The Importance of Etiquette in Online Virtual Environments

Kimberley Hobbs
Graduate Student
Educational Communications and Technology
University of Saskatchewan
February, 2009

Introduction

Online virtual communities provide us with the means to build connections with
others who share our interests globally. We must become effective communicators in
order to collaborate, work proficiently and to help develop and maintain trust among
participants in online environments. Preece (2004) states that, “norms that lead to good
online etiquette, empathy and trust between community members provide stepping-stones
for social capital development” (p.294). In this paper, I will identify some of the
communication challenges that exist in online environments. Then I will identify some
general netiquette rules which we may apply to all of our online interactions as well as
highlight some more specific netiquette rules for communicating using email, instant
messaging, text messaging and micro blogging. Finally I will identify technology
advancements that may help us to overcome online communication challenges and may
lead to redefining the rules of engagement we currently follow online.

Netiquette and Social Capital

“Etiquette is a code that influences the expectations and behaviour of social

behaviour, according to contemporary conventional norms within a society, social class
or group” (Etiquette, 2009). Social behaviour refers to the interactions among individuals
while conventional norms are the rules of acceptable behaviour that have been defined by
the group.
The term netiquette is formed by combining the words network and etiquette. In
this case network refers to a computer network in which many computers are connected
to one another as in the World Wide Web. Netiquette therefore becomes a social protocol
which helps to facilitate meaningful online communication and the development of social
capital.
“Social capital is the glue which holds a community together…” (Preece, 2004,
p.297). Community is defined as a group of people coming together based on common
interests. Communities that exhibit strong social capital have developed a sense of trust
and understanding that allow its members to communicate well with one another
exchanging ideas effectively in order to build understanding or solve problems (Daniel,

1
Schwier & McCalla, 2003; Preece, 2004). “Shared goals, norms and shared values
facilitate … social capital development” (Preece, 2004, p.297).
Adhering to certain netiquette beliefs can influence our participation, trust and
learning online. Schwier & Daniel (2007) define social protocols as the “rules of
engagement” or the “ways of behaving in a community” (p.6). They identify social
protocols as one of the fourteen characteristics of virtual learning communities. Their
Bayesian network model reveals that social protocols have an influence on participation,
trust and learning in virtual learning communities. Trust is identified as the most
important factor in virtual learning communities. Trust is important to the
communication process and “when one views a community as upholding trustworthy
values such as mutual reciprocity, honesty, reliability and commitment, there is likely to
be a greater degree of motivation to participate and share one’s knowledge (Usoro &
Sharratt, 2003).
Explicitly sharing netiquette instructions for specific online environments
becomes significant in maintaining the trust of participants and encouraging participation
among members so that everyone may benefit from the interactive learning that is
possible online. “Lack of etiquette weakens sociability and even destroys communities
of practice” (Preece, 2004, p, 299).

Communication Challenges in Online Communities

Barriers exist that may prevent online participants from identifying and applying
the etiquette rules of the community. These barriers to communication include:

Apprehension
Online learning communities are a relatively new forum for communication.
People may be apprehensive to participate if they are unsure of their technological
abilities or their knowledge of the discussion topic. Postings or messages may be visible
to a large and public audience for an indefinite period of time. This may cause hesitation
as participants want to post comments and questions that are relevant and demonstrate
understanding (Usoro & Sharratt, 2003). This apprehension can reduce participant
confidence and prevent participants from becoming involved to the extent required to
identify the netiquette rules of the community.

Cultural Differences
Access to virtual environments extends our participation into worldwide
communities. Etiquette and netiquette rules may differ significantly from one
community to the next based on cultural norms. Schwier (2007a) states that “this
introduces potential for conflict in communities when different cultural traditions (e.g.,
age-related traditions of communication) are brought into a single learning environment”
(p.32). As we increase our participation in cultures with different norms even the most
subtle differences may cause significant challenges (Preece, 2004).

2
Communication via Written Text
The majority of online communication is comprised of the transfer of ideas and
experiences via written text. “We cannot see the facial expressions or body languages of
colleagues as we conduct discussions; we cannot hear voices or tones of voice to convey
emotion” (Cartelli, 2008, p. 244). Online communication has therefore become
challenging without the presence of social cues (i.e., facial expressions, body language
and tone of voice). These cues assist us in interpreting the emotion and intent of a
message. The general lack of these cues in online communication may lead to
misunderstandings or mistrust (Shea, V, 2005). The text written in words in online
communities also becomes more permanent than the spoken word. Conversations can be
archived, messages may be forwarded or posted for many viewers to access. Participants
may be fearful of sharing as they start to question the value and relevance of their ideas
and the fact that their words could remain visible even after they have changed their mind
(Sharratt & Usoro, 2003).

Variance of Online Communities

It is important to consider the type of technology you are using in online
conversations. Is the conversation occurring synchronously as in online chat or instant
messaging, or asynchronously as in email or discussion board postings? These different
types of technology require the use of different rules of etiquette (Preece, 2004; Marx,
1994). This becomes challenging for participants as they need to adjust their etiquette if
they are emailing, instant chatting or blogging. I have learned that it is appropriate to
send and receive email that is succinct and to the point, and that we need to be cautious
so as not to misinterpret this as a negative tone in the message. Email may be sent to one
person or a group of people and we need to be aware that our messages may be
forwarded on to others as well. Micro-blogging requires an even more concise method of
communication in which you post short messages for a group of followers to view. Your
writing style differs significantly and it is not always directly evident what is appropriate
and what is not appropriate from one environment to the next. Our communication
experiences guide us in our understanding of the etiquette rules.
Wenger, McDermott & Snyder (2002) indicate the importance of providing both
public and private spaces for the development of communication within communities.
Truitt Zelenka (2008) refers to several social software types or online environments that
may be utilized for online collaboration. Some of these are described in Table 1 (Truitt
Zelenka, 2008):

3
Table 1. Types and Characteristics of Online Communication Tools

Type Characteristics
Electronic mail. Has become common form of
Email communication for many people. It is asynchronous and
therefore not time dependent.
Instant Messaging Frequent informal interactions. Good for quick questions.
Text Messaging On your mobile phone. Short and to the point.
Often used for personal expression but may be used for
Social Networking Sites
professional networking.
Personal publishing platforms that allow you to create a
very dynamic website with little work. Usually supports
Blogging
comments by readers and cross blog links to allow for
discussions and other social interaction.
Share your photos and digital images. Browse, comment on
Photo Sharing
and use photos posted by others.
Twitter is an example of micoblogging. It allows you to
Microblogging
post short updates for others to read.
Wikis are collections of web pages that can be
Wikis
collaboratively developed and maintained.

It is also important to distinguish between virtual learning communities and other

virtual communities (Conrad, 2002b). “A learning community emerges when people are
drawn together to learn…virtual learning communities happen when the process of
learning takes place outside the boundaries of face to face contact, typically
electronically” Schwier (in press). Virtual learning communities and other virtual
communities may both take advantage of the benefits of the variety of social software
listed in the previous table.

Overcoming Challenges

Online learning environments can be unfamiliar or new to many users.

Apprehension, cultural differences, focus on written text and the variety of online
environments accessible, may make initiating communication a challenge or may lead to
misunderstandings and to the ultimate break down of trust for participants in online
communities. In order to offset these challenges and allow participants the confidence
they need to become successful learners in online communities, it may be valuable to
explicitly define social protocols for the online communities they are participating in.
This is evident in virtual learning communities that typically take place in educational
settings where an instructor is in place to outline conversation etiquette and moderate
discussions. This structured environment can enhance trust and increase social capital.
(Schwier, 2007b).
Preece (2004) believes that online etiquette rules are learned through experience
in a community. Truitt Zelenka (2008) also suggests that it may be valuable for new
participants to observe for a while without participating “to see how people behave in

4
different contexts online. Take your time and learn the etiquette before you start” (p.14).
To a certain extent this is true and certainly over time we may gradually learn some of the
social protocols of any community we are involved in. I would argue that explicitly
sharing netiquette rules in online learning communities will encourage involvement,
maintain group values and provide the guidance necessary for participants to build
understanding and trust, therefore reinforcing social capital. The predominately textual
environment of online communities allows for ease in sharing the netiquette rules. The
explicit outlining of expectations can relieve apprehension and give clear directions for
the use of written text in the targeted learning environment. As participants continue to
interact and build trust they build social capital which can help overcome cultural
differences (Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003).
“In practice virtual learning communities should encourage freedom of
expression, mutual respect and they should value diversity (Schwier & Daniel, 2007).
What are the guidelines that we believe constitute socially acceptable online behaviour
that would lead to this mutual respect and freedom of expression? Conrad (2002a)
identified the following five behaviours that help learners contribute to building online
community: presence, prepared and relevant postings, awareness, respectful behaviour
and compassion and tolerance. These five behaviours are relevant for all the social
software environments described in the previous table. Shea (1994) outlines ten core
rules of netiquette that are still applicable today and that support the behaviours outlined
by Conrad (2002a). These netiquette rules are (Shea, 1994, p. 35-45):

1. Remember the human.

Remember there is a real person communicating with you and only say
things online that you would say to them in person.
2. Adhere to the same standards of behaviour online that you follow in real life.
Be ethical. Breaking the law is bad netiquette.
3. Know where you are in cyberspace
Netiquette varies from domain to domain. What is acceptable in one
area may not be in another.
4. Respect other people’s time and bandwidth
Ensure the time people will spend reading your postings is not wasted.
Do not send repetitive information that would use up bandwidth.
5. Make yourself look good online.
Know what you are talking about and make sense. Make sure your
notes are clear and logical. Spelling and grammar are important for
clarity of messages. Only use appropriate vocabulary and avoid
profanity.
6. Share expert knowledge.
Don’t be afraid to share what you know. If you have posed questions
that you received excellent answers for, compile the responses and
share them with the group.
7. Help keep flame wars under control.
Flaming is expressing an opinion with (typically negative) emotion.
Flaming is acceptable provided it does not turn into a flame

5
 war where two or three people direct angry messages at one
another and control the content of the discussion.
8. Respect other people’s privacy.
Do not read other people’s email.
9. Don’t abuse your power.
Knowing more than others or having more user rights than others does
not give you the right to take advantage of others.
10. Be forgiving of other people’s mistakes.
If it is a minor error you may choose to ignore it. If you decide to
inform someone of their mistake, point it out politely and privately.

These rules of behaviour generally apply to all forms of online

communication. There are additional rules that have evolved and which apply to
specific social software. The following lists identify rules specific to email, instant
messaging, text messaging and micro-blogging.

Email
The following rules generally apply to email:
1. Messages should be concise and to the point.
2. Messages should include correct spelling, punctuation and grammar.
3. Use humour and sarcasm with caution as they may be easily misunderstood.
4. Avoid the use of ALL CAPS as this is considered shouting.

Truitt Zelenka (2008) acknowledges that email is impersonal. It is helpful for

those using email to know that email can be blunt and to the point. This knowledge may
help prevent misunderstandings or encourage users to ask questions for further
clarification. In my experience email was initially used in a formal manner. Email has
become a common form of communication on both professional and personal levels.
The increase in the volume of messages we are processing has made it necessary to
shorten messages and make them less informal so that we may respond to messages in a
timely manner. “People can learn to handle short emails and assume that as the default
way of communicating by email rather than expecting some sort of mailed letter like
sensibility. In many work cultures, short and quick emails without social grooming are
the norm” (Truitt Zelenka, 2003, p. 105)

Instant Messaging, Text Messaging and Micro Blogging (i.e., Twitter)

1. Messages should be concise and to the point.
2. Using invented spelling and lack of punctuation is acceptable
3. Use emoticons (symbols) to represent emotions.
4. Use acronyms to condense messages.
5. Humour and sarcasm should still be used with caution but are more prominent
than in email.
6. Use your presence indicator to indicate your availability for instant messaging
(Truitt Zelenka, 2008)

6
 Emoticons and acronyms can be very helpful to provide clarification of emotion
and feelings which are not always immediately evident in the written word. It is
beneficial when lists of common emoticons and acronyms are shared for online users.
The University of Saskatchewan’s Centre for Continuing & Distance Education links to a
list of common emoticons and acronyms on their Learn Online website (Emoticons and
Acronyms, 2009).
Using instant messaging as a backchannel is becoming socially acceptable in
some environments. I would compare this to having a sidebar conversation with
someone while a presenter is speaking. Instant messaging allows you to carry on a
conversation with one or more people or ask questions of the presenter while you are
listening to a conference call, webinar or presentation. This can be a way for you to get
clarification on the discussion or ask a question without interrupting (Truitt Zelenka,
2008). The practice of back channeling is not socially acceptable in face-to-face
environments and therefore is in opposition to our traditional etiquette beliefs.

Social Networking Sites

According to Wikipedia there are over one hundred major active social
networking sites worldwide including: Facebook, MySpace, Windows Live Spaces and
Friendster to name just a few (List of social networking websites, 2009). These websites
are building communities for individuals to interact in a variety of ways including email,
online chat and instant messages. These social environments may have their own set of
netiquette rules or may require participants to apply a variety of netiquette rules. The
ability to be flexible and intuitive in applying the netiquette rules appropriately is
becoming a critical skill as new ways of communicating and sharing information emerge
and grow in importance.

Virtual Reality Environments

Collaborative virtual environments are emerging that are attempting to increase

social presence online (Cartelli, 2006). “Collaborative virtual environments (CVE’s) are
computer-enabled distributed virtual spaces or places in which people can meet and
interact with others, with agents and with virtual objects” (Cartelli, 2006, p.245).
Characters in virtual environments have increasingly become more human like with 3-D
representations. These 3-D characters or avatars can display unique appearances and
human like behaviours. Avatars are enabling non-verbal communication in online
environments (Cartelli, 2006). The ability to convey non-verbal cues online may be an
answer to overcoming the communication challenges that we experience in many online
environments where these non-verbal cues are not present.
“Avatars can run, jump, fly, dance, and enable you to express a whole host of
emotions. So say goodbye to your old one-dimensional emoticons ” (Activeworlds,
2009). As images become sharper and actions of avatars become more precise our
experiences in virtual environments will become increasingly more realistic. This may
impose the need for a new set of netiquette rules or the netiquette rules of these
collaborative virtual environments may start to reflect the etiquette rules which we are
already guided by in our face to face communities.

7
 Conclusion

Netiquette is important in online virtual environments. Adhering to the netiquette

rules of the online environments in which you participate will help you to build trust and
therefore develop relationships that will lead to valuable online interactions. The online
environments in which we are increasingly finding ourselves are not always familiar to
us; therefore, it would be beneficial to have rules of netiquette explicitly stated. Since
this is not a standardized practice in virtual communities it may be the responsibility of
participants to ask for the netiquette expectations of the group to be defined.
There are netiquette rules that are generally cited as being socially acceptable in
online communities and practices have evolved that have become socially acceptable to
specific modes of online communication. There are new technologies emerging that may
alter these standards and will require us to redefine our online communication
behaviours. Through these new technologies our world is becoming increasingly
connected. It is important for us to learn how to build and sustain these online networks
(Richardson, 2008). Our ability to be netiquette savvy is a critical component of
becoming understanding participants in order to develop meaningful relationships to
sustain these online networks.
It is worthwhile to understand the etiquette rules of online virtual environments.
“With the web, you can reach out laterally and informally and globally…you can tap into
a seemingly limitless network of people and creations online, finding possibilities you
never dreamed existed” (Truitt Zelenka, 2008, p.1).

References

Activeworlds (2009). Avatars. Retrieved February, 17, 2009 from

http://www.activeworlds.com/tour.asp#avatars.

Cartelli, A. (2006). Teaching in the knowledge society: New skills and instruments for
teachers. Hershey PA: Information Science Publishing

Common emoticons and acronyms. (2009). Retrieved February 15, 2009, from
http://www.pb.org/emoticon.html.

Conrad, D. (2002a). A brief learners’ guide to online community. Retrieved February

15, 2009 from http://www.ohprs.ca/PDFs/conrad.pdf.

Conrad, D. (2002b). Inhibition, integrity and etiquette among online learners: The art of
niceness. Distance Education. 23(2), 197-212.

Daniel, B.K., & Schwier, R.A. (2007). A bayesian belief network model of a virtual
learning community. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 3(2),
151-169.

8
Daniel, B., Schwier, R., & McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning
communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 29(3), 113-139.

Etiquette (2009). Retrieved February, 15, 2009 from Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia,
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette.

List of social networking websites (2009). Retrieved February, 16, 2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites.

Marx, G. T. (1994). New telecommunications technologies require new manners.

Telecommunications Policy, 18(7), 538-551.

Preece, J. (2004). Etiquette, empathy and trust in communities of practice: stepping-

stones to social capital. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 10(3), 294-302.

Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the digital age. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 16-
18.

Schwier, R.A. (in press). Virtual learning communities. In G. Anglin (Ed.) Instructional
technology: Past, present, future (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.

Schwier, R.A. (2007a). A Typlogoy of catalysts, emphases, and elements of virtual

learning communities. In R. Luppicini (Ed., Trends in distance education:
A focus on communities of learning (pp. 17-40). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.

Schwier, R. (2007b). Shaping the metaphor of community in online learning

environments. In G. Calverley, M. Childs, & L. Schneiders (Eds.) Video for
education (pp. 68-76). London, UK: DIVERSE and the Association for Learning
Technologies.

Sharratt, M., & Usoro, A. (2003) Understanding knowledge-sharing in online

communities of practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2),
187-196.

Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. San Francisco: Albion Books. Available from

http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html.

Truitt Zelenka, A., & Sohn, J. (2008). Connect: A guide to a new way of working from
gigaom’s web worker daily. Indianapolis, Indiana: Wiley Publishing Inc.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M., (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

9
10