Virtual Community
Description
Daniel Schackman:
"The Internet, and its applications such as email lists and bulletin boards took root in the 1970s in American research universities. On the prototypical email lists and bulletin boards, a virtual community was formed as researchers working together on projects eventually began using the ‘net’ to discuss other interests, in particular role-playing games and science fiction (Burnett & Marshall, 2003). This opened the door for an inclusive, utopian vision of the Internet to develop (Turner, 2005); a venue beyond the limits of geography and time, where information from the utilitarian to the trivial could be shared by all in an egalitarian space, and a place in which otherwise marginalized people could participate. It was also envisioned as a venue for bringing people with common values together, which might facilitate the development of real world social networks (Castells, 2001). Pioneers such as Howard Rheingold envisioned beneficial social networks, or on-line communities, created and maintained on the Internet (Rheingold, 1993). However, these visions of liberation have been counterbalanced by a more cautious concern about the prospect of the Internet both perpetuating the inequalities of the real world and also lacking the strength of interpersonal ties in communities of place (Proulx & Latzko-Toth, 2005). Moreover, Smith (2002) described six aspects of virtual interaction that differentiate actual and virtual communities: virtual interaction is aspatial, asynchronous, acorporal, has limited bandwidth, astigmatic and anonymous. Considering the seminal virtual community The WELL, he described that it was difficult for the members to define all forms of potential infractions of community standards and the appropriate consequences because there were always new perceived infractions being made by new members that had not yet assimilated into the community." (http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/457/575)
Example
Discussion
General Comment
Daniel Schackman:
"As communities are a manifestation of society, so virtual communities are a manifestation of the Information Society. Webster (1995) defines the term “Information Society” in five connected ways: the technological aspect, involving the convergence of information and telecommunications; an economic component, in which the availability of information contributes to national economies; the occupational impact, in which the number of jobs that involve information technology surpasses the number of jobs that do not (e.g. service jobs, factory jobs); the spatial effect, linking disparate geographic spaces by telecommunication networks; and the cultural aspect, concerning the amount of information that is readily available.
Castells brings interesting perspective to the development of the Information Society from his earlier work as an urban planning scholar. He has brought that background to his theorizing about cyberspace as a “space of flows” (1996, p. 412) in which human activity and interaction now breaks the boundaries of time zones and geographic distance. Castells described the emerging virtual environment of cyberspace as the “culture of real virtuality,” (1996, p. 372) in which people are not only able to use the Internet to create new personae; but also, combined with the availability of content that they can choose to consume as a reflection of their constructed identities, allows them to experience the world primarily through this perspective rather than through a proscribed real life. The Internet hastens the blurring of fantasy and reality.
That being stated, contradicting popular stereotypes of computer geeks living virtual fantasy lives on-line and not participating in their communities of place or having meaningful human interaction, evidence of greater participation in real world communities by frequent Internet users has been documented (Hampton and Wellman, 2000; Howard, Rainie, and Jones, 2001; Katz, Rice, and Aspden, 2001; in Castells, 2001, pp. 120-122). The Internet, including the World Wide Web, is an emerging mass medium that shifts the dynamic from the passive experience of content consumption to an interactive experience. Internet users can interact with each other all over the world any time of day or night. Those with access to computer hardware and software can also be active creators of content. Thus emanating from this new mass medium is a new “interactive society” (Castells, 1996, p. 358) that facilitates the creation and development of virtual communities.
In addition to facilitating local community building, craigslist’s mission is “being a collection of communities with similar spirit…” in a broader-based, non-geographically specific concept (“Craigslist: About: Mission and History,” 2005). Craig Newmark has said that part of his goal for craigslist is to help maintain the early utopian vision of the Internet founders (Taafe, 2004). Others have varied perspectives about the portal. Craigslist has been described with a number of metaphors: as a virtual version of a bulletin board of postings in a local supermarket (Morganella, 2004, p. 7D; cited in Kornblum, 2004, p. 7D) or a posting board in a college community (Fine, 2005, p. S1). Internet pioneer Howard Rheingold compares craigslist to Rick’s Café in the film “Casablanca” (Rheingold, 2005; cited in Altschul, 2005), echoed in Proulx, & Latzko-Toth’s (2005, p. 49) conceptualization of virtual communities that uses the “metaphor of a desert watering-hole”. Newmark himself compares his creation to a kind of commons (“On the record: Craig Newmark,” 2004, p. J1), a shared public space.
Everard (2000) discussed the power of virtual communities to connect people with common interests across geographic boundaries. He poignantly described the emotional bonding that can develop in these virtual communities, by describing a community in which one of the moderators died weeks after Everard joined it, resulting in an outpouring of support among community members (2000). Everard proposed that a “newly international localism…is finding expression in ‘virtual’ communities” (2000, p. 63), which seems an apt description of the activity on craigslist.
Nayar (2004) describes the options for the construction of identity in virtual space, which are more limited in real space. This may impact virtual communities in that some of the members might be representing themselves in an idealized way that is not as easily verified as in the real world. So a virtual community may develop on a shaky foundation, especially if members begin to exhibit their less desirable personality traits. If relationships are built on trust, how can a community be built where trust is violated at such a basic level of representation? Another consideration is that on-line, some people actually tend to show particularly undesirable aspects of their personalities, feeling a sense of security in the relative anonymity to express themselves in otherwise socially unacceptable ways. This may impact the development of virtual community as members deal with such disruption; if members become unhappy they can easily leave the virtual community, while leaving is a much more logistically complex choice in a community of place.
Lessig (2001) described the painful episode he and his students experienced when an anonymous intruder into his law class web site at Yale caused great distress to the students, paralyzing the utility of the site as many decided not to expose themselves to the intruder’s tirades; the anxiety and fear that emerged in the face of these attacks was also felt deeply in the real world classroom environment. However, it is worth considering that virtual community members who may be presenting a more idealized version of themselves can be very effective in that environment while playing the role of the avatar that they have created.
Bakardjieva’s (2005) study of Internet users in Vancouver, BC considered a series of reasons why people use the Internet, including social isolation, relocation, family and social networks around the world, and finding a community of interest. The heavy focus on socialization in the context of shifting populations in the real world highlights the potential positive impact of virtual communities. Further, she describes two models of Internet use: “‘the consumption model’ and the ‘community model’” (2005, p. 165) to distinguish commercial activities from social and civic uses. This is a good reminder that virtual communities are only one facet of Internet use, that people’s membership in virtual communities may be taking place alongside their consumer interests, which have many opportunities for expression in the classified ads on craigslist.
Indeed, the strain between commercial and civic forces for dominance of the Internet has been a constant issue. Commercial uses also suggest that when people buy things on the Internet, they are bringing them into their real world environments – anything from a car to a movie to hotel reservations. This further suggests the potential for virtual communities to serve real world interests as well. If people are used to going on-line to purchase products, then they might also be able to get used to going on-line to find out about community activities. Craigslist is in fact a marketplace not only of ideas and community development, but also of items for sale, housing for sale and rent, and potential employment. So a broader interpretation of community development, including these commercial functions, might serve a practical application of virtual community for social capital building in real world communities, as exemplified by craigslist." (http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/457/575)
The Communitas Model of Democratic Governance of Virtual Communities
Barry Kort:
"It is curious why group policy-making for things such as social contracts and civility standards in virtual communities is so problematic.
There appears to be a 3-layered model, that we call 'Communitas'. Successful online communities, that we are familiar with, are structured according to this model. The foundation layer of 'Communitas' is Communications Technology. This is the 'soil' out of which everything else emerges. Only about 5% of the population will muster the technical — and at times arcane — skills to create and develop the underlying Communications Technology.
The second layer of 'Communitas' is Community Building. This is the social and leadership layer where 90% of the participants spend their time getting to know their colleagues, identifying and understanding goals, missions, and issues of concern to the community, and building trust. If Communications Technology is the 'soil', Community Building is the 'garden'.
Once Community Building has reached a level where there is a substantial level of participation, interaction, and trust, a remarkable third layer emerges. This layer can be referred to as 'Communion'. 'Communion' is a profoundly transformational relation of People-to-People and People-to-Ideas. These are life-changing ideas and interpersonal relationships, which fundamentally redirect individuals to focus their time, energy and talent in ways that promote personal and professional growth, clarification of individual and community values, and adoption of meaningful personal and group goals. Communion is the 'fruit' of the 'garden' of Community Building, growing on the 'soil' of Communications Technology."
(https://barrykort.wordpress.com/2010/06/23/building-community/)