While there are some obvious violations, such as personal attacks and name-calling, you can also have genuine disagreements about ideas that some organizations would consider to be “inappropriate” or at least inappropriate for a public forum such as a blog or social network. That, in itself, would open up some interesting conversations about organizational culture–what is acceptable to discuss and what isn’t?

I do think that in many ways you get what you expect and model. If you lead with a bunch of rules about appropriate behavior, you probably end up stifling a lot of conversation. You also leave the impression that you expect poor behavior, which sends its own messages.

What Karen and Dave said …

It’s been my experience that group process operates essentially the same way online as offline, but there are some subtle and important differences. In facilitation of groups, it has always been a challenge to help / enable less extroverted and assertive participants speak out / up. and of course to have more extroverted and assertive participants pipe down / leave room for others.

As to civility and manners, sometimes in the real world people do not express deeply held or important issues because of the demands of manners or because it can be difficult to be clear, articulate and civil about an issue one is passionate about, whereas the degree-of-remove or detachment that the virtual distance provides emboldens some.

However, as we all get more practiced and fluent about / with interaction online, i suspect that we will see the axioms of what and how a group / community tolerates (and not) come into play more often and more regularly.

However #2 … it is also clear that as a generality there are less effective manners, less self-censoring and restraint and more less-civil verbal behaviour present in our North american society than in the past. And laying that at the feet of ‘culture” generally is not a stretch, conceptually. If you are of a certain age, it only takes a couple of hours of watching television or listening to a radio show (for examples) to realize that things are different today than was the case 20 or 30 years ago.

Of course those differences are evident in how people express themselves online today .. and that is for the better AND for the worse.

Some of the unfortunate aspects: few standards or controls, the opportunity to speak too freely, anonymity and distance as an opening for boorishness, and the rapid dissemination of information and opinion not worth the electrons they consume.

The noted Web 2.0 expert, Vachel Lindsay, saw the importance of the immediate environment:

Factory windows are always broken.
Other windows are let alone.
No one throws through the chapel-window
The bitter, snarling, derisive stone…

There’s nothing so magical about social networks that poor behavior won’t happen. I have to say, based on other kinds of communities I’ve belonged to, that I never assumed that social media would never have to put in any limitations or rules.

Karyn makes a good point: some sort of shared sense of purpose (even if not everyone shares exactly the same sense) is in some ways what makes a community, whether it’s the local Friends Meeting, the Axolotl project team at work, or the participants in the Work Literacy ning site.

(Some of those not diving in immediately ma be intimidated by “the more enthusiastic,” as well.)

As with cable channels and other media, passion gets attention. That can be sincere enthusiasm, but it can also be deliberate provocation. Believe me, I get hyperbole for hyperbole’s sake.

As Robert Frost pointed out once, you can’t play tennis with the net missing if you don’t know the rules of tennis.

By contrast, the comments on this YouTube video degenerated into personal attacks between commenters.

There is of course the issue of anonymity – the main instigator of vitriole was one who used a nom de plume and took the stance of cynical critic from the off. Like you, I have given up reading the comments on YouTube videos, now.

But I wonder if another factor might be the lack of buy-in to a common purpose. For example. I used to belong to a weight loss website, which had discussion forums. There were occasional spats there, but they were mostly due to misunderstandings resulting from the limitations of textual communication. For the most part, the conversations were mutually supportive, positive, encouraging and very we’re-all-in-this-together.

I think there is probably still a lot of cynicism out there towards learning in the workplace. Not everyone is sold on the idea of “let’s do this as well as we possibly can, for the good of us all”. Many people are still standing back with “Oh yeah?” oozing out of every fibre of their beings. I suspect many of the more enthusiastic types are a little intimidated by the eye-rollers, so they hold back.

Just thinking out loud…

NPR I think set the tone – YT and CBC did no work to create a civic society.

I think that anonymity is a key factor – in Sackville you have to behave because you are known. In a big city……

Design I think can deal with this – BUT – once you let the trolls in…