Sandy's Soapbox
About Communities and Credit
by Sandy Antunes
Off on a popular knitting website, there are contributing editors who are now claiming that, without them, the site would never have become popular. I believe contributors, both content-creators and those behind the scene, should receive credit. And, that their contributions helped build the site's success. But I disagree that, without them, the site would not have succeeded. In a good community, these are not the same thing. I'll use RPGnet as an example.
RPGnet was founded by a myself and Emma, brought two more co-founders (Shawn Althouse and Brian David Phillips) in for community and content, then built itself (as most good communities do) with the effort of many additional contributors and volunteers. And that's the model it still follows today.
RPGnet would not be where it was, were it not for the contributions of many. And those that contributed should be thanked. But RPGnet would still be successful even without the contribution of any single person (myself included). The community is larger than the individual.
Contributors to RPGnet have always been rewarded with that intangible of 'exposure', as well as an even less talked about value-- 'practice'. This latter one is why I continue to write my monthly column. Being forced to write new material every four weeks, to a deadline, regardless of my day job or ordinary life burdens, has been fantastic for keeping and honing the writer within me. Although I have occasional paying RPG and science writing gigs, creating this column is akin to participating in a writer's guild: write, get feedback, learn.
There's a distinction between being credited for work done, and claiming success would not have occurred if you hadn't been there. The knitting contributors are being a bit arrogant.
Would RPGnet be the same if (to pick on a respected colleague of mine) Gareth Michael-Skarka hadn't contributed his '52 Pickup' column? In a quantum mechanical sense, no, there would be minor differences in the evolved RPGnet culture, particularly the columns, had GMS been erased from the time-space continuum. But the site would still be pretty much the same RPGnet you see.
After all, GMS contributed to RPGnet because what he had to say was in line with what RPGnet did. So his work assisted RPGnet without redefining it. He was a valued contributor, but not a bulkhead against inevitable failure. RPGnet would not have failed had GMS not contributed, but it did benefit from his presence-- as it does with any contributor.
That's what communities do-- they prosper through the contributions of their members, and in turn their members get more social connection, enjoyment, and success as the community grows.
Even the importance of the founder(s) can be overstated. The same factors that say the site prospers from, but isn't beholden to, any single contributor, applies to those who lead the site. RPGnet would not have been founded were it not for me, for example, but once it existed as a viable community, the role of the founders becomes less crucial. RPGnet has changed lead roles many times, surviving and prospering.
A good community managed with a light touch defines its own existence. Under good editorship, it prospers, under bad editorship, it still survives. Contributors who get recognition promote growth, contributors who feel entitlement cause schisms. Success in any media venture is when readers, site owners, and contributors are all on agreeable (even if uneven) footing. While arrogance, elitism, schisms and anguish may make for good art, they are not good for the community.
Unless, of course, your website is schism-and-anguish.com.
Until next month,
Sandy
sandy@rpg.net
