, we do have group rules, and every group on the planet has rules, though mostly unwritten, constantly evolving and (at moodle.org) rarely consciously enforced or codified. Maybe "rules" is not a good word--better to call them norms, or values, or expectations. It is fascinating to watch how you, I, and all of us make a community. From your observations, what do you think are things we can and can't talk about? Or how about this question, "what are the values we hold in communicating with each other?"
Yes - norms exist even when not written down and are observable from behaviours. In my previous posts, I identified some things we don't talk about much (not quite the same as can).
I remember a few discussions that were constructive criticisms of Moodle.
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=41178
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=62708
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=34491
And this one on how to conduct a discussion:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=27837
And this one on the LMS in general:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=33121
Well, my point is this: overall, I think most discussions turn out to be productive. It is very hard to read text only and come up with the exact meaning the writer intended. I know that I have misunderstood people before because of differences in the way we use English or idiomatic expressions. I can at least speak for myself and hereby promise that I will always try to "respond sincerely and respectfully even if [I] suspect a possible trolly-conversation." And I will try to remember this is NOT ABOUT ME! I find it easier (though never easy) to avoid defensiveness when I can separate myself and the subject under discussion. That said, my hair is frequently on fire and I think I need a pair of Marcus' asbestos underpants!
atw
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=41178
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=62708
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=34491
And this one on how to conduct a discussion:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=27837
And this one on the LMS in general:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=33121
Well, my point is this: overall, I think most discussions turn out to be productive. It is very hard to read text only and come up with the exact meaning the writer intended. I know that I have misunderstood people before because of differences in the way we use English or idiomatic expressions. I can at least speak for myself and hereby promise that I will always try to "respond sincerely and respectfully even if [I] suspect a possible trolly-conversation." And I will try to remember this is NOT ABOUT ME! I find it easier (though never easy) to avoid defensiveness when I can separate myself and the subject under discussion. That said, my hair is frequently on fire and I think I need a pair of Marcus' asbestos underpants!
atw
I don't know A.T. Even if that post of Warmac's was perceived to be constructive criticism, I doubt it was intended as such judging by all the other nasty stuff he used to write.
Ah, you are quite right! But I was really referring to the responses Warmac got from other Moodlers, not the provocation. It turned out to be a discussion that did acknowledge that some things might be improved about Moodle and it also acknowledged that some people didn't think those things needed to be improved! So it was an interesting, and (to me), fairly constructive conversation.
atw
atw
In reply to Don Hinkelman
Re: How open source projects survive poisonous people
by Alexandre Enkerli -
Don,
This is a wonderful summary. I did read the first line before I browsed the infamous thread, but your sense of synthesis is quite remarkable.
Or maybe I'm just easily impressed by synthesis.
As a non-coder and something of a relative outsider to the Moodle development community, I must say that I notice the opposite of what some accusations in that thread imply. I have found people to be open not only to suggestions but even to brainstorming and "throwing ideas out." Have observed several FLOSS projects (again, as a non-coder) and I must say that I find this type of openness rather rare.
Not that other projects aren't good. It's just that other projects are often dominated by what I tend to call the "engineer troubleshooting mentality" and that Sean himself associated with being a programmer. Nothing wrong with that, especially when the project really is about solving a problem. But, as an artist and humanist, I tend to see this no-nonsense approach to be a bit too inflexible when it comes to community-building.
A few weeks ago, I blogged about flamewars from the perspective of linguistic anthropology. My main point was that flamewars start because people have a hard time getting back from breaks in communication, even though such breaks are almost the norm. Though it sounds like a stereotype, I do think that engineer-type people are, on average, somewhat less likely to fully grok the full range of effects in a break in communication. In Sean's case, I think he didn't fully measure the impact of his initial post until it was too late (Martin's response was unbelievably kind and thoughtful, I thought). Worse yet, when he tried getting back on his feet, he tried to find fault somewhere specific.
What does it have to do with Moodle? Well, because of what (in my mind) is an interesting level of "professional diversity" in the Moodle community (from "engineer-types" to "artist-types," in my view), there seems to be less of these "all out flame wars" among Moodlers than in many other online contexts. No, I don't in fact have data to back up this claim. It's an impression I get. Yes, I do get all warm and fuzzy inside when I think of actual communities. Don't blame me: I'm an anthropologist!
As it turns out, I wrote my post about flamewars after angering someone who may be known by some people around here. I felt quite bad, especially since my intentions were very positive and I really truly respect that person.
This is a wonderful summary. I did read the first line before I browsed the infamous thread, but your sense of synthesis is quite remarkable.
Or maybe I'm just easily impressed by synthesis.
As a non-coder and something of a relative outsider to the Moodle development community, I must say that I notice the opposite of what some accusations in that thread imply. I have found people to be open not only to suggestions but even to brainstorming and "throwing ideas out." Have observed several FLOSS projects (again, as a non-coder) and I must say that I find this type of openness rather rare.
Not that other projects aren't good. It's just that other projects are often dominated by what I tend to call the "engineer troubleshooting mentality" and that Sean himself associated with being a programmer. Nothing wrong with that, especially when the project really is about solving a problem. But, as an artist and humanist, I tend to see this no-nonsense approach to be a bit too inflexible when it comes to community-building.
A few weeks ago, I blogged about flamewars from the perspective of linguistic anthropology. My main point was that flamewars start because people have a hard time getting back from breaks in communication, even though such breaks are almost the norm. Though it sounds like a stereotype, I do think that engineer-type people are, on average, somewhat less likely to fully grok the full range of effects in a break in communication. In Sean's case, I think he didn't fully measure the impact of his initial post until it was too late (Martin's response was unbelievably kind and thoughtful, I thought). Worse yet, when he tried getting back on his feet, he tried to find fault somewhere specific.
What does it have to do with Moodle? Well, because of what (in my mind) is an interesting level of "professional diversity" in the Moodle community (from "engineer-types" to "artist-types," in my view), there seems to be less of these "all out flame wars" among Moodlers than in many other online contexts. No, I don't in fact have data to back up this claim. It's an impression I get. Yes, I do get all warm and fuzzy inside when I think of actual communities. Don't blame me: I'm an anthropologist!
As it turns out, I wrote my post about flamewars after angering someone who may be known by some people around here. I felt quite bad, especially since my intentions were very positive and I really truly respect that person.
Well, because of what (in my mind) is an interesting level of "professional diversity" in the Moodle community (from "engineer-types" to "artist-types," in my view), there seems to be less of these "all out flame wars" among Moodlers than in many other online contexts.
I have a hunch (and I also have no real data to back this up) that, besides the reasons you give, part of it can be attributed to most of us using real (or at least real-sounding) names and pictures. There's some research that indicates that personalized avatars encourage what we might call "kind" or "ethical" on-line behavior. There's a lower psychological barrier against flaming a bunch of text than the same text with a person's face attached.
Anonymity, on the other hand, facilitates deviant behavior (that much, at least, seems to have some persuasive evidence behind it, in a wide variety of social settings).
I have a hunch (and I also have no real data to back this up) that, besides the reasons you give, part of it can be attributed to most of us using real (or at least real-sounding) names and pictures. There's some research that indicates that personalized avatars encourage what we might call "kind" or "ethical" on-line behavior. There's a lower psychological barrier against flaming a bunch of text than the same text with a person's face attached.
Anonymity, on the other hand, facilitates deviant behavior (that much, at least, seems to have some persuasive evidence behind it, in a wide variety of social settings).
Excellent point!
(And unless your paper for Saturday is about online groups, you're procrastinating as much as I do!)
Of course, the avatar is just one part of the lesser degree of anonymity given to Moodle forums. In my courses, very few students use avatars but they're probably well-aware that much of what they do isn't anonymous at all. For one thing, they don't have nicknames and their profiles are available to all. They also know that the teacher has access to quite a bit of data about them and could "punish" bad behaviour.
Another thing which seems to help, IMHO, is the use of smilies. Not just because it replaces some non-verbal cues. But because it decreases the degree of formality in most posts and thereby helps increase the notion that those conversations are "personal" in different ways.
Interestingly, some people whose primary experiences in online communication comes from non-community-like contexts tend to dislike those characteristics I'm describing. For instance, a fellow homebrewer who's also a biochemist has been "getting on my case" because I use smilies and acronyms in our brewclub mailing-list. I understand his point but I sincerely think that smilies help us bond and I also think that bonding (not bondage!) is important in such a context as an informal group of homebrewers. And a newcomer to a long-standing French-speaking mailing-list recently defended his use of a nickname as his "right" (coming from flame-happy MSN Groups). A bit similar to our friend Sean, over there, this person introduced himself by setting a series of conditions to his participation in the group. Judging from his later reactions to messages on that list, he probably thought that we were demanding a lot from him when we insisted that everybody on the list is known by her or his real name (even though some people also use a nickname).
Brings back the point about the appearance of "mob mentality" but has mostly to do with tacit group-specific rules.
(Ok, ok, back to grading...
)
(And unless your paper for Saturday is about online groups, you're procrastinating as much as I do!
)Of course, the avatar is just one part of the lesser degree of anonymity given to Moodle forums. In my courses, very few students use avatars but they're probably well-aware that much of what they do isn't anonymous at all. For one thing, they don't have nicknames and their profiles are available to all. They also know that the teacher has access to quite a bit of data about them and could "punish" bad behaviour.
Another thing which seems to help, IMHO, is the use of smilies. Not just because it replaces some non-verbal cues. But because it decreases the degree of formality in most posts and thereby helps increase the notion that those conversations are "personal" in different ways.
Interestingly, some people whose primary experiences in online communication comes from non-community-like contexts tend to dislike those characteristics I'm describing. For instance, a fellow homebrewer who's also a biochemist has been "getting on my case" because I use smilies and acronyms in our brewclub mailing-list. I understand his point but I sincerely think that smilies help us bond and I also think that bonding (not bondage!) is important in such a context as an informal group of homebrewers. And a newcomer to a long-standing French-speaking mailing-list recently defended his use of a nickname as his "right" (coming from flame-happy MSN Groups). A bit similar to our friend Sean, over there, this person introduced himself by setting a series of conditions to his participation in the group. Judging from his later reactions to messages on that list, he probably thought that we were demanding a lot from him when we insisted that everybody on the list is known by her or his real name (even though some people also use a nickname).
Brings back the point about the appearance of "mob mentality" but has mostly to do with tacit group-specific rules.
(Ok, ok, back to grading...
)I have a hunch (and I also have no real data to back this up) that, besides the reasons you give, part of it can be attributed to most of us using real (or at least real-sounding) names and pictures. There's some research that indicates that personalized avatars encourage what we might call "kind" or "ethical" on-line behavior. There's a lower psychological barrier against flaming a bunch of text than the same text with a person's face attached.
That's precisely why I find the proposed "role-playing" module for Moodle to be dangerous unless the real identities of the role players are always known.