The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The dynamics of mass interaction
Open accessAbstract
Usenet may be regarded as the worl$s largest conversatioti appficatioq with over 17,000 newsgronps and 3 fion users.Despite its ubiquity and poptiari~, however, we know Etie about the natore of the interactions it suppo~.~s empirical paper investigates mass interaction in UseneL We anrdyse over 2.15 Mon messages from 659,450 posters, co~ected from 500 newsgoups over 6 months.We fit characterise mass interactio~presenting basic data about demographics, conversational strategies and interactivity-Using predictions tiom the common ground [3] model of interactio~we next conduct causal modetig to determine relations bemeen demographics, conversational strategim and interactiv~.We find evidence for moderate conversatiomd threading, but hge participation ine@ties in Usene4 with a d minority of participants posting a large proportion of messages.Contrary to the common gromd model and 'Etiquette" guidefies [8,10] we ho find that "cross-posting" to extemd newsgroups is hig~y fiequenk Our predictions about the eEects of demographics on conversatioti strategy were largely cotie~but we found disconfirming evidence about the relations befi'een conversational strategy and interactivity.Contrary to our expectations, boti cross-posting and short messages promote interactivity.We conclude that in order to e~lain mass interaction, the common ground model must be mowed to ticorporate notions of weak ties [5,q and communication overload [11,18].Ke~ords hlass interactio~Usene< conversatio~newsgroups, common groun~moderatio~FAQS, netiquette, empirid. lNTRODUC~ONUsenet maybe regarded as the worl&s largest and fmtest growing conversationrd appficatiom k 1988 there were fewer than 500 news~oups.bent estimatesvary, but at the time of our dab co~ection in Dec. 1996, there were Ptission 10de distal or hard copies ofall or pti ofthis ~vorkfor personal or classroom use is granted without f= protided that copies Zrenotmade or dis~%uted for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the fill citation on the fimt paga To copy othm~ise to republish, to post on sen'em or to redistribute to Iis& Tquires prior sptific permission and~ora fee CSCW 98 Seatie Wastinson USA ---_ -.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Predicting tie strength with social media
Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2009) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518736 · Cited by 1,382
Ma, M., & Agarwal, R. (2007) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0113 · Cited by 1,143
Creating, destroying, and restoring value in wikipedia
Priedhorsky, R., Chen, J., Lam, S. (. K., Panciera, K., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2007) · Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group work - GROUP '07 · doi:10.1145/1316624.1316663 · Cited by 218
Self-citationSocially augmented argumentation tools: Rationale, design and evaluation of a debate dashboard
Iandoli, L., Quinto, I., De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2014) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.08.006 · Cited by 54
(2001) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Metadata
- Authors
- Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 1998-11
- Pages
- 257-264
- OpenAlex
- W2164802537
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The dynamics of mass interaction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/289444.289500
- The paper
- Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., Hill, W., & Cherny, L. (1998). The dynamics of mass interaction. Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289500
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.