Looking for a public space full of nasty rhetoric? It’s hard to beat the comments sections next to online articles. These spaces, for all their great potential for exchanges, often devolve into flame wars with commenters attacking the writer, and each other, personally.

In this way, the web is like a 2.0 year old. It’s become more social. It can express simple thoughts. But it’s not very good at listening yet. Commenting interfaces on the web makes us all look like two year olds to each other — and we often respond by acting like we’re toddlers.

Why? One reason is that our designs make it far easier to speak into comment boards than to actively listen through them. We need a way to counteract the misunderstandings that often fuel flame wars — without resorting to censorship. And to do that requires tackling a major problem with online commenting: people speaking on reflex without listening deeply.

We can’t make people listen online. But we can encourage deeper listening. How? What if there was not just a comment box after an Internet story, but also a listen box?

One way to do this would be to alter the traditional discussion board. Alongside each comment, readers would be prompted to restate what they hear the commenter saying. The restatements would be visible to everyone. Everyone would benefit: the commenter would feel heard, the person making the restatement would show good faith, and others could see the comment in a new light.

Why would this work? Listening is not just hearing. By committing public acts of listening, such as restating points, listeners can demonstrate that they are being attentive, can help speakers determine that they’re being understood, and can make clearer for others what is being said. Listening is certainly possible on comment boards, but it’s not encouraged. Replies are generally meant for contributing a new point, not demonstrating listening.

I’ve designed a system called Reflect to encourage listening.

Reflect introduces a listening box next to every comment. Any reader is prompted to “Tell us what you hear [Commenter name] saying” in a short, succinct 140-character summary. These restatements are viewable to everyone.

The original commenter is then able to clarify whether the summary is accurate. This exchange is designed to help reach agreement about what is meant by a commenter, even if the commenters don’t agree on the issue being discussed.

From this starting place, a listening system for the online world could be built. Perhaps a measure of how often commenters listen could be built into a reputation system. Is a particular commenter someone who never listens to others? If so, that commenter’s comments might be displayed less prominently. Commenters who accurately restate the comments of others would find their comments favored in display.

Another innovation would be to use these restatements to summarize full discussions online. The summaries themselves might shape follow-up articles and help commenters and publishers build lasting relationships.

If the goal of Internet discussion is dialogue, we need to reshape the basic architecture of the web for dialogue. That requires new interfaces and designs that pay as much attention to listening as they do to speaking.

What do you think?

Travis Kriplean is a Ph.D. candidate in Computer Science at the University of Washington, graduating in Fall 2011.

*Photo courtesy of Steve Rhodes.