Social Psychology of USENET Newsgroups:
alt.disney.secrets, alt.music.billy-joel, and Me

I am relatively new to the internet and its many worlds. So, after being assigned to follow two newsgroups I was a little skeptical. My first impression was that it would be boring and useless to me. I figured that a newsgroup was all about reading up on current events, and that was something I didn't enjoy in high school and doubted I would now. But, an assignments an assignment, so I went ahead.

Things are always changing in the world, and I found myself swept up in change once I really saw what newsgroups were about. They weren't about stuffy people posting the latest proven facts. It was about being boring or useless. In fact, participating in a newsgroup really had a lot to do with what I like: my interests, people who like what I like, and new information. I found just about anything my little heart desired in a newsgroup somewhere, and seemed to get better all the time. This paper will take you through my journey into that world and take you through all the doubts and questions I went through. Buckle up.

Method of Study: Pick and Choose?

After being assigned this project, I began to look at newsgroups on Netscape and on Pine. I found that I liked working on Netscape better, not because of any deep and meaningful reason, but I just liked the three-window setup.

After figuring out how to get into newsgroups it came time to pick a few. I had recently visited the Disney web site and found it very interesting, so I looked for a Disney newsgroup. I successfully found a few, and settled on alt.disney.secrets because "secrets" sounded like fun. My second newsgroup, alt.music.billy-joel, I found by accident. I clicked on something (I still don't know what) and ended up in alt.music. This is where I found the newsgroup on Billy Joel, one of my favorite artists.

Being without my own computer and relying on the lab and friends gave me a bit of trouble keeping up with the newsgroups. I quickly found that I would need to do things systematically in order to keep up. To help myself, I always sorted the messages by subject. This kept ideas together. Next I had to figure out how I would keep track of what I had already read. For this I checked on the newsgroup Monday through Friday, reading any messages that were from that day or the day before. It was relatively easy to keep up with, as usually there were no more than 20 new messages a day in either newsgroup. I did realize that having my own computer would be very beneficial in keeping up with what I already read. If something was really important for me to have around, I would copy and paste it in a Microsoft word file that I kept.

I found it interesting how people wrote to each other. Each message was usually a question directed to everyone, someone trying to sell/promote something, or an "inside" message that was meant for a select few. It was easy to figure out which was which, even though sometimes it seemed like a waste of time. This was especially true in the Billy Joel newsgroup, as there were a lot of record companies or music store leaving their web addresses in hopes of business. Besides these, and the confusing personal messages, I looked at each message with an open mind.

I quickly learned about posting and flaming. I saw certain people posting certain types of messages. Some people, for example, always post a trivia-type message for everyone else to answer. To learn how to post was easy, and even though there weren't numerous things that I really felt confident responding to. I saw flaming, but have not done it. I don't really see myself flaming anyone at this time, but it's nice to know about it. It's very interesting to see which messages get flamed as well. Another interesting concept was whether or not to reply to the newsgroup and the author or just one or the other. It seems that what you do depends on if you're making a comment directed at the author or just the previous post. But this, of course doesn't always hold true and that's why it's so interesting.

Results of the Analysis: Following the Rules

Most of the posts from my two newsgroups tended to include the entire (or most) of the original post in their posted replies. After this they would include their reply below the quote. An example of this is shown here from alt.music.billy-joel:

>Does anyone remember if there was a video for the Night is Still Young >song? If there is, where is it (how do I get it?)
Yes there is a video of this. It is off of "The Video Album Volume 1" Y$ can check Blockbuster Video or Media Play. If you cant find it e-mail me directly....Cheryl

Sometimes I found this to be irritating, because if you are keeping up, you don't usually need to read the entire message again. Some people, however, quote the section of the original message that they were most interested in, and then reply. In my opinion, this was the most effective method.

Many original posts contain only one-topic, which was wonderful. But there always are a few multi-topic messages that were five times longer then they needed to be. Brevity is the general rule of thumb that I've seen, and this can be illustrated in this post from alt.disney.secrets:

Dirty Dizney Dancer wrote:
Looking for any Dirty Pictures taken at disney parks, hotels and the like. (mooning,makeing out on rides, flashing, "splash mountain photos" Hotel and resort sex, and and n+ude,or almost showing, disney water par$ swimsuit pictures, if you have any please email them to me!!!
Thankx!!!!

This leads to the next topic of flaming. The above example also illustrates the type of message that is likely to be flamed in the Disney newsgroup. In the newsgroups I've been following, flaming is not something that happens all the time, but it does, when messages like this come around. The messages that usually get flamed are mostly short and in poor taste, like the example above, and most almost seem to be looking for a negative response to them. Flaming is often personally directed at the author as well as the message, and sometimes can begin a stir of opposing opinions between members of the group that are not involved in the flamed message.

New threads are usually begun when someone has a new idea to express, where follow-ups are usually a response to the original message that the author feels is significant. This seems very basic, but it doesn't always hold true.

alt.disney.secrets from this message:

The word "SEX" in Lion King, the big penis on the cover of Little Mermaid, You could hear Aladdin saying "take off your cloth" in one part of the movie. What else is there? Look on the cover of The Lion King, in the clouds to the right of the title. Another penis. Lots of sexual symbolism in Pocahontos and Toy Story. I think these animators just need to get out more...

Some people agreed with this post and stated examples and other negative things that can be found within the world of Disney. Others disagreed and gave reasons or sources of faulty rumors. Regardless of their stance, a LOT of people responded to this.

The most predictable responses to messages come either when there's a straightforward question or a controversial or negative issue. Questions usually lead to answers and opinions yield disagreements, more opinions, and sometimes flaming. As previously stated, sometimes things lead to intense agreement or disagreement. Each person has their own style of expressing how they feel about a post. Some people are blunt (especially when they're angry, like this response:

Shut the hell up, Butthead!

This was found when someone insulted Billy Joel. This is short and to the point, I can't say it's all that "profound" but there's not much I can do about that. In this example, the message is clearly directed towards the person who wrote it. This I see happening a lot. Someone writes a message and others attack the person, rather then what they had to say. This in my opinion, makes their counter argument weaker, because it drifts from the true point. The person may be perfectly sane, but because of what they say, they are deemed crazy or stupid. It is as if the person and their thought are the same thing. The time is not taken to contemplate where the idea came from, and in some cases, it may not be the author's true feelings, but something they heard and are passing on.

This same type of thing happens when someone goes against the normal current of the newsgroup. Other members usually get angry, and flame them. These same examples that we've been seeing when people say something negative or controversial happens when someone goes against expectations. Sometimes, they are even guided to other newsgroups where their ideas would be more appropriate. This is part of a reply to the person in alt.disney.secrets who was looking for the nude pictures:

Why don't you submit your query in one of the alt.sexnewsgroups and leave this place clean like you found it.

What it's Like to Participate: Don't Bite Your Nails

It took me a week and a half to first post and I did so in alt.disney.secrets because it didn't seem as volatile as the Billy Joel newsgroup seemed. It took me so long for quite a few reasons. First, I wanted to make sure that I was asking something appropriate for the newsgroup. I did not want to ask about something irrelevant, because to me, those irrelevant posts that I read were irritating. I also wanted to make sure that I asked in a way that someone could respond to me, but not because they were upset at the way I said things. I also didn't want to be ignored. So I lurked for a while until I felt like I got the hang of things, and then I did. I was very nervous at first, I figured no one would write to me and I would feel like a real loser. But it also made me excited, and I really looked forward to getting a response, if any.

Reading the newsgroups proved to be very rewarding. Not only did I learn some cool things about Disney and Billy Joel, but I learned a little more about the community of people in the newsgroups. I decided to use Netscape News for my newsgroups, and at first, I looked for messages that had interesting subject lines. I soon learned, however, that there's more to a message then what the author decides to name it. Some messages that had very interesting subject lines were the very ones that really didn't deal with the newsgroup subject at all, or were the ones sent out by companies looking for your business. But the "ordinary" title led to interesting things. This made reading every message something to really look forward to. This was especially true, when you previously read a message that you think will get flamed or spammed.

Currently, I have only posted about five times. This sounds like a really small number, but it's a lot to me considering how long it told me to be confident enough to post. Most of my posts have been general questions. But more recently I have replied to other's messages. Once as an answer to a question, and once as comment of disagreement. I usually post only when I have a feeling about it or it's really different and interesting to me. Sometimes posts seems so un-thought out, and I do not want people to get that impression of me, so I try to really put some effort into my posts.

After I posted the first time, I was very depressed because no one responded, or so I thought. I began to doubt the whole newsgroup community. I felt as though the others felt my question wasn't worthy of their time. Eventually, however, I got a thoughtful reply for that first question, and I felt much better. Basically, every time I posted I would excitedly check the newsgroup in the days that followed for replies. This one that I just mentioned is to date, the only reply I've received. But, I did reply to a post in which many others besides me are responding. This made me feel like I was a real part of the group, because I picked out something that was worthy of long-term members replies, as well as me, a rookie.

I will continue to participate in my newsgroups, and may look for a few others on other subjects that interest me. It's taught me a lot about Netscape, cyberspace, and the people that reside there. In some ways I am a lot more knowledgeable now, I not only have picked up cool tidbits of information, but I know where to look for information about just about any subject in the world. Newsgroups alone can and do provide its users with a wealth of information. If you say that each person who participates in a newsgroup knows only one more thing then you do, you have the potential to learn thousands of things each day, and all while you are also learning about a topic that you like with others who like it too. That alone has provided me with a very positive lasting impression of cyberspace.

Annotated Index to Social Forces in Newsgroups:
Who Makes the Rules?

After a while I was able to find some other places on the internet that talk a little about what goes on community wise in a newsgroup. I found them by using Excite and entering various subjects. I found the two I consider to be the best by typing in "newsgroup etiquette." Funny enough, both sites had a lot of the same ideas I did. In Usenet Etiquette, the author talked about spending some time reading everything before you actually post. This helps you to get an idea of what's appropriate and inappropriate. Another Etiquette site talks about being careful about who you flame, and really thinking about it and deciding whether or not that's really what you want to do. Another site talks about a newsgroup dealing with abortion. This author specifically tells you who to watch out for, and helpful hints of the group.

I think most people feel basically the same about newsgroups. I'm sure there are people who basically want others to get upset by what they write, but I think the vast majority of us are just looking for information and people like ourselves. We probably all feel similarly when we start out, and we learn through experimentation, just like in the physical world. This way, however, you have the legal opportunity to watch a group of people before getting involved. This way you can decide if you really want to get involved or not, an opportunity we don't have in day-to-day life.