The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups
Abstract
The proponents of cyberspace promise that online discourse will increase political participation and pave the road for a democratic utopia. This article explores the potential for civil discourse in cyberspace by examining the level of civility in 287 discussion threads in political newsgroups. While scholars often use civility and politeness interchangeably, this study argues that this conflation ignores the democratic merit of robust and heated discussion. Therefore, civility was defined in a broader sense, by identifying as civil behaviors that enhance democratic conversation. In support of this distinction, the study results revealed that most messages posted on political newsgroups were civil, and further suggested that because the absence of face-to-face communication fostered more heated discussion, cyberspace might actually promote Lyotard’s vision of democratic emancipation through disagreement and anarchy (Lyotard, 1984). Thus, this study supported the internet’s potential to revive the public sphere, provided that greater diversity and volume of discussion is present.
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
Cites
Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments
Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172601 · Cited by 1,575
Cited by
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139 · Cited by 1,222
Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12104 · Cited by 964
Haferkamp, N., Eimler, S. C., Papadakis, A.-M., & Kruck, J. V. (2012) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0151 · Cited by 378
Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contestation
Dahlberg, L. (2007) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444807081228 · Cited by 366
Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review
Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T., & López, H. M. H. (2021) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2021.101608 · Cited by 395
Metadata
- Authors
- Papacharissi, Z.
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 259-283
- ISSN
- 1461-4448 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7315
- OpenAlex
- W2124137536
- Cited by
- 1,154
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 40.18
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1461444804041444
- The paper
- Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444
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.