The Instinct to Punish edit
.jpg)
Author Douglas Preston wrote an insightful essay titled, "Trial By Fury: Internet Savagery and the Amanda Knox Case". Unfortunately the essay is not freely online. The essay uses the Amanda Knox case to examine a phenomenon of human behavior that has relevance on Wikipedia.
During the Knox case, Preston noted the formation of large online communities that disparaged Knox and her supporters, for years, daily, in volume, despite having no personal stake. They called her names, wanted to see her raped and killed, went after her friends and family and lawyers. One anti-Knoxer posted more words than exist in the Bible. The Knox case also touched Wikipedia, specifically the Murder of Meredith Kercher page, reaching a furious level of battleground behavior that drew in Jimmy Wales and the press. There are over 35 talk page archives between 2009 and 2012.
Preston wished to understand what motivated so many to spend so much of their lives on something otherwise distant and irrelevant. When he asked anti-Knoxers, they gave vague answers like wanting justice etc.. Preston sought help from the behavioral sciences.
As background, scientists have done experiments with apes, where ape A is given some food. Ape B steals it without Ape A seeing. Meanwhile, Ape C sees the theft. Ape C does not notify Ape A about the theft. Even if Ape A and C are closely related, Ape C still does nothing. This very different from humans, who will usually react to a perceived injustice. For example, if person C sees a theft in progress from person A, they may call the police, or even personally intervene, possibly becoming a hero.
Why do humans have this trait? It concerns group cooperation. Humans evolved to cooperate as a group to achieve things they could not on their own. For example, during hunting trips everyone agrees to participate with the understanding everyone will share in the spoils. This works well, except for one problem - cheaters. If some members slack, but still take a share of the spoils, cooperation breaks down. Thus to protect the group, some members must be willing to punish transgressors. The "punishers" are thus a vitally important component for maintaining group cooperation, and indeed group and individual survival. It's a vital part of what makes us human.
Sometimes the "punisher instinct" can go haywire if not kept in check. The Internet allows punishers to coalesce into powerful communities amplified by technology such as social media. They operate anonymously and have no checks on the degree and amount of vitriol. Punishers can sometimes act individually, such as calling a criminal on Wikipedia disparaging labels, like "murderer" or "fraudster", instead of more neutral terms.[1]
Thus, being a "punisher" is important for maintaining group cooperation, it can feel rewarding, even heroic, it is vitally important at a basic human level of self preservation. However the instinct can also go haywire when the punisher acts unilaterally without bounds. The Knox case is one recent example, history is full of other examples, such as the Holocaust, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition, Pogroms. We need to be self-aware of what we are doing and why. If others are telling us to back off, it's probably wise to do so.
- ^ See the essay WP:Crime labels