Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups

By Zizi Papacharissi. New Media & Society, 2004

1,121 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Communication, Philosophy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d3cc787f650717daba4ef5c1f9d71319ebb544f5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Communication

In Philosophy

Citations in the corpus

Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression (2013, background): “Papacharissi (2004) identified the absence of cues as the main condition to encourage flaming and uncivil behavior in online political discourse.”
Online Political Discourse: Exploring Differences in Effects of Civil and Uncivil Disagreement in News Website Comments (2017, background): “Comments were edited for length and to ensure the uncivil ones contained common markers of online incivility: profanity, name-calling, and capital letters to indicate a raised tone in CMC (Coe, Kenski, & Rains, 2014; Darics, 2010; Papacharissi, 2004).”
What is political incivility? (2016, methodology): “Uniting the concept of political civility with that of maintaining face requires that we follow Papacharissi (2004) and restrict political civility norms to maintaining a particular”
Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review (2021, background): “…(Papacharissi, 2004); incivility, that includes behaviors that threaten democracy, deny people their personal freedoms, or stereotype social groups (Papacharissi, 2004); and off line hate speech expressed as direct aggressions (Anderson, Brossard, Scheufele, Xenos, & Ladwig, 2014; Coe, Kenski, &…”
Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility (2017, background): “Even the few studies that have utilized a two-pronged theoretical approach to incivility (Papacharissi, 2004; Uslaner, 1996; Wolf, Strachan, & Shea, 2012) have disagreed on the specific norm violations that align with different types of incivility.”
A Bad Workman Blames His Tweets? The Consequences of Citizens’ Uncivil Twitter Use When Interacting with Party Candidates (2016, background): “Excessive politeness and strict adherence to social norms is seen by some as negative, and as an attitude that leads to the avoidance of disagreement, and to token agreement through the pursuit of safe topics (Papacharissi, 2004, p.262).”
Social Media, Science, and Attack Discourse: How Twitter Discussions of Climate Change Use Sarcasm and Incivility (2017, background): “Online Incivility Scholars have defined incivility as an explicit attack that goes beyond impoliteness or the heated debate that is beneficial to fostering democratic discourse (Brooks & Geer, 2007; Papacharissi, 2004).”
Quick, Community-Specific Learning: How Distinctive Toxicity Norms Are Maintained in Political Subreddits (2020, background): “In synthesizing the varied definitions of incivility, Stryker, Conway, and Danielson (2016) note that a common strain is “a focus on rudeness in the political arena” (see (Papacharissi 2004) for an exception).”
Weblogs, traditional sources online and political participation: an assessment of how the internet is changing the political environment (2009, background): “More specifically, scholars studying blogs suggest that they are used primarily for expression, affiliation and observation of social and political information (Kaye and Johnson, 2004; Papacharissi, 2004).”
Self-Governance Through Group Discussion in Wikipedia (2011, background): “…researchers have examined democracy online, including studies that assert that CMC has the potential to promote civility and democratic discussion (Papacharissi, 2004; Weiksner, 2005), revive the public sphere (Papacharissi, 2002), and encourage civic participation and engagement (Bucy & Gregson,…”