6 What if buttercups ate the cows?

According to The Foundation for Critical Thinking, the goal of substantive writing is to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about. This seems to be the tautological gold-standard for good writing, online and elsewhere. So how is this standard maintained?

If it can be said that the output of social systems is a combination of the intrinsic qualities of the people present and the systemic forces that drive their interaction, and if the people present are fixed in the short term, then it follows that the role of discussion sites is mainly to design a systemic environment that rewards users for saying something worth saying something about and punishes them for saying something not worth saying or something worth saying about something not worth saying it about.

The best discussion sites heavily borrow from social science theory, including the conventions that Wallace outlines. For example, let's say that a user violates social norms by choosing a title that conveys no information about the actual post. This user can be given the "arched brow" by both community members and site moderators. This can be done privately, via email, or publicly, via a reply to the offending post. On many sites, such as Reddit and Digg, users express how much they value the contributions of others by voting them either up or down.

Often, web communities will actually outline the rules in a FAQ. Although Wallace likens this to posting a sign on the door of a supermarket, having a FAQ to refer new members to does seem to increase the average quality of contributions. There are many conventions that casual participants often miss that instantly make sense when made explicit. For example, as the old saying goes,

Because it breaks the flow of conversation

>>Why is top-posting frowned upon?

Similarly, many online communities take advantage of the ways in which group dynamics differ online. For example, Wallace cites evidence that discussions may be more biased online because minority positions receive little support. Online communities work to counteract this by letting users reply directly below comments, so that if even one person can find a flaw in the dominant logic then it's immediately visible to everyone. Furthermore, communities harness "production blocking" by letting others participate asynchronously, replying to others months or even years after the original discussion.

Through creating and enforcing a set of group norms and leveraging the unique features of online group dynamics, communities can architect a system that encourages users to say something worth saying about something worth saying something about.