Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

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

 | University of Melbourne |
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17033.wri
Abstract
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Third space and political talk
  • 3.Super-participation
    • 3.1Super-posters (SP1s)
    • 3.2Agenda-setters (SP2s)
    • 3.3Moderators and facilitators (SP3s)
    • 3.4Strategic manipulators (SP4s)
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.The extent and impact of super-posters (SP1s)
  • 6.Agenda-setting (SP2s)
  • 7.Moderators and facilitators (SP3s)
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Bibliography
References (34)
Bibliography
Benedictus, Leo. 2016. “Invasion of the troll armies.” The Guardian, November 06, 2016. [URL]
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. [URL].
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 1041: 571–587. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen, and Jay G. Blumler. 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Lincoln. 2001. “Computer-Mediated Communication and The Public Sphere: A Critical Analysis.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 7 (1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. .Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. [URL].
Oldenburg, Ray. 1999. The Great Good Place. Marlow: New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rheingold, Howard. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, 2nd edition , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schuler, Doug. 1996. New Community Networks. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijck, Jose. 2013. The Culture of Connectivity: A critical history of social media, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wright, Scott. 2002. “Dogma or Dialogue? The Politics of the Downing Street website”. Politics 22 (3): 135–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “A Virtual European public sphere? The Futurum discussion forum.” Journal of European Public Policy 14 (8): 1167–1185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012a. “Politics as Usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.” New Media & Society 14 (2): 244–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012b. “From ‘third place’ to ‘Third Space’: everyday political talk in non-political online spaces”. Javnost 19 (3): 5–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012c. “Assessing (e-)Democratic Innovations: “democratic goods” and Downing Street E-petitions”. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9 (4): 453–470. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Populism and Downing Street E-petitions: Connective action, hybridity and the changing nature of organizing”. Political Communication 32 (3): 414–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “‘Success’ and on Online Political Participation: the case of Downing Street E-petitions”, Information, Communication & Society 19 (6): 843–857. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 (3)

Cited by three other publications

Donois, Katrine K., Lewis Goodings, Mick Finlay & Nicola Gibson
2025. Contested science communication: Representations of scientists and their science in newspaper articles and the associated comment sections. Public Understanding of Science 34:6 ► pp. 810 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Yu, Todd Graham & Marcel Broersma
2021. Informing the government or fostering public debate?. Journal of Language and Politics 20:4 ► pp. 539 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Yu, Todd Graham & Marcel Broersma
2022. Complaining and sharing personal concerns as political acts: how everyday talk about childcare and parenting on online forums increases public deliberation and civic engagement in China. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 19:2 ► pp. 214 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue