The rules of collaboration. The larger the group, the clearer the guidelines.

Netiquette, rules of collaboration, rules of conduct... why do we always feel the need to frame relationships?

In fact, as soon as we enter into a relationship we refer to numerous protocols: language is one of the first formal protocols used, but before that several others are necessary for communication and are most of the time taken for granted or accomplished by human or mechanical intermediaries.

For example, the interlocutor is asked to be present, to be recognized or recognizable, to deliver his or her communication in a certain order, to specify his or her expectations, objectives or attitudes, and so on.

Even in a simple two-person relationship, we normally share a certain number of points of reference, and in their absence or modification, we will either have to pay attention to them and fine-tune them, or encounter problems. This is why we often prefer to exchange with some people rather than others.

Why don't you answer?

Especially when many people are asked to enter into a relationship via the Internet, several "protocols", both technical and social, are necessary.

If we examine the rules of netiquette(RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines) or those of chat(Chat Netiquette), which can be found with a few variations on most chat sites, or even those governing virtual worlds (Second Life, World of Warcraft, etc.), we'll see that they essentially concern the "lubrication" of communication or service and its self-discipline.

If we develop these rules in relation to pedagogical objectives, we discover much the same need for identification and accountability as in face-to-face communication.

Groups and individuals

A group is normally brought together for a specific reason; this is the group's raison d'être. Rules are designed to preserve this raison d'être, to guide those who do not understand it, and to neutralize those who do not respect it.

In addition to disciplinary considerations, rules also include conditions for bonuses and benefits, and the valorization of certain actions that will stimulate the group in a given direction.

In this way, individuals develop their participation and a stronger sense of belonging in a group that values them and whose rules they themselves accept and enforce, especially if they are demanding. Value and merit are created in proportion to the group's achievements.

Harmonizing terminology

If we look at the various rules of international organizations, we see that a great deal of effort is being put into harmonizing nomenclatures and terminologies. It seems absolutely essential to the functioning of any group that semantic and conceptual reference points are the same for all. It also creates a sense of belonging.

What profession doesn't have its own jargon? What better way to make a newcomer feel like a junior than to expose him to jargon he can't understand? What possibility of understanding do individuals for whom "democracy" or "market" have totally different meanings have?

The Alexandria lighthouse

Inducing massive collaboration involves managing the relationships of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals whose motivations are as diverse as possible. That's why setting and defending benchmarks is so necessary to operation and participation. They act like a lighthouse, guiding the ship's course.

In a learning context, the reference points will necessarily be those of the object (what needs to be learned) and will vary from one field to another. The rules of nurses are very different from those of butchers, and those of computer scientists different from those of plumbers.

But the rules of collaboration are the same for everyone, and they're not complicated:

Rules of collaboration

• Establish some form of group access control.
  Define requirements and apply criteria for group participation.
  This preserves the "raison d'être" of the group.

• Define key group terminology and provide the basic training required for participation.
  This facilitates communication and exchange.

• Allow participants to be identified and recognized.
  Ensure that participants build their reputation and can be held accountable and valued.
  They are not anonymous members in a shapeless mass. Recognition increases members' accountability.

• Clearly establish and disseminate operating rules and provide tools for self-discipline and group recourse (reporting, mediator, etc.). Defend them when necessary.
  This alleviates the burden of discipline and increases the sense of belonging and pride in being part of a demanding group.

• Value actions that contribute to the group's mission. Recognize their authors.
  This fosters belonging and the long-term survival of the group.

Respecting these conditions is essential, but not necessarily easy, as Wikipedia* is experiencing, now overwhelmed by the number of revisions to be made and the drop in participation; in its case, valuing contributions is no longer sufficient in its current form, as more detailed analyses demonstrate (see our article"The quality of collaborations plays on the quality of articles"). Fortunately, not all projects are on the scale of Wikipedia.

* Wikipedia is experiencing a growth crisis

Illustration: Rawpixel - DepositPhotos