Classification of Flames in Computer Mediated Communications

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has brought about a revolution in the way the world communicates with each other. With the increasing number of people, interacting through the internet and the rise of new platforms and technologies has brought together the people from different social, cultural and geographical backgrounds to present their thoughts, ideas and opinions on topics of their interest. CMC has, in some cases, gave users more freedom to express themselves as compared to Face-to-face communication. This has also led to rise in the use of hostile and aggressive language and terminologies uninhibitedly. Since such use of language is detrimental to the discussion process and affects the audience and individuals negatively, efforts are being taken to control them. The research sees the need to understand the concept of flaming and hence attempts to classify them in order to give a better understanding of it. The classification is done on the basis of type of flame content being presented and the Style in which they are presented.

[1]  Guy L. Steele,et al.  The Hacker's Dictionary , 1993 .

[2]  Félix Moral-Toranzo,et al.  Anonymity effects in computer-mediated communication in the case of minority influence , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[3]  Christine L. Borgman,et al.  The whole internet user's guide & catalog , 1994 .

[4]  Yan Hong,et al.  Flaming: More Than a Necessary Evil for Academic Mailing Lists. , 1995 .

[5]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[6]  G. Riva,et al.  Communications Through Virtual Technologies: Identity, Community and Technology in the Communication Age , 2001 .

[7]  Tim O'Shea,et al.  'Flaming' in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications. , 1992 .

[8]  E. Landry,et al.  Scrolling Around the New Organization: The Potential for Conflict in the On-Line Environment , 2000 .

[9]  Marco Furini,et al.  International Journal of Computer and Applications , 2010 .

[10]  J. M. Kayany Contexts of uninhibited online behavior: flaming in social newsgroups on Usenet , 1998 .

[11]  J. Chatwin Conversation analysis. , 2004, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[12]  Cynthia L. Selfe,et al.  Testing Claims for On-Line Conferences , 1991 .

[13]  Milam W. Aiken,et al.  Flaming among first-time group support system users , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[14]  David W. Park,et al.  Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction , 1994 .

[15]  Peter J. Moor,et al.  Conforming to the flaming norm in the online commenting situation , 2007 .

[16]  Philip A. Thompsen An Episode of Flaming: A Creative Narrative. , 1994 .

[17]  Harriet Wilkins,et al.  Computer Talk , 1991 .

[18]  Andrew J. Flanagin,et al.  Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic messages , 2003, New Media Soc..

[19]  Giuseppe Riva,et al.  9. Communicating in CMC: making order out of miscommunication , 2002 .

[20]  Keith Dorwick Beyond Politeness: Flaming and the Realm of the Violent. , 1993 .

[21]  Patricia G. Lange What is your claim to flame? , 2006, First Monday.