The site WillYouJoinUs.com does a good job of striking a balance: Inviting people to discuss energy-related issues — while specifying topics and moderating comments to keep the discourse at a level appropriate for serious contributors. The community, sponsored by the energy giant Chevron, addresses one topic at a time, continuing each discussion for several months. A panel of experts jump-starts these discussions and writes concluding remarks.
As shown above, a discussion on "Energy Efficiency and Conservation" ran from Sept '08 to June '09; other topics have included global food prices and new energy technologies. WillYouJoinUs specifies a set of community guidelines, including these member obligations: "To participate in the discussion, users must complete a simple registration, sign in, and comply with the following guidelines: Address the specific topic of the discussion. Support your point of view with well-founded arguments and facts. Identify yourself by name, unless doing so will compromise your personal security or livelihood, or that of others. Respect the views of others and consider them carefully before responding with a posting of your own."
Guided conversation is good. I'm always looking for new ways to approach the discussion dilemma. My passion is helping people explain evidence, and an online community is one of the most important places where that happens. By asking contributors to support their statements with well-founded arguments and facts (and by moderating comments), WillYouJoinUs is guiding the conversation and raising the level of discourse.
Some suggestions. What more could WillYouJoinUs be doing? They could structure the expert analysis and community comments even further by setting expectations for how participants make their claims and provide evidence — the way it is now, although users are asked to support their points of view with well-founded arguments and facts, nothing in the design of the site requires them to do that. Instead of the free-form comments currently allowed (see example below), the site could designate a place where people:
- Make summary statements, saying explicitly what actions they advocate (or oppose), and explain what results they expect.
- Identify what type of supporting information they have: Data, examples, observations, or other evidence.
For example. An online community can set expectations for how people make arguments and provide supporting evidence. Take a look at my Tiny Soapbox demo project, designed to guide people’s conversations by following a defined format: Each contribution associates a specific action or occurrence with a particular goal, outcome, or expected result. Backup evidence is required to support each association.
Comments