Session 3 : Motivation for participation

Catherine M. Ridings and David Gefen present several motivations to join traditional groups. I agree with them that Humans have a need to belong and be affiliated with others. Groups provide individuals with a source of information and help in achieving goals. I am also expressed at: “An individual’s self identity results from the membership in a preexisting self-inclusive social group, including vocation and avocation.” At the first glance, I disagree with it. I feel “An individual’s self identity” not just from the results of the membership in a preexisting self-inclusive social group. It should mainly come from our self. Then I ask myself: How do I make self identity? From vocation or from interesting ? I find that it’s very difficult to make self identity without social criticism. Humans have social belong. No matter whether you like it or not, we are affiliated with others. That is the reason there are so many groups exist, traditional, face-to-face groups as well as virtual internet communities.

Catherine M. Ridings and David Gefen point out that the virtual communities can play several roles:

· Information Exchange
· Social Support Exchange
· Friendship
· Recreation

According to my experience in answerbag, Information Exchange plays the most important role to attract people to virtual communities. In answerbag, people can ask all kind of questions and share their information among communities. During the conversation with people behind internet, we obtain much useful information and have fun at the same time. This may be counted as its recreation function. Frankly say, I am confused about the social support exchange. I don’t know whether answerbag has social support exchange function or not. As for friendship, I feel it’s very hard to have in virtual communities. At least, it is much more difficult than in the real world, especially in answerbag. There are so many people ask and answer questions with weird nickname. The chance to meet the same people again is very small let alone friendship.

That is just the experiences I have. Up to now I only joined two internet communities. The reason I joined them is for this class. I can’t say too much on this topic until I have more experiences.

Session 2: Online Communities

No matter whether you like or not, the influences of internet on our communications are huge. Online communities facilitate the growth of groups with shared interests. Does the Internet Strengthen Community? The answer is Yes and No.

J. Snyder defined community as: A community is people who have greater things in common than a fascination with a narrowly defined topic. According to his definition, Internet’s virtual communities are not communities at all. William A. Galston suggested that communities focus on four parts: limited membership, shared norms, affective ties, and a sense of mutual obligation. Online communities have weak control on limited membership. New member can easily get admission even technical restrictions do exist and are sometimes employed. Online groups can develop complex systems of internalized norms and Internet deconstructs the ideal of face-to-face communication. Online groups converge by individual interests, they do not have mutual obligation.

Here we can see that online communities are out of range with the classic definition of community. Online communities are not build based on place, or face-to-face relationships. They are easy to enter and easy to exist. The internal relations shaped by mutual adjustment rather than hierarchical authority etc. They neither have mutual obligation nor lay the basis for sacrifice.

For these reason, I like online community. People can exchange information and opinions about shared enthusiasms, rock groups, sports etc. I joined www.bbsland.com. (Sorry it’s not written in English.) I got lot of news and information. I post a question confused me, I can get many answers from the people in the same community who may be scattered the entire world in the real life. In this way, we form a community based on commonality of interests, not on accidents of proximity.