Article published in:
Re/constructing Politics Through Social & Online Media: Discourses, ideologies, and mediated political practices
Edited by Michał Krzyżanowski and Joshua A. Tucker
[Journal of Language and Politics 17:2] 2018
► pp. 155–172

The impact of ‘super-participants’ on everyday political talk

| University of Melbourne
This article analyses the impact of “super-participants” – people who create lots of content, set the agenda, or moderate debates – on everyday online political talk in a non-political online discussion forum – or “third space”. The article finds that there was extensive evidence of super-participation in the forum, and that they did impact the nature of political talk.
Keywords: political talk, online deliberation, political communication, online community, third space, super-participants
Published online: 30 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
Bibliography

Bibliography

Benedictus, Leo
2016 “Invasion of the troll armies.” The Guardian, November 06 2016 https://​www​.theguardian​.com​/media​/2016​/nov​/06​/troll​-armies​-social​-media​-trump​-russian
Chen, Cheng, Kui Wu, Venkatesh Srinivasan and Xudong Zhang
2011 “Battling the Internet Water Army: Detection of Hidden Paid Posters.” Social and Information Networks 18th November 2011 http://​arxiv​.org​/pdf​/1111​.4297​.pdf.
Cho, Charles H., Martin L. Martens, M. Hakkyun Kim and Michelle Rodrigue
2011 “Astroturfing Global Warming: It Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side of the Fence.” Journal of Business Ethics 104: 571–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua
1997 “Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.” In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. by James Bohman and William Rehg, 67–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen, and Jay G. Blumler
2009 The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Kate, and Tarleton Gillespie
2016 “What is a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint.” New Media & Society 18 (3): 410–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, Lincoln
2001 “Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Arthur
2002 “The Moderator as an Emerging Democratic Intermediary: The Role of the Moderator in Internet Discussions about Public Issues.” Information Polity 7 (1): 3–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Todd, Daniel Jackson and Scott Wright
2016 “We need to get together and make ourselves heard’: everyday online spaces as incubators of political action.” Information, Communication & Society 19 (10): 1373–1389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Todd, and Scott Wright
2014a “Discursive Equality and Everyday Talk Online: the impact of “Super-Participants.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Todd, and Wright, Scott
2014b “ ‘Super-participation’ in Third Spaces: volume and impact on political argument.” In Analysing Social Media Data and Web Networks, ed. by Rachel K. Gibson, Stephen Ward and Marta Cantijoch, 197–215. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himelboim, Itai, Eric Gleave and Marc Smith, M.
2009 “Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: Content importers and conversation starters.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14 (4): 771–789. Crossref.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Jennifer Pan and Margaret E. Roberts
2017 “How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument.” American Political Science Review 111 (3): 484–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Jack and James Johnson
1997 “What sort of political equality does deliberative democracy require?.” In: Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. by James Bohman and William Rehg, 279–319. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kollanyi, Bence, Philip N. Howard and Samuel C. Woolley
2016 “Bots and Automation over Twitter during the U.S. election.” Data Memo, Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda 17 November 2016 http://​politicalbots​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2016​/11​/Data​-Memo​-US​-Election​.pdf.
Oldenburg, Ray
1999 The Great Good Place. Marlow: New York.Google Scholar
Rheingold, Howard
2000 The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, 2nd edition , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, Doug
1996 New Community Networks. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Aaron, and Benjamin M. Hill
2014 “Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the Iron Law Extends to Peer Production”. Journal of Communication 64 (2): 215–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soukup, Charles
2006 “Oldenburg’s Great Good Places on the World Wide Web Computer-Mediated Communication as a Virtual Third Place”. New Media & Society 8 (3): 421–440. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijck, Jose
2013 The Culture of Connectivity: A critical history of social media, Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Scott
2002 “Dogma or Dialogue? The Politics of the Downing Street website”. Politics 22 (3): 135–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Government-run online discussion fora: moderation, censorship and the shadow of control.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 8 (4): 550–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “A Virtual European public sphere? The Futurum discussion forum.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (8): 1167–1185. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Language, Communication and the Public Sphere”. In: The Handbook of Applied Linguistics: language, communication and the public sphere, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Veronika Koller, 21–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012a “Politics as Usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.” New Media & Society 14 (2): 244–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012b “From ‘third place’ to ‘Third Space’: everyday political talk in non-political online spaces”. Javnost 19 (3): 5–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012c “Assessing (e-)Democratic Innovations: “democratic goods” and Downing Street E-petitions”. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9 (4): 453–470. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Populism and Downing Street E-petitions: Connective action, hybridity and the changing nature of organizing”. Political Communication 32 (3): 414–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 “ ‘Success’ and on Online Political Participation: the case of Downing Street E-petitions”, Information, Communication & Society 19 (6): 843–857. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Scott and John Street
2007 “Democracy, Deliberation and Design: the case of government-run online discussion forums”. New Media & Society 9 (5): 849–869. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Scott, Todd Graham, Yu Sun, Wilfred Yang Wang, Xiantian Luo and Andrea Carson
2016b “Analysing everyday online political talk in China: Theoretical and methodological reflections.” Communication, Politics & Culture 49 (1): 41–61.Google Scholar
Wright, Scott, Todd Graham and Daniel Jackson
2016a “Third Spaces and Everyday Political Talk”. In Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, ed. by Axel Bruns, Eli Skogerbø, Christian Christensen, Anders-Olof Larsson and Enli Gunn, 74–88. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, Scott, William Lukamto and Verity Trott
In Press. “The 2016 Australian Election Online: debate, support, community”. In The 2016 Australian Federal Election ed. by Anika Gauja and Peter Chen Canberra ANU Press
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Sun, Yu, Todd Graham & Marcel Broersma
2020. Informing the government or fostering public debate?. Journal of Language and Politics ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 may 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.