1887
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article analyses the impact of “super-participants” – people who create lots of content, set the agenda, or moderate debates – on everyday online political talk in a non-political online discussion forum – or “third space”. The article finds that there was extensive evidence of super-participation in the forum, and that they did impact the nature of political talk.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
2017-11-30
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Benedictus, Leo
    2016 “Invasion of the troll armies.” The Guardian, November06 2016 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, Cheng , Kui Wu , Venkatesh Srinivasan and Xudong Zhang
    2011 “Battling the Internet Water Army: Detection of Hidden Paid Posters.” Social and Information Networks, 18thNovember 2011 arxiv.org/pdf/1111.4297.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cho, Charles H. , Martin L. Martens , M. Hakkyun Kim and Michelle Rodrigue
    2011 “Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence.” Journal of Business Ethics104: 571–587. doi: 10.1007/s10551‑011‑0950‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0950-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen, Joshua
    1997 “Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.” InDeliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. by James Bohman and William Rehg , 67–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Coleman, Stephen , and Jay G. Blumler
    2009The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511818271
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818271 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crawford, Kate , and Tarleton Gillespie
    2016 “What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint.” New Media & Society18 (3): 410–428. doi: 10.1177/1461444814543163
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543163 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dahlberg, Lincoln
    2001 “Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication7 (1). doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2001.tb00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Edwards, Arthur
    2002 “The Moderator as an Emerging Democratic Intermediary: The Role of the Moderator in Internet Discussions about Public Issues.” Information Polity7 (1): 3–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Graham, Todd , Daniel Jackson and Scott Wright
    2016 “We need to get together and make ourselves heard’: everyday online spaces as incubators of political action.” Information, Communication & Society19 (10): 1373–1389. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1094113
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1094113 [Google Scholar]
  10. Graham, Todd , and Scott Wright
    2014a “Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: the impact of “Super-Participants.”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19 (3). doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12016
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12016 [Google Scholar]
  11. Graham, Todd , and Wright, Scott
    2014b “‘Super-participation’ in Third Spaces: volume and impact on political argument.” InAnalysing Social Media Data and Web Networks, ed. by Rachel K. Gibson , Stephen Ward and Marta Cantijoch , 197–215. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 10.1057/9781137276773
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137276773 [Google Scholar]
  12. Himelboim, Itai , Eric Gleave and Marc Smith, M.
    2009 “Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14 (4): 771–789. doi: 10.1111/j.1083‑6101.2009.01470.x.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01470.x [Google Scholar]
  13. King, Gary , Jennifer Pan and Margaret E. Roberts
    2017 “How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument.” American Political Science Review111 (3): 484–501. doi: 10.1017/S0003055417000144
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000144 [Google Scholar]
  14. Knight, Jack and James Johnson
    1997 “What sort of political equality does deliberative democracy require?.” In: Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. by James Bohman and William Rehg , 279–319. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kollanyi, Bence , Philip N. Howard and Samuel C. Woolley
    2016 “Bots and Automation over Twitter during the U.S. election.” Data Memo, Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda, 17November 2016 politicalbots.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Data-Memo-US-Election.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Oldenburg, Ray
    1999The Great Good Place. Marlow: New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Rheingold, Howard
    2000The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, 2nd edition , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Schuler, Doug
    1996New Community Networks. New York: ACM Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Shaw, Aaron , and Benjamin M. Hill
    2014 “Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the Iron Law Extends to Peer Production”. Journal of Communication64 (2): 215–238. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12082
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12082 [Google Scholar]
  20. Soukup, Charles
    2006 “Oldenburg’s Great Good Places on the World Wide Web Computer-Mediated Communication as a Virtual Third Place”. New Media & Society8 (3): 421–440. doi: 10.1177/1461444806061953
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953 [Google Scholar]
  21. Van Dijck, Jose
    2013The Culture of Connectivity: A critical history of social media, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Wright, Scott
    2002 “Dogma or Dialogue? The Politics of the Downing Street website”. Politics22 (3): 135–142. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9256.00168
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00168 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2006 “Government-run online discussion fora: moderation, censorship and the shadow of control.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations8 (4): 550–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑856X.2006.00247.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2006.00247.x [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007 “A Virtual European public sphere? The Futurum discussion forum.” Journal of European Public Policy14 (8): 1167–1185. doi: 10.1080/13501760701656403
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760701656403 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2008 “Language, Communication and the Public Sphere”. In: The Handbook of Applied Linguistics: language, communication and the public sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Veronika Koller , 21–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012a “Politics as Usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.” New Media & Society14 (2): 244–261. doi: 10.1177/1461444811410679
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811410679 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2012b “From ‘third place’ to ‘Third Space’: everyday political talk in non-political online spaces”. Javnost19 (3): 5–20. doi: 10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2012.11009088 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2012c “Assessing (e-)Democratic Innovations: “democratic goods” and Downing Street E-petitions”. Journal of Information Technology & Politics9 (4): 453–470. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2012.712820
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.712820 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 “Populism and Downing Street E-petitions: Connective action, hybridity and the changing nature of organizing”. Political Communication32 (3): 414–433. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2014.958256
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.958256 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2016 “‘Success’ and on Online Political Participation: the case of Downing Street E-petitions”, Information, Communication & Society19 (6): 843–857. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1080285
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1080285 [Google Scholar]
  31. Wright, Scott and John Street
    2007 “Democracy, Deliberation and Design: the case of government-run online discussion forums”. New Media & Society9 (5): 849–869. doi: 10.1177/1461444807081230
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081230 [Google Scholar]
  32. Wright, Scott , Todd Graham , Yu Sun , Wilfred Yang Wang , Xiantian Luo and Andrea Carson
    2016b “Analysing everyday online political talk in China: Theoretical and methodological reflections.” Communication, Politics & Culture49 (1): 41–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wright, Scott , Todd Graham and Daniel Jackson
    2016a “Third Spaces and Everyday Political Talk”. InRoutledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, ed. by Axel Bruns , Eli Skogerbø , Christian Christensen , Anders-Olof Larsson and Enli Gunn , 74–88. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wright, Scott , William Lukamto and Verity Trott
    . In Press. “The 2016 Australian Election Online: debate, support, community”. InThe 2016 Australian Federal Election ed. by Anika Gauja and Peter Chen . Canberra: ANU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error