NET

There is a growing debate about virtual communities. First and foremost we need to know what is a community, a community of practice and where a virtual community fits in that concept. In a general term, ‘community’ refers to a set of people who share some common elements. The substance of this shared elements vary widely. It can be lives and values or situation and interest. Although the term is widely used to evoke sense of collectivity, in a stricter use of the term, community is a group of people who interact with each other.

A community of practice (often abbreviated as CoP) refers to the process of social learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in some subject or problem, collaborate to share ideas, find solutions, and build innovations.

A virtual community is a group whose members are connected by means of information technologies, typically the Internet. Similar terms include online community and mediated community. Howard Rheingold attributes the term “virtual community” to the book of the same title in 1993[1]. The book discussed a range of computer-mediated communication and social groups. The technologies included Usenet, MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon), IRC (Internet Relay Chat), chat rooms and electronic mailing lists. He pointed out potential benefit of such a group one can belong to via communication technologies for personal psychological well-being as well as for the society at large. (The proliferation of the World Wide Web started after the book was published).[2]

Simple online community infrastructures facilitate basic communication and interaction functions; while more advanced technologies allow their users to create a virtual place where they can create new identities and environments to explore. Without the technology infrastructure, a virtual community cannot exist in any form.

Communities in the community

For any human community the main ingredients are people. Even though every human being is unique and do things different than others, many common things they share. They have similar believes and communication process. People participate in similar types of interest. The bonding of community is critical and complex yet its there.

A virtual community is little different than the real community. A virtual community is more technical. This type of community usually have common interests and goals, similar to the real community (community of practice), but the main difference is the body. Virtual communities are based in text, the metaphor of ‘reading’ as the primary way individuals navigate community. They often only represent themselves via writing and posting text messages. In many cases they only know each other by interpreting their messages.

’The space of cyberspace is predicated on knowledge and information, on the common beliefs and practices of a society abstracted from physical space. Part of that knowledge and information, though, lies in simply knowing how to navigate cyberspace. But the important element in cyberspatial social relations is the sharing of information’. (Jones, 1995)

For a easier understanding, virtual communities of interest can be labeled as-within our real communities there are communities formed by people from different geographical and other background origin and using technical mediums to share knowledge, feelings and interests through text, graphics and multimedia as a form of information. As some may argue about justifying the term ‘community’ in the virtual or technical world, the important thing to remember that we need to look at the concept of ‘community’ in a broader sense.

‘a prisoners’ community, described by Goffman (1961) as a “total institution,” is fundamentally different from an urban neighbourhood(Janowith, 1967), national imagined community (Anderson, 1991), or a community of Macintosh users (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). As long as such communities have different functions and do not concide (many of them are one-stranded) then peaceful co-existence is possible and fruitful. (Kacper Pobloki, 2001)

Communities of Interest

There are many kinds of virtual communities of interest. The core of any of these communities is to share information. The thoughts and ideas are expressed or exchanged on some particular topics or interests. The range of chosen topic can be anything. There are discussion types of services such as tens and thousands of Usenet groups, yahoo groups, groups that exchange music and pictures.

Elements of virtual communities of interest

A typical analysis shows the virtual communities of interest usually need the following elements:

People with enough technical and language knowledge can participate in any of the virtual communities of interest.

Hardware: Computer with enough processing power, input, output, memory and the internet connection can help anyone to participate actively with almost any of the community group of interest.

Software: Depending on the operating system, anyone can upload and download files and data to the site or server where space is allocated for member’s participation or discussion etc. Different software needs to be installed and upgrade according to the requirement criteria of the site. Most community site has it’s own setup and design for navigation.

Service provider: The communication of the virtual community is a virtual. Technically someone needs to provide space in a server and allow software to interact with the members of a group. Both the service provider or the administrator of a community group can set up members profile, username, password and application form for membership. There are many service providers who offer free space for people to use and create a community of interest. But there are many fees paying virtual space on offer as well.

Common characters of communities of interest

Even though the formation and working pattern of virtual communities of interest are little different than real communities, yet they perform as a community uniquely. People forming a particular community virtually; follow some common rules and guidelines. It has a structure where people greet each other and show emotions such as laughter and anger or argue and criticize. People ask questions and give answers. Like a real community, any virtual community has some house rules such as manners, security, normal conversation, discussion, chatting etc. Like the real community members, the virtual communities of interest members are individuals with unique personality and characters.

‘Virtual space is the paradox of non-physical space. And virtual societies mean the reinvention of all that is familiar.’ (Tim Jordan, 1999)

Similar to a real community, the active participation of its members in a newsgroup or any other community of interest is vital. Because people form a community either in reality of virtually. In contrast, its often noticed that the bigger the member’s number and their participation in a community, the more chance of that community to survive and move towards it’s goal.

A case study (‘Why we argue about virtual community’), written by Nessim Watson analyzing many factors that draw positive conclusion towards the recognition of virtual communities as another ‘type’ of community with unique distinctions. He conducted survey on a big community of interest called “Phish.Net”. This online community was formed on music sharing and music related topic discussion etc.

‘Communication creates, re-creates, and maintains community on Phish.Net and other online discussion forums through the continued interaction of participating members. However, the technological ability to communicate does not in itself create the conditions of community. Community depends not only upon communication and shared interests, but also upon “communion.” The term is used most in a discourse of religious ritual, but even in non-religious contexts the term is often chosen to describe a spiritual, emotional, or, as Rheingold (1993b, p.5) name it, “human” feeling that comes from the communicative coordination of oneself with others and the environment. The event of communion is even implied by the dictionary definition of “community”, though it is presented as separate and apart from the earlier definition of community as spatially proximate people. The Random House (1987) definition continues:

…5. the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation…(p.414)’ (Nessim Watson,1997)

Another scholar T. Howard analyzed the concept of calling online groups as communities. His main work was focused on a discussion group called PUTTOPOI (The Rhetoric, Language, and Professional writing Discussion Group). In one part he comments:

“It is possible to call PURTOPOI and similar group communities if we are willing to adopt and individualistic communitarian’s perspective, since such groups do seem to be collections of individual subjectivities bound together by their reciprocal relationships and their willingness to make sacrifices for the good of the group’s common purposes.’ (Howard,1997)

The concept of conventional community consists of human and their communication or interaction. While humans take part in community and perform different tasks, at the same time they carry on with individual signs of characteristics. Humans create technology and it’s a part of human society. In many cases technology is not only a tool but also a way of life.

The virtual world is made of humans and technology such as computers, hardware and software etc. The goal of this world is to communicate and share information. People who participate in this technological or virtual world, they become a member of that virtual community. There are certain rules and forms to follow. Many of these rules are same as real community. A virtual community is a unique community. It is complex and consists of many elements but one key factor is very simple and clear that everything happens through technology. The so-called ‘space’ where the information processing, communicating, participation happens is not usual but virtual.

References_________________________________

Jones,S. (1995) Understanding Community in the Information Age, Cybersociety: computer-mediated communication and community, Sage Publications, London

Jordan, T. (1999) Cyberpower: The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and the Internet, Routledge, London

Poblocki, K. (2001, October 16-last update), “The Nepstar Network Community”, (first monday), Available:

Watson, N. (1997) Why We Argue About Virtual Community: A Case Study Of The Phish.Net Fan Community In Jones S G (ed) Virtual Culture. Identity And Communication In Cybersociety, Sage Publications, London

URLs

[1] http://www.rheingold.com/index.html

[2] http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/

[3] http://groups.yahoo.com/

[4] http://www.google.com.au/

[5] http://www.giganews.com/

[6] http://www.livejournal.com/community/aust_politics/

[7] http://www.phish.net/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------