Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 102 references

The Relational Origins of Rules in Online Communities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Rules in online communities are born from relationships: leaders borrow rule sets to signal legitimacy and customize them to mark identity, as shown by seven processes found across 40 interviews with leaders of subreddits, Fandom wikis…

desk verdict Solid theory-building on rule origins, but the sampling and interview prompts probably inflate the relational story; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18318 v3 pith:JY7PUUUL submitted 2025-05-23 cs.HC

Charles Kiene , Sohyeon Hwang , Nathan TeBlunthuis , Carl Colglazier , Aaron Shaw , Benjamin Mako Hill This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords onlinecommunitygovernanceruleadoptionchangerelationallegitimacyidentityinstitutionalisomorphismorganizationalecologygroundedtheoryanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the rules of online communities are not only solutions to practical problems like spam, harassment, and off-topic posts; they are also communicative acts directed at other communities. Based on 40 in-depth interviews with volunteer leaders of subreddits, Fandom wikis, and Fediverse servers, the authors identify seven processes through which rules are adopted and changed, and show that many of those processes are relational. Leaders copy rule sets from established communities to borrow legitimacy, and they customize copied rules to mark what their community is and is not. Rule changes are triggered by growth or decline, but whether change happens depends on volunteer capacity, member feedback mechanisms, and the relationship between leaders and members. The paper's claim matters because it implies that platform design should support rule templates, identity signaling, and feedback structures, not just enforcement tooling.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a grounded-theory process model of rule adoption and change, organized as seven processes that leaders described: searching for rule templates, copying other communities' rules, customizing the adopted rule set, encountering problems that challenge the rules, becoming aware of the need to change, deliberating on how to solve rule-related problems, and making the decision to change. The explanatory engine for why the processes produce similar rules is the combination of institutional isomorphism — leaders facing uncertainty copy rules from communities they consider legitimate, like the largest Fediverse server — and ecological differentiation, where communities customize rules to carve out a distinct identity in a niche. These two mechanisms give rules a dual role: they regulate behavior internally while signaling legitimacy and identity externally in the ecosystem of communities.

What would settle it

Compare the interviews' origin stories to the public rule histories of the same communities: if leaders describe copying rule sets from particular sources, the archived rule text should show measurable similarity to those sources at the time of adoption, and communities in active decline should show rule removals or relaxations in their logs. Finding that leaders' accounts disagree with the archival record, or that declining communities only add rules, would undercut the relational explanation of rule origins and change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rulemaking in online communities is a relational and ecological activity. Beyond the functional purpose of regulating content and behavior, rules are adopted and changed to manage a community's standing among other communities: copying another community's rule set, or adopting a shared moderation covenant, signals legitimacy to peer admins who might otherwise block contact; customizing a borrowed rule set reinforces a distinct community identity against neighboring communities that share members and topics. The paper derives seven processes from the interviews — searching for rule templates, copying rules wholesale, customizing an adopted rule set, encountering problems from growth or decline, becoming aware of the need to change, deliberating on solutions, and deciding on change — and observes that these processes are shaped by the sociotechnical design of each platform. On the Fediverse, where one community can sanction another through defederation, rules function prominently as legitimacy signals; on Reddit and Fandom, where platform-wide norms reduce that uncertainty, rules function more as identity markers. The authors argue that these relational uses of rules extend functionalist accounts and explain why so many online communities end up with similar rule sets.

Load-bearing premise

The seven processes rest on the retrospective, self-reported accounts of 40 volunteer leaders about how and why their rules came to be, and those accounts were not cross-checked against archival records, member perspectives, or direct observation of rulemaking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms can support governance by offering curated rule templates that let new leaders build on recognizable norms instead of drafting from scratch.
  • Designers of federated systems should build tools for cross-community normative alignment, such as adoption of shared moderation covenants, because defederation makes legitimacy signaling a prerequisite for connectivity.
  • Rule change should be expected during decline as well as growth; in decline, communities may relax or remove rules to widen participation, so platforms should prompt leaders to revisit goals in both directions.
  • Member feedback mechanisms such as meta threads, surveys, and votes give leaders awareness of problems and reduce the burden that volunteer capacity otherwise places on rule maintenance.
  • Because leaders use rules to draw boundaries between overlapping communities, introductory spaces and guidance on customization can help newcomers understand what differentiates a community.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: if rules are legitimacy signals, rule sets should diffuse through community networks in cascades, with new communities copying the rule set of the first legitimate adopter they observe; archival analysis of rule-text similarity over time could confirm or refute this.
  • The paper's account suggests a possible downside of curated templates: making legitimate rule sets easier to copy could accelerate isomorphism and erode the identity distinctions that customization currently provides, so platforms may need to pair templates with customization tools.
  • Because only leaders were interviewed, an open question is whether members read the same legitimacy and identity signals; a survey of members about what a community's rules communicate to them would test whether the relational function is actually received as intended.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a grounded theory analysis of 40 semi-structured interviews with leaders of subreddits, Fandom wikis, and Fediverse servers, asking how and why online communities adopt and change their rules. The authors identify seven processes: searching for rule templates, copying other communities' rules, customizing adopted rule sets, encountering problems that challenge the rules, becoming aware of the need to change, deliberating on solutions, and making decisions to change. The central claim is that, beyond functional reasons such as regulating behavior and solving problems, rules are adopted and changed for relational reasons, including signaling legitimacy and reinforcing identity within an ecosystem of communities. The paper draws on new institutionalism and organizational ecology as sensitizing theories and concludes with design implications for platforms.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a worthwhile contribution by broadening the social computing literature on governance beyond functionalist accounts of rulemaking, and it generates concrete design propositions. The comparative three-platform design, the transparent sampling appendix, and the systematic two-stage coding process (over 4,500 initial codes to 337 focused codes) are strengths, as is the inclusion of extensive verbatim interview quotes. The limitations section is honest about qualitative generalizability. However, the strength of the relational-origins claim depends on evidence that is affected by two design features that the paper does not adequately address: a sampling strategy conditioned on rule similarity and interview prompts that presuppose cross-community influence.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix (Cluster Analysis, Sample Selection)] The sample is intentionally drawn from clusters of communities with similar rules, and for the Fediverse the snowball starts at mastodon.social, which §5.2.1 later identifies as the canonical template source. This conditions the sample on the outcome of rule similarity, making template searching and copying more visible than in the broader population of online communities. The paper should reframe the findings as describing relational processes that occur among communities with similar rule sets rather than as general statements about rule origins in online communities, and it should explicitly discuss how the sampling strategy may inflate the prominence of copying and legitimacy signaling.
  2. [Appendix C (Interview Questionnaire)] The interview protocol contains leading questions that presuppose the relational account the paper advances: 'Are there any other communities that [Community A] looked to when you were choosing rules?' (origins, Q5) and 'Do you think differences in rules shape the relationship between [Community A] and [Community B] in any way?' (related communities, Q7). Because the paper's strongest claim concerns relational motivations, the authors should report whether relational themes also arose unprompted, or should temper the conclusion that such motivations are a general feature of rulemaking. At minimum, the paper should acknowledge this instrument-induced bias alongside the generic retrospective-bias limitation in §6.3.
  3. [§6.3 (Limitations and Future Work)] All evidence for the seven processes comes from leaders' retrospective self-reports, with no member interviews, direct observation of rulemaking, or archival validation of the specific origin stories. The limitations section acknowledges subjectivity and self-presentation, but the specific risk is that leaders describing copying as legitimacy-seeking may be offering a retrospective rationalization that portrays their governance as strategic and competent. Since the seven processes are the paper's core contribution, they should be presented as a theory grounded in leaders' accounts, and the authors should avoid causal phrasing that implies the processes are established mechanisms in the broader population.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix (Cluster Analysis)] The algorithm name is misspelled as 'HBDSCAN' twice; it should be 'HDBSCAN'.
  2. [§2.1] There is a missing space in 'Hwang and Shaw[49]'; it should read 'Hwang and Shaw [49]'.
  3. [§6.3] The sentence 'our findings instead provide in-depth insights' contains a redundant 'instead' following the previous sentence's 'cannot claim... Instead'.
  4. [Appendix (Cluster Analysis)] The phrase '2-dimensional encoding of their rules' is unclear; it likely means a vector or document embedding representation, and could be stated more precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: inductive interview study with self-contained evidence; sampling and protocol concerns are methodological, not circular.

full rationale

This is an inductive, interview-based grounded theory study. No parameter is fitted, no quantity is predicted from an equation, and no result is reduced to prior work by construction. The seven rule-adoption processes are produced through line-by-line coding of 40 interviews (4,500 initial codes, 20 themes, 337 focused codes) and are supported by direct participant quotations. The sensitizing theories from new institutionalism and organizational ecology are explicitly framed as interpretive vocabulary, not as premises from which the findings are deduced. Self-citations such as Hwang and Shaw [49] and TeBlunthuis et al. [91] support background observations or extensions, but the paper's core claims about template searching, copying for legitimacy, customization for identity, and problem-driven change rest on the interview evidence itself. The sampling strategy conditioned on rule similarity and the interview protocol asked about other communities and relational effects, which are legitimate methodological concerns about instrument influence and representativeness, but they do not constitute a derivation in which a claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by definition. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence threshold was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its claims rest on qualitative interpretive assumptions: self-reported recall, cluster-based sampling, comparable rule definitions across platforms, and coding fidelity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Leaders' retrospective reports in interviews accurately describe past rule adoption and change events.
    All seven processes are built from interview recall; §4.2 and §6.3 note subjectivity and self-presentation, but no triangulation from observation, member interviews, or archival records is provided.
  • domain assumption Communities selected from rule-similarity clusters are a useful base for theorizing about rule origins.
    Sampling targeted clusters of communities with similar rule text (§4.1 and Appendix), which may overrepresent isomorphic dynamics and underrepresent communities with unique rule sets.
  • domain assumption Rules across subreddits, Fandom wikis, and Fediverse servers can be treated as comparable objects.
    The paper defines rules via prior literature (§2.1) and applies the same interview protocol across three platforms (§4.2), but the platforms differ substantially in affordances and governance structures.
  • domain assumption Grounded theory coding translates participant accounts into researcher-defined processes without systematic distortion.
    Open and focused coding produced 337 focused codes, but inter-coder agreement and an audit trail are not reported (§4.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Relational Origins of Rules in Online Communities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JY7PUUUL

@misc{pith2026250518318,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Relational Origins of Rules in Online Communities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JY7PUUUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18318}
}
read the original abstract

Where do rules come from in online communities? This study investigates how and why online communities adopt and change their rules. We conducted a grounded theory-based analysis of 40 in-depth interviews with community leaders from subreddits, Fandom wikis, and Fediverse servers, and identified seven processes involved in the adoption of online community rules. Our findings reveal that, beyond operational reasons like regulating behavior and solving problems, rules are also adopted and changed for relational reasons, such as signaling or reinforcing community legitimacy and identity to other communities. While rule change was often prompted by challenges during community growth or decline, change also depended on volunteer leaders' work capacity, the presence of member feedback mechanisms, and relational dynamics between leaders and members. Our findings extend prior theories from social computing and organizational research, illustrating how institutionalist and ecological explanations of the relational origins of rules complement operational accounts. Finally, we build on these explanations to offer a set of design propositions that reflect the relational aspects of rules and rulemaking across communities' lifecycles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18318 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rules for a subreddit community [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rules for a Fandom wiki community. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rules for a Fediverse community. B Participating Community Characteristics This section gives basic descriptions of the online communities we selected to sample interview participants. We give the community’s topic, when it was created, an estimate of its member population size, and the number of rules the community had adopted at the time of data collection. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ishaku Hassan Anaobi, Aravindh Raman, Ignacio Castro, Haris Bin Zia, Damilola Ibosiola, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Will Admins Cope? Decentralized Moderation in the Fediverse. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (WWW ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3109–3120. doi:10.1145/3543507.3583487

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Thatiany Andrade Nunes. 2023. User Sentiments and Dynamics in the Decentralized Web: Reddit Migration’s Impact on Lemmy.Journal of Multimedia Information System10, 4 (2023), 333–350. doi:10.33851/JMIS.2023.10.4.333

    doi:10.33851/jmis.2023.10.4.333 2023

  3. [3]

    Jenna Bednar. 2023. Governance for Human Social Flourishing.Daedalus152, 1 (Feb. 2023), 31–45. doi:10.1162/daed_ a_01958

    work page doi:10.1162/daed_ 2023

  4. [4]

    2006.The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom

    Yochai Benkler. 2006.The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven London

    2006

  5. [5]

    McDonald

    Ivan Beschastnikh, Travis Kriplean, and David W. McDonald. 2008. Wikipedian Self-Governance in Action: Motivating the Policy Lens. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 2. AAAI, New York, NY, USA, 27–35

    2008

  6. [6]

    Wikipedia Is Not a Democracy

    Laura W. Black, Ted Welser, Jocelyn M. DeGroot, and D. Cosley. 2008. "Wikipedia Is Not a Democracy": Deliberation and Policy-Making in an Online Community. InAnnual Meeting of the International Communication Association. ICA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 50

    2008

  7. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  8. [9]

    Butler, Elisabeth Joyce, and Jacqueline Pike

    Brian S. Butler, Elisabeth Joyce, and Jacqueline Pike. 2008. Don’t Look Now, but We’ve Created a Bureaucracy: The Nature and Roles of Policies and Rules in Wikipedia. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. 22 Computing Systems (CHI ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1101–1110. doi:1...

    arXiv 2008

Show all 102 references
  1. [10]

    Derek Caelin. 2022. Decentralized Networks vs The Trolls. InFundamental Challenges to Global Peace and Security : The Future of Humanity, Hoda Mahmoudi, Michael H. Allen, and Kate Seaman (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 143–168. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79072-1_8

    2022 doi

  2. [11]

    Robyn Caplan and danah boyd. 2018. Isomorphism through Algorithms: Institutional Dependencies in the Case of Facebook.Big Data & Society5, 1 (Jan. 2018), 12. doi:10.1177/2053951718757253

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Carr and Rebecca A

    Caleb T. Carr and Rebecca A. Hayes. 2015. Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining.Atlantic Journal of Communication23, 1 (Jan. 2015), 46–65. doi:10.1080/15456870.2015.972282

    2015

  4. [13]

    Glenn R. Carroll. 1985. Concentration and Specialization: Dynamics of Niche Width in Populations of Organizations. Amer. J. Sociology90, 6 (May 1985), 1262–1283. doi:10.1086/228210

    1985 doi

  5. [14]

    Carroll and Anand Swaminathan

    Glenn R. Carroll and Anand Swaminathan. 2000. Why the Microbrewery Movement? Organizational Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry.Amer. J. Sociology106, 3 (2000), 715–762. doi:10.1086/318962 jstor:10.1086/318962

    2000 doi

  6. [15]

    Lucio La Cava, Luca Maria Aiello, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2023. Drivers of Social Influence in the Twitter Migration to Mastodon.Scientific Reports13, 1 (Dec. 2023), 21626. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48200-7

    2023 doi

  7. [16]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Chaitrali Gandhi, Matthew Wortley Mustelier, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Crossmod: A Cross-Community Learning-Based System to Assist Reddit Moderators.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–30. doi:10.1145/3359276

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2022. Quarantined! Examining the Effects of a Community-Wide Moderation Intervention on Reddit.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 29, 4 (March 2022), 29:1–29:26. doi:10.1145/3490499

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Umashanthi Pavalanathan, Anirudh Srinivasan, Adam Glynn, Jacob Eisenstein, and Eric Gilbert. 2017. You Can’t Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit’s 2015 Ban Examined through Hate Speech.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.1, CSCW (Dec. 2017), 31:1–31:22. doi:1...

    2017 doi

  10. [19]

    Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Mattia Samory, Shagun Jhaver, Hunter Charvat, Amy Bruckman, Cliff Lampe, Jacob Eisenstein, and Eric Gilbert. 2018. The Internet’s Hidden Rules: An Empirical Study of Reddit Norm Violations at Micro, Meso, and Macro Scales.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact...

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    2015.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis(2nd ed.)

    Kathy Charmaz. 2015.Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis(2nd ed.). SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California

    2015

  12. [21]

    Carl Colglazier, Nathan TeBlunthuis, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. The Effects of Group Sanctions on Participation and Toxicity: Quasi-experimental Evidence from the Fediverse.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18 (May 2024), 315–328. doi:10.1609/i...

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie. 2016. What Is a Flag for? Social Media Reporting Tools and the Vocabulary of Complaint.New Media & Society18, 3 (March 2016), 410–428. doi:10.1177/1461444814543163

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    Amanda L. L. Cullen and Sanjay R. Kairam. 2022. Practicing Moderation: Community Moderation as Reflective Practice.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW1 (April 2022), 111:1–111:32. doi:10.1145/3512958

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    Richard Michael Cyert and James G. March. 1963.A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J

    1963

  16. [25]

    Paul B. de Laat. 2012. Coercion or Empowerment? Moderation of Content in Wikipedia as ‘Essentially Contested’ Bureaucratic Rules.Ethics and Information Technology14, 2 (June 2012), 123–135. doi:10.1007/s10676-012-9289-7

    2012 doi

  17. [26]

    DiMaggio and Walter W

    Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.American Sociological Review48, 2 (1983), 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101 jstor:2095101

    1983 doi

  18. [27]

    Bryan Dosono and Bryan Semaan. 2019. Moderation Practices as Emotional Labor in Sustaining Online Communities: The Case of Aapi Identity Work on Reddit. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2019

  19. [28]

    Christina Dunbar-Hester. 2024. Showing Your Ass on Mastodon: Lossy Distribution, Hashtag Activism, and Public Scrutiny on Federated, Feral Social Media.First Monday29, 3 - 4 (March 2024), 29. doi:10.5210/fm.v29i3.13367

    2024 doi

  20. [29]

    Brubaker

    Casey Fiesler, Jialun" Aaron" Jiang, Joshua McCann, Kyle Frye, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2018. Reddit Rules! Characterizing an Ecosystem of Governance.. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 12. AAAI, Stanford, CA, 72–81. doi:10.1609/icwsm...

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Seth Frey, Brian Keegan, and Peter Krafft. 2019. Designing for Participation and Change in Digital Institutions. (Feb. 2019). arXiv:1902.08728

    2019 arXiv

  22. [31]

    This Place Does What It Was Built For

    Seth Frey, P. M. Krafft, and Brian C. Keegan. 2019. "This Place Does What It Was Built For": Designing Digital Institutions for Participatory Change.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 32:1–32:31. doi:10. 1145/3359134 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication dat...

    2019

  23. [32]

    Seth Frey and Nathan Schneider. 2021. Effective Voice: Beyond Exit and Affect in Online Communities.New Media & Society25, 9 (Sept. 2021), 14614448211044025. doi:10.1177/14614448211044025

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    Seth Frey and Robert W. Sumner. 2019. Emergence of Integrated Institutions in a Large Population of Self-Governing Communities.PLOS ONE14, 7 (July 2019), e0216335. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216335

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Gehl and Diana Zulli

    Robert W. Gehl and Diana Zulli. 2023. The Digital Covenant: Non-Centralized Platform Governance on the Mastodon Social Network.Information, Communication & Society26, 16 (Dec. 2023), 3275–3291. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2022. 2147400

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Stuart Geiger

    R. Stuart Geiger. 2014. Bots, Bespoke, Code and the Materiality of Software Platforms.Information, Communication & Society17, 3 (March 2014), 342–356. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.873069

    2014

  27. [36]

    2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media

    Tarleton Gillespie. 2018.Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, New Haven

    2018

  28. [37]

    2017.The Virtues of Moderation

    James Grimmelmann. 2017.The Virtues of Moderation. Preprint. LawArXiv. doi:10.31228/osf.io/qwxf5

    2017 doi

  29. [38]

    Stuart Geiger

    Aaron Halfaker and R. Stuart Geiger. 2020. ORES: Lowering Barriers with Participatory Machine Learning in Wikipedia.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4, CSCW2 (2020), 37. doi:10.1145/3415219

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    Stuart Geiger, Jonathan T

    Aaron Halfaker, R. Stuart Geiger, Jonathan T. Morgan, and John Riedl. 2013. The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline.American Behavioral Scientist 57, 5 (May 2013), 664–688. doi:10.1177/0002764212469365

    2013 doi

  31. [40]

    Hannan and John Freeman

    Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman. 1977. The Population Ecology of Organizations.Amer. J. Sociology82, 5 (1977), 929–964. doi:10.2307/2777807 jstor:2777807

    1977 doi

  32. [41]

    Hannan and John Freeman

    Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman. 1984. Structural Inertia and Organizational Change.American Sociological Review49, 2 (April 1984), 149. doi:10.2307/2095567 jstor:2095567

    1984 doi

  33. [42]

    Jiahui He, Haris Bin Zia, Ignacio Castro, Aravindh Raman, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2023. Flocking to Mastodon: Tracking the Great Twitter Migration. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM on Internet Measurement Conference. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 111–123. doi:10.1145/361825...

    2023

  34. [43]

    Brent Hecht and Darren Gergle. 2010. The Tower of Babel Meets Web 2.0: User-Generated Content and Its Applications in a Multilingual Context. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10). ACM, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 291–300. doi:10.114...

    2010

  35. [44]

    Hirschman

    Albert O. Hirschman. 1970.Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    1970

  36. [45]

    Manoel Horta Horta Ribeiro, Shagun Jhaver, Savvas Zannettou, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Emiliano De Cristofaro, and Robert West. 2021. Do Platform Migrations Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_donald and r/Incels.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Comp...

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    Sohyeon Hwang and Jeremy D. Foote. 2021. Why Do People Participate in Small Online Communities?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–25. doi:10.1145/3479606

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Charles Kiene, Serene Ong, and Aaron Shaw. 2024. Adopting Third-Party Bots for Managing Online Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: Computer Supported Cooperative Work8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 216:1–216:26. doi:10.1145/3653707

    2024 doi

  39. [48]

    Sohyeon Hwang, Priyanka Nanayakkara, and Yan Shvartzshnaider. 2025. Trust and Friction: Negotiating How Information Flows Through Decentralized Social Media. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2503.02150 arXiv:2503.02150 [cs]

    2025 doi

  40. [49]

    Sohyeon Hwang and Aaron Shaw. 2022. Rules and Rule-Making in the Five Largest Wikipedias.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media16 (May 2022), 347–357. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19297

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu

    Ujun Jeong, Paras Sheth, Anique Tahir, Faisal Alatawi, H. Russell Bernard, and Huan Liu. 2024. Exploring Platform Migration Patterns between Twitter and Mastodon: A User Behavior Study.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18 (May 2024), 738–7...

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    Did You Suspect the Post Would Be Removed?

    Shagun Jhaver, Darren Scott Appling, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. "Did You Suspect the Post Would Be Removed?": Understanding User Reactions to Content Removals on Reddit.Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 192:1–192:33. doi:10.11...

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Shagun Jhaver, Iris Birman, Eric Gilbert, and Amy Bruckman. 2019. Human-Machine Collaboration for Content Regulation: The Case of Reddit Automoderator.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.26, 5 (July 2019), 31:1–31:35. doi:10.1145/3338243

    2019 doi

  44. [53]

    Shagun Jhaver, Amy Bruckman, and Eric Gilbert. 2019. Does Transparency in Moderation Really Matter? User Behavior after Content Removal Explanations on Reddit.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 150:1–150:27. doi:10.1145/3359252

    2019 doi

  45. [54]

    Shagun Jhaver, Seth Frey, and Amy Zhang. 2021. Designing for Multiple Centers of Power: A Taxonomy of Multi-Level Governance in Online Social Platforms. arXiv:2108.12529 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. 24

    2021 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Quentin Jones. 1997. Virtual-Communities, Virtual Settlements & Cyber-Archaeology: A Theoretical Outline.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication3, 3 (Dec. 1997), 0–0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00075.x

    1997

  47. [56]

    Brian Keegan and Casey Fiesler. 2017. The Evolution and Consequences of Peer Producing Wikipedia’s Rules. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 112–121

    2017

  48. [57]

    Charles Kiene, Jialun "Aaron" Jiang, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2019. Technological Frames and User Innovation: Exploring Technological Change in Community Moderation Teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: Computer Supported Cooperative Work3, CSCW (Nov. 2019...

    2019 doi

  49. [58]

    Eternal September

    Charles Kiene, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2016. Surviving an “Eternal September”: How an Online Community Managed a Surge of Newcomers. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1152–1156. doi:10.11...

    2016

  50. [59]

    Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, Moira Burke, Yan Chen, Niki Kittur, Joseph Konstan, Yuqing Ren, and John Riedl

    Robert E. Kraut, Paul Resnick, Sara Kiesler, Moira Burke, Yan Chen, Niki Kittur, Joseph Konstan, Yuqing Ren, and John Riedl. 2012.Building Successful Online Communities: Evidence-Based Social Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. doi:10.7551/mitpress/8472.001.0001

    2012 doi

  51. [60]

    McDonald, and Scott A

    Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, David W. McDonald, and Scott A. Golder. 2007. Community, Consensus, Coercion, Control: Cs*w or How Policy Mediates Mass Participation. InProc. of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 167–176...

    2007

  52. [61]

    Lucio La Cava, Domenico Mandaglio, and Andrea Tagarelli. 2024. Polarization in Decentralized Online Social Networks. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Web Science Conference (WEBSCI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 48–52. doi:10.1145/3614419.3644013

    2024

  53. [62]

    Jan Marco Leimeister, Pascal Sidiras, and Helmut Krcmar. 2004. Success Factors of Virtual Communities from the Perspective of Members and Operators: An Empirical Study. InProceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICCS). IEEE, Waikoloa ...

    2004 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Bernstein

    Zhiyuan Lin, Niloufar Salehi, Bowen Yao, Yiqi Chen, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Better When It Was Smaller? Community Content and Behavior after Massive Growth.. InEleventh International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI, Montreal, Canada, 132–141

    2017

  55. [64]

    2000.The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes

    James March, Martin Schulz, and Xueguang Zhou. 2000.The Dynamics of Rules: Change in Written Organizational Codes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    2000

  56. [65]

    Neutral Point of View

    Sorin Adam Matei and Caius Dobrescu. 2010. Wikipedia’s “Neutral Point of View”: Settling Conflict through Ambiguity. The Information Society27, 1 (Dec. 2010), 40–51. doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.534368

    2010

  57. [66]

    Nathan Matias

    J. Nathan Matias. 2019. The Civic Labor of Volunteer Moderators Online.Social Media + Society5, 2 (April 2019), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2056305119836778

    2019 doi

  58. [67]

    Nathan Matias

    J. Nathan Matias. 2019. Preventing Harassment and Increasing Group Participation through Social Norms in 2,190 Online Science Discussions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 20 (May 2019), 9785–9789. doi:10.1073/pnas.1813486116

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    Meyer and Brian Rowan

    John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. Amer. J. Sociology83, 2 (Sept. 1977), 340–363. jstor:2778293

    1977

  60. [70]

    1990.Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance

    Douglass C North. 1990.Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511808678

    1990 doi

  61. [71]

    1990.Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action

    Elinor Ostrom. 1990.Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807763

    1990 doi

  62. [72]

    2005.Understanding Institutional Diversity

    Elinor Ostrom. 2005.Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    2005

  63. [73]

    Powell and Paul Dimaggio

    Walter W. Powell and Paul Dimaggio. 1991.The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago press, Chicago London

    1991

  64. [74]

    2000.Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability

    Jenny Preece. 2000.Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. John Wiley, New York

    2000

  65. [75]

    Aravindh Raman, Sagar Joglekar, Emiliano De Cristofaro, Nishanth Sastry, and Gareth Tyson. 2019. Challenges in the Decentralised Web: The Mastodon Case. InProceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 217–...

    2019

  66. [76]

    Harita Reddy and Eshwar Chandrasekharan. 2023. Evolution of Rules in Reddit Communities. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 278...

    2023

  67. [77]

    Nathan Schneider. 2022. Admins, Mods, and Benevolent Dictators for Life: The Implicit Feudalism of Online Communities.New Media & Society24, 9 (Sept. 2022), 1965–1985. doi:10.1177/1461444820986553 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. The Relational Origin...

    2022 doi

  68. [78]

    Tan, and Amy X

    Nathan Schneider, Primavera De Filippi, Seth Frey, Joshua Z. Tan, and Amy X. Zhang. 2021. Modular Politics: Toward a Governance Layer for Online Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–26. doi:10.1145/3449090

    2021 doi

  69. [79]

    Schöpke-Gonzalez, Shubham Atreja, Han Na Shin, Najmin Ahmed, and Libby Hemphill

    Angela M. Schöpke-Gonzalez, Shubham Atreja, Han Na Shin, Najmin Ahmed, and Libby Hemphill. 2024. Why Do Volunteer Content Moderators Quit? Burnout, Conflict, and Harmful Behaviors.New Media & Society26, 10 (Oct. 2024), 5677–5701. doi:10.1177/14614448221138529

    2024 doi

  70. [80]

    Joseph Seering. 2019. Building More Positive Online Communities through Improving Moderation and Strengthening Social Identity. InConference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’19). Association for Computing Mach...

    2019 doi

  71. [81]

    Joseph Seering, Geoff Kaufman, and Stevie Chancellor. 2020. Metaphors in Moderation.New Media & Society24, 3 (Oct. 2020), 1–20. doi:10.1177/1461444820964968

    2020 doi

  72. [82]

    Joseph Seering, Robert Kraut, and Laura Dabbish. 2017. Shaping Pro and Anti-Social Behavior on Twitch Through Moderation and Example-Setting. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA...

    2017

  73. [83]

    Joseph Seering, Tony Wang, Jina Yoon, and Geoff Kaufman. 2019. Moderator Engagement and Community Develop- ment in the Age of Algorithms.New Media & Society21, 7 (Jan. 2019), 1–24. doi:10.1177/1461444818821316

    2019 doi

  74. [84]

    Aaron Shaw and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2014. Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the Iron Law Extends to Peer Production. Journal of Communication64, 2 (2014), 215–238. doi:10.1111/jcom.12082

    2014 doi

  75. [85]

    Singh, David J

    Jitendra V. Singh, David J. Tucker, and Robert J. House. 1986. Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness. Administrative Science Quarterly31, 2 (1986), 171–193. doi:10.2307/2392787 jstor:2392787

    1986 doi

  76. [86]

    Andrea Stockinger, Svenja Schäfer, and Sophie Lecheler. 2023. Navigating the Gray Areas of Content Moderation: Professional Moderators’ Perspectives on Uncivil User Comments and the Role of (AI-based) Technological Tools. New Media & Society27, 3 (Aug. 2023), 14614448231190901...

    2023 doi

  77. [87]

    Chenhao Tan. 2018. Tracing Community Genealogy: How New Communities Emerge from the Old. InProceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM ’18). AAAI, Palo Alto, California, 395–404

    2018

  78. [88]

    Nathan TeBlunthuis. 2025. Niche Dynamics in Complex Online Community Ecosystems.Proceedings of the In- ternational AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media19 (June 2025), 1880–1892. doi:10.1609/icwsm.v19i1.35907 arXiv:2504.02153 [cs]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [89]

    Nathan TeBlunthuis and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2022. Identifying Competition and Mutualism between Online Groups. InInternational AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2022), Vol. 16. AAAI, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 993–1004

    2022

  80. [90]

    Nathan TeBlunthuis, Benjamin Mako Hill, and Aaron Halfaker. 2021. Effects of Algorithmic Flagging on Fairness: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Wikipedia.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 56:1–56:27. doi:10.1145/3449130

    2021 doi

  81. [91]

    Nathan TeBlunthuis, Charles Kiene, Isabella Brown, Laura (Alia) Levi, Nicole McGinnis, and Benjamin Mako Hill

  82. [92]

    The Rise and Decline

    Nathan TeBlunthuis, Aaron Shaw, and Benjamin Mako Hill. 2018. Revisiting "The Rise and Decline" in a Population of Peer Production Projects. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 355:1–355:7. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173929

    2018

  83. [93]

    Tolbert and Lynne G

    Pamela S. Tolbert and Lynne G. Zucker. 1983. Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880-1935.Administrative Science Quarterly28, 1 (1983), 22–39. doi:10.2307/ 2392383 jstor:2392383

    1983

  84. [94]

    Emma Tosch, Luis Garcia, Cynthia Li, and Chris Martens. 2024. Privacy Policies on the Fediverse: A Case Study of Mastodon Instances.Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies2024, 4 (Oct. 2024), 700–733. doi:10.56553/popets- 2024-0138

    2024 doi

  85. [95]

    2016.The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media

    Catherine J Turco. 2016.The Conversational Firm: Rethinking Bureaucracy in the Age of Social Media. Columbia University Press, New York, NY

    2016

  86. [96]

    Zhang, and Tim Althoff

    Galen Weld, Amy X. Zhang, and Tim Althoff. 2021. What Makes Online Communities ’Better’? Measuring Val- ues, Consensus, and Conflict across Thousands of Subreddits.arXiv:2111.05835 [cs]16 (Nov. 2021), 1121–1132. arXiv:2111.05835 [cs]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [97]

    Yvette Wohn. 2019. Volunteer Moderators in Twitch Micro Communities: How They Get Involved, the Roles They Play, and the Emotional Labor They Experience. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’19). ACM, Glasgow, UK, 1–13

    2019

  88. [98]

    Ruth C. Young. 1988. Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for the Study of Organizations?Amer. J. Sociology94, 7 (1988), 1–24. jstor:2781020 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: October 2025. 26

    1988

  89. [99]

    Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S

    Amy X. Zhang, Grant Hugh, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2020. PolicyKit: Building Governance in Online Communities. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 365–378. doi:10.1145/3379337.3415858 arXiv:2008.04236

    2020

  90. [100]

    Zhilin Zhang, Jun Zhao, Ge Wang, Samantha-Kaye Johnston, George Chalhoub, Tala Ross, Diyi Liu, Claudine Tinsman, Rui Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2024. Trouble in Paradise? Understanding Mastodon Admin’s Motivations, Experiences, and Challenges Running Decentralise...

    2024 doi

  91. [101]

    Kraut, and Aniket Kittur

    Haiyi Zhu, Robert E. Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2013. Effectiveness of Shared Leadership in Wikipedia.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society55, 6 (Dec. 2013), 1021–1043. doi:10.1177/0018720813515704

    2013 doi

  92. [102]

    Kraut, and Aniket Kittur

    Haiyi Zhu, Robert E. Kraut, and Aniket Kittur. 2014. The Impact of Membership Overlap on the Survival of Online Communities. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 281–290....

    2014

  93. [103]

    Social” in “Social Media

    Diana Zulli, Miao Liu, and Robert Gehl. 2020. Rethinking the “Social” in “Social Media”: Insights into Topology, Abstraction, and Scale on the Mastodon Social Network.New Media & Society22, 7 (July 2020), 1188–1205. doi:10. 1177/1461444820912533 Appendices Community Sampling M...

    2020

  94. [2022]

    doi:10.1145/3512908

    No Community Can Do Everything: Why People Participate in Similar Online Communities.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: Computer Supported Cooperative Work6 (April 2022), 1–25. doi:10.1145/3512908

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.