Jason Kottke points out that the "broken windows" theory of disorder applies just as well to the web as it does in real life. For those of you whow don't get the reference, he links to The Economist:

The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of disorder. In this case an envelope with a EUR5 ($6) note inside (and the note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper, orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the envelope.

How does that apply to the web? Consider any site that allows for discussion/comments. If those comments are moderated, you tend to end up with a relatively polite level of interaction. If not? Well, take yourself back 10 years and consider any of the non-niche usenet groups you participated in - what happened over time? Typically, a troll showed up, and, over time, came to dominate the discussion enough that all the useful conversation fled elsewhere. All that remained was the troll and the people who responded to him.

The same thing happens in comment feeds - I've seen plenty of blogs (mostly political ones) slide downhill as the author allowed the comments to fester into a hate filled swamp. The same thing can happen to any site; politics just attracts a bigger crowd.

This all came to mind via Mathew Ingram's post on the topic. In his new community role at the Globe and Mail, he's taking Jason's admonition to heart, and asking for help with the task. I think it's a great idea. I moderate the blog comments here (and across the Cincom Smalltalk blogs in general) for the same reason.

Technorati Tags: social media, broken windows, moderation