LB
Professor Stewart
Junior Seminar
12 Nov.
2001
Communities of Interest Formed on the Internet Compared
with Communities Based on Geographical Location.
Community can have different meanings based on context. Merriam-Webster
Online defines community as:
1 : a unified body of individuals: as a : STATE, COMMONWEALTH b : the people with common interests living in a
particular area; broadly : the area itself (the problems of a large
community) c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as
species) in a common location d : a group of people with a common
characteristic or interest living together within a larger society (a
community of retired persons) e : a group linked by a common policy f : a
body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic,
and political interests (the international community) g : a body of
persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a
larger society (the academic community)
The main
definition of community has to do with physical location; people are in a
community if they live in the same place.
Another definition is that community has to deal with people sharing
common interests. This latter definition is what constitutes internet communities.
People can share their common interests online without necessarily being in the
same geographical location. There is much discussion over the merits of virtual communities,
and the bonds that are created between people who meet only online. Some argue
that a true bond between people who have never met in person cannot really
exist, or that it exists on a less personal level. But there are also great
possibilities for online communities that may not exist in geographical
communities. People with specific interests may discuss these interests with
other like-minded people. This is a great resource especially when people
cannot find others in their geographical community who share the same interest.
The internet can bring people together over great distances. Communities
created online may be different from geographical communities, but they are
uniquely situated to bring together like-minded people for meaningful
discussions and interactions. Marshal
Goldsmith argues in his essay Global Communities and Communities of Choice
that, historically, people belonged to communities because of history and
tradition.People belonged to the
community that they were born into, and had little or no choice on the matter.
However, with the rise in global communication, people may now choose to
belong, or not belong, in certain communities. He divides communities into
different categories, and notes that even geographical communities can be
decided upon because of the freedom of movement enjoyed by people today. A community
of choice that he mentions is the community of interest. People with common
interests can come together to discuss their interests because of new
developments in global communication, particularly the rise of the internet. Communities of interest are
especially relevant to people with highly specialized interests, which may not
be shared by a large number of people. Goldsmith mentions the interest in
pre-Columbian sculpture in Peru (112). But there are countless other niche
communities which serve the interests of many people. But not only
highly-specialized communities can arise. A person in a small town where there
is a high degree of conformity can find out about other non-conforming
subcultures which exist in other areas. They can then join these communities on
the internet. People can become exposed to people with similar interests, and
the number of people who they can potentially meet is far higher than the
people they could possibly meet face-to-face. Even if an interest is not shared
by people in their physical location, it will probably be shared by people in
the global community. These
communities can be more fulfilling than regular communities because of an
element of choice involved in the decision of belonging to a community. As
J.C.R. Licklider stated, "Life will be happier for the on-line individual
because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more
by commonality than by accidents of proximity"(qtd. in Rheingold 114). In
fact, geographical communities can be hard on an individual if they cannot fit
in. People are forced to conform to their geographical communities if they wish
to be a part of them (Goldsmith 109). If a community is one of choice, however,
no conformity is needed. In fact, the community itself may need to change if it
wants to have people become a part of it (Goldsmith 109).� No longer are people forced to do what they
do not wish to do, but they have the power to change or create communities to
reflect their own interests. Communities based on common
interests did not begin with the advent of the internet, however. David Ulrich
recounts the shared community engaged by the owner of a Harley-Davidson bike
owner and the chairman of the Harley-Davidson company in a chance meeting at a
roadside diner (156). Many religious communities, like the Mormons, have formed
throughout the ages as people have voluntarily moved to join various
communities. They created a community of shared ideas based on geographical
location (Ulrich 157). But these geographical communities are limited. It is
difficult to create complete communities of interest based solely on
geographical location. Not everybody can easily move to be near those who share
common likes and dislikes.With the
rise of global communications, however, it is far easier to meet people who do
share common interests. Being able to talk with somebody over the internet is
less time and money consuming than flying to meet the person. Even mail and
other means of communication are far more time consuming. By being able to
interact on a regular basis, people can get to know those with whom they
interact far more quickly. A connection can be made because of these frequent
interactions. And by being able to include many people in these discussions, as
is possible on the internet, a community can be formed. With the people who met
because of Harley-Davidson bikes, they will probably never meet again, and a
true interaction between the people cannot be sustained. People can
have choices not only in what they chose to talk about, but in also the people
with whom they can chose to talk with. On the internet, people can chose to
'lurk', or just watch what is going on without actually participating. This
will give people the feel for a particularly group before they chose to
participate. Amy Bruckman mentions that this is the only way to get to really
know the people in the group. By lurking, a person can chose before hand the
people who they would like to talk with first. "[Y]ou can get to know
people and then chose to meet them" (Rheingold 118). And people can also
chose who not to talk with. In a geographical community, it is difficult to
avoid people. But, at least initially, people can decide if people in an
internet community are those with whom they feel they can interact with. It is in easier to get to know
people who you meet in communities based on interest. There is already a
conversation starter- the common interest upon which the community was built.
The dialogue can immediately begin. As one person online bemoaned on the
Incoherent Rambling #3 on his website, "I hate how conversations
require a catalyst like that. I wish I could just walk up to people and start
talking, like in an online RPG" (Williams). And by being able to talk with
people far more easily, connections may be made more quickly. there is less
awkwardness in the initial meeting, and the actual conversation can begin
almost immediately. The common
interests become the main focal point of online communities. And this has the
effect of stripping away prejudices people may have for one another based on
physical appearance. (Rheingold 117).�
It is a common joke that even a dog could be talking with you online,
and you would not even know it. The only thing that matters in online
communities is people's participation in the community, and their words and
thoughts that are broadcasted to the community over the internet. People with
whom you may not think you could get along with well based on physical
appearance could in fact be people you can connect with. People do not make
opinions of others based on ski-deep beauty, but can instead look within a
person and see who they are based on the ideas they express online. The people
become abstracted to represent the thoughts that they broadcast to the community. There
are many different types of communities that people can participate in. Amy
Bruckman describes many of these different communities.If a community does not fulfill the wants of
an individual, countless others may exist which may work better. In fact, anybody may create a community if
they chose to do so. But the founder does not have complete control over the
community. In fact, if they do not, it allows for a more free-flow of ideas to
occur which allows for more stimulating conversations.Some control may be necessary, since not
everybody wants to be civil in his or her discourse. The amount of control
exercised by the founders of a community could either stifle conversations, or
cause such chaos that nobody can interact. There is no middle ground in this
debate, because everybody has differing ideas about what is too stifling or
what is too chaotic. Internet communities where the outlines of discussion are
clearly stated can have more friendly environments, however, because the
parameters of conversation are easily perceived (Preece 81). With a broader
base for the community, conflict arises as to the direction that the
conversations may take. Since these are communities of choice, people believe
that their own choice as to the direction of the conversation is more valid
than another person's choice. By having the communities goals clearly stated,
then people can chose to participate or not. But those who do chose to
participate are more likely to understand, and live well with, the overall
goals of the community, and are less likely to argue over the directions of the
conversations. But the amount of control which people like in communities
differs from individual to individual. The large number of communities give
people the freedom to choose the degree of control which they prefer. An
abstraction of the physical world on the internet can be seen in a study done
Peter Anders at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in 1996. As an
architectural project, he and some students mapped out Multi-User Domains
(MUDs). MUDs are text-based virtual communities, originally designed for
role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons. But many have become more social
environments for conversations between people in the MUD. The idea for the
architectural project was the to create a MUD based on previous ones and on
what MUDers thought would create an ideal MUD. However, the people who
socialized in the MUDs were not very helpful to the researchers in describing a
way to create a graphical MUD. The social interaction, and the discussions of
the participants, were far more important than the actual setting. The MUD was
a tool for the users. And a graphical setting seemed less ideal than the usual
text-based interactions. By reducing the conversation to just words on a page,
ideas could be more easily exchanged. By reducing the conversation to just the
text, and not having graphical representations of the world created in the MUD,
there is far more room for interpretation by the participants. This heightens the
ability for choice by the participants, and reduces the conversation to the
exchange of ideas. There is not as much need in an online environment for
graphical representations of the physical world. People
feel more willing to participate in some communities because of the anonymity
afforded them. But this anonymity can have problems. "Members who are not willing to share their
personal and professional identities are less likely to engage in serious
discussion" (Bruckman). People are allowed to wear masks which hide
who they are. "[O]nline discourse is nothing but masks"
(Rheingold 120). These masks not only hide people from others, they provide a
shield. When people wear a mask, they feel protected and act in ways they
normally would not. This can lead to strife as people stop regarding others as
actual people, but as merely vehicles for ideas which they agree with or which
they disagree with. By wearing masks, people view only the masks of others. The
level of connection between people therefore can deteriorate. The
size of the community may also cause problems between members. In smaller
groups, people are more readily able to share their ideas with the other
members of the community. In their study of TimeZone, a community based on
shared interesting in watches, Frank T. Rothaermel and Stephen Sugiyama found
that the community was beginning to get too large, and that cliques were
forming. New participants were not able to become involved with the community.
Subcommunities could create better opportunities for engagement and allow
people to spend more time talking about more specific topics they are
interested as opposed to more general conversations. The problem would be when
subcommunities would not work, or when people do not wish to limit their interest
in a particular subject. When too many people come together with the same
interest, a breakdown in communication could occur, as too many people want to
talk at the same time. The fact that anybody with internet access could
theoretically chose to talk about something at the same time. So, while virtual
communities could bring people together, it could be difficult to participate
in the conversations. People engaged in internet
communities may also need the personal touch of a geographical community. In
TimeZone, people who felt more closely linked to the internet community had
also had conversations that were not online with other participants in the
community. Personal communication in the real world augmented the idea of
community for people. Howard Rheingold tells of meeting people in person who he
has met online, and of weddings he has attended of people who have met online
(117). People are able to meet, and have affection for people who they have met
online. An exchange of ideas gives a good picture of what a person is like. But
it does not give the entire sense of connection which people can have for
eachother. Connection through the internet community is not the only thing
which people may want. They could seek out further connection with others,
which suggests that an internet community is not enough. Another drawback for online communities is the
ability to stop participation. In a geographical community, you have to either
move away from the community in order to not participate, or you must become a
complete recluse. But for online communities, people can belong to many
communities, and just move around without much thought to actually being
completely a part of the community. As Amitai Etzioni and Oren Etzioni quote
Michael Dertouzos, "the participant knows 'intellectually, but more
importantly, intuitively, that he can turn off the machine'".There is even a distinction drawn online
between "real life" and the virtual world of online communities. The
connection may not seem entirely real in online communities. This can make
internet communities seem less true than geographical ones. People are abstracted on the
internet, and only their ideas are really able to be truly expressed online.
While there has been advances in areas such as web-cams, the body language of a
person cannot be accurately broadcast to the people the meet online. The
nuances of communication are not noticed online as accurately as they are in
the physical world (Rheingold 119). Miscommunication
can often arise because of these limitations. And with miscommunication, people
may not be able to feel close to those they are talking with. Humans are physical beings, and
exist in the physical world, so internet communities cannot completely replace
geographical ones (Streibel). Human
beings can not be fully abstracted into the world of ideas because humans are
not abstract representations. The physical world is important to us because it
is where we exist. The problem with the Internet, however, is that it is
mostly a means for technical information exchange. It is not a means for
salvaging the primacy of personal relationship and community in a
depersonalized society�E(Streibel). There is a difference between geographical
communities and internet communities which cannot be ignored. But the comparison between
geographical communities and geographical ones may not be entirely valid.
Online communities are not meant to replace geographical communities.
Communities on the internet have many things which make them great places for
people to interact. But "[w]e should investigate what real communities can
do that virtual communities cannot do, and vice versa." (Etzioni). There are things in a geographical community
which cannot be replicated on the internet. But there are things in an internet
community which cannot be replicated in geographical communities. Geographical
communities and internet communities are not all good or all bad.
"[P]hysical communities do not always function well.. why assume that
online communities will do any better?" (Preece 20). Membership in an
internet community can add to a person's experience because of the choices
which can be made by the person in deciding the community to belong to. By being able to engage with people of
common interests, people can pursue these interests and be able to enjoy the
company of others who share the same interests. This ability to connect with
others with the same interests is what helps make internet communities
worthwhile. Internet communities allow for
people to form communities based on common interests. They are communities of
choice, which allow people greater freedom. But they are also not replacements
for geographical communities. The emphasis on the shared ideas which create the
communities can outweigh commitment to the people in the communities. And few
things can replace actual human contact, since we are physical beings. But
Internet communities can help augment our experiences, and allow for more
fulfilling involvement with other people. People are no longer restricted to
just their geographical communities, but may explore the global community to
find other people with shared interests. Works Cited Anders, Peter. "Envisioning Cyberspace:
The Design of On-Line Communities." The Virtual Dimension. E.
Beckmann, John. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998. 218-233. Bruckman, Amy. "Finding one's own space in cyberspace."
Technology Review99.1 (1996):
48-54. Etzioni, Amitai, and Oren Etzioni .
"Communities: Virtual vs. Real"
Science277.5324 (1997): 295. Goldsmith,
Marshall. "Global Communications
and Communities of Choice." The Community of the Future. Ed.
Hesselbein, Frances, et al. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 1998. 101-114. Merriam-Webster Online.
2001. Merriam-Webster. 9 Nov. 2001 Preece,
Jenny. Online Communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Rheingold,
Howard. "Virtual Communities."
The Community of the Future. Ed. Hesselbein, Frances, et al. San
Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 1998.115-122. Rothaermel, Frank, and Sugiyama, Stephen. "Virtual internet communities and commercial success: individual and
community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com."
Journal of Management 27.3 (2001): 297. Streibel, Michael J. "Information technology and physicality in
community, place, and presence." Theory into Practice 37.1
(1998): 31-37. Ulrich,
Dave. "Six Practices for Creating
Communities of Value, Not Proximity." The Community of the
Future. Ed. Hesselbein, Frances, et al. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass, 1998.
155-165. Williams,
Mason "Tailsteak". Incoherent
Rambling #3. Oct. 2001 http://oneoverzero.keenspace.com/IR3.html (10
Nov. 2001)