Observing a Discussion List

World War 1-- The History Channel

For this review I selected a discussion list associated with the popular history-oriented cable television channel, assuming it would be used by, or at least intended for, approximately the same audience. I sampled the discussion logs going back a little over one year, and reviewed the “terms of service” that participants were expected to adhere to. I also sampled the limited self-descriptive information listmembers provide.

This list appears to be organized primarily, if not entirely, around “enthusiasts.” Some participants appear to be--or self-identify as--educators or writers, but I have not identified any professional academic historians. The list is moderated in the sense that participants are requested to adhere to a set of community standards, and that posts judged unsuitable can and will be removed by the list operators. Overall the list is on-topic, civil and frequently evidences a solid familiarity with both popular and academic literature as well as a broad range of interests (except, for some reason, naval). The amount of personal information members volunteer is very limited and there appears to be no evidence of any interaction outside this list.

In sampling various topic “threads” to review the quantity and “ebb and flow” of the discussions, I note that overly broad questions that require lengthy analytical exposition to answer adequately at all, and/or would involve longstanding controversies of interpretation, tend not to generate much substantive discussion. It may also be that these topics have been covered before in the year (evidently true in some cases) or that the regular listmembers do not particularly wish to write basic historiographic essays every time some otherwise unknown visitor asks “what was the cause of the war?” or similar. However, more narrowly framed questions inviting analytical discussion, such as how and why was the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismantled, are very likely to generate substantive discussion.

Books are frequently if usually rather briefly discussed, usually in terms of either recommendations or queries about listmembers’ opinions or experience in locating. Books are a more frequent topic than websites or other media, and the conversations suggest a wide familiarity with the relevant literature on the part of the more frequent posters at least. Much of the remainder is short discussions of specific topics such as individuals, events, weapons or tactics.

This “book-oriented” character of the list is also evident from time to time in responses to the “crayola” questions--a ridiculously broad question, often featuring woeful spelling and grammar, or clearly someone hoping the listmembers will provide the answers to a school research project. While some of these queries are ignored or occasionally receive a mocking reply, the replies to most are divided between somewhat brusque suggestions to try something called a library and short helpful essays giving the originator some basic guidance and pointers to useful reading--probably more of the latter. I briefly compared this list to another, “popular” list on the same topic on another website, and noted a slightly lesser volume but more emphasis on books on the History Channel list even though some of the same members appeared on both.

Turning to the community of listmembers itself, there seems to be a core of frequently recurring posters--roughly 20 I thought--that are both knowledgeable and tend to sometimes address one another. There is also a much larger element that seems to post a few times over the course of a year. The content of their questions and replies does not really seem inferior in knowledge to that of the “core” element, but perhaps they are too narrowly specialized, too uncertain about jumping into the conversation, or simply have too little time to do much more than monitor a discussion list that interests them. Finally, there is some unknown element of “lurkers” that only listen. It seems unsurprising that there is little demographic analysis of such public discussion lists despite their wide availability as so little can be ascertained statistically beyond frequency of posting, and attempts to collect or require more might run into privacy concerns. This might be contrasted with academic lists such as the H-Net series, where members are “vetted” and discussions actively moderated.

To conclude, these member dynamics overall correspond to “real” clubs and organizations which typically have a leadership core and a considerably larger group of participants and supporters. The presence of a moderator, even if very “light,” has a significant impact on the community development similar to how face-to-face interaction tends to enforce social norms of behavior and expression. The contrast in character and content to truly unmoderated lists is noticeable. Is this virtual community a real community? I believe so. The breadth of interaction available in a “real” community is traded off for broader opportunities for participation. Yet the basic dynamics of sustaining interest and interaction remain similar and the existence of a moderator actually contributes to maintaining its similarity to a traditional community.