The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space
Abstract
Can a system of distributed moderation quickly and consistently separate high and low quality comments in an online conversation? Analysis of the site Slashdot.org suggests that the answer is a qualified yes, but that important challenges remain for designers of such systems. Thousands of users act as moderators. Final scores for comments are reasonably dispersed and the community generally agrees that moderations are fair. On the other hand, much of a conversation can pass before the best and worst comments are identified. Of those moderations that were judged unfair, only about half were subsequently counterbalanced by a moderation in the other direction. And comments with low scores, not at top-level, or posted late in a conversation were more likely to be overlooked by moderators.
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
Turkopticon: interrupting worker invisibility in amazon mechanical turk
Irani, L. C., & Silberman, M. S. (2013) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2470742 · Cited by 798
You Can't Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit's 2015 Ban Examined Through Hate Speech
Chandrasekharan, E., Pavalanathan, U., Srinivasan, A., Glynn, A., Eisenstein, J., & Gilbert, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3134666 · Cited by 390
Shepherding the crowd yields better work
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145355 · Cited by 334
Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator
Jhaver, S., Birman, I., Gilbert, E., & Bruckman, A. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3338243 · Cited by 289
Chandrasekharan, E., Samory, M., Jhaver, S., Charvat, H., Bruckman, A., Lampe, C., Eisenstein, J., & Gilbert, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274301 · Cited by 282
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lampe, C., & Resnick, P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2004-04-25
- Pages
- 543-550
- OpenAlex
- W2053522862
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/985692.985761
- The paper
- Lampe, C., & Resnick, P. (2004). Slash(dot) and burn: distributed moderation in a large online conversation space. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985761
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.
