6 Everything2's Leviathan

The summer before my junior year of high school, I began writing for an online “collaboratively filtered database” called Everything2. My friend had recently discovered the site and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon, having written about 20 “nodes” (articles on various subjects) before convincing me to contribute. He had painstakingly researched information for each article and spent a fair amount of time editing his work. Initially, I was perplexed by his dedication to an endeavor which seemed to offer very few tangible rewards for completely voluntary hard work. However, as I spent more time trying to understand what drove the website and its contributors, I realized that, more than an online encyclopedia, Everything2 was a community. This online space, replete with a well-defined social hierarchy, had its own code of ethics, cultural norms, and inside jokes, all of which contributed to a nontrivial sense of “groupness.”

Wallace recognizes that, compared to face-to-face environments, online communities often need to more overtly stipulate the norms they wish to inculcate. The “sign on the door” is one efficient way of outlining rules and Everything2 has taken this tactic to heart. Links to “Everything FAQ” and “Everything University,” which are easily accessible from the homepage, offer guidelines for submitting nodes, outline stylistic expectations, and explain the norms associated with users’ personal “homenodes” (profiles). If these guidelines were not presented explicitly, it would take much longer for users to figure out the rules and new recruits might be discouraged from joining.

Standards of style and quality, explicitly stated in “Everything FAQ,” are firmly upheld in Everything2. If a user deviates from the specified guidelines regarding linking to other nodes, for example, they can expect to receive “downvotes,” which serve as the primary method of censure. The founders of Everything2 created a system in which users could earn points and move to higher levels by writing nodes that were well-received by the community, hence garnering “upvotes” from other users. If nodes fail to meet style or quality requirements, they receive downvotes. Voting allows members to reproach and reward their peers unambiguously and swiftly, thus providing a tangible way for the Leviathan to exert its influence on users.

Wallace has stated that online groups demonstrating trust between members are more productive and successful than groups who show less inclination toward interdependence. Everything2 has amassed a loyal group of users who rely on each other for feedback and intellectual stimulation. The trust that exists between them seems to foster a thriving creative community where hard work is rewarded.