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.
How do you evaluate the quality of the answers provided on the online community you joined? I noticed sites that like the one you describe usually allow multiple people to answer and the answers are either rated by users or there is a feedback system that seems to credit/discredit responses or users maintain ratings based on the quality rating of previous answers. Often times, I think I'm looking through forums for answers to technical questions and evaluating answers based on my own judgment rather than relying on ratings or which user provided the answer.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that relationships that are entered online which have no face-to-face contact in the first place are a bit easier to sever. In other words, there is no "real" threat that you'll see the person at work or at school. Your face-to-face daily routine isn't really at stake in situations like that. However, some people I know who use online communities as an extension of their existing relationships at work and at school, have far greater to lose in regard to a reputation and such.
ReplyDeleteOnline communities like the one you mentioned clearly doesn't require equal commitment. You can get the advice you need, and leave the situation.
Yes, online communities don't fit the traditional definition of community and seem to be more loosely defined. I agree that the low risk in terms of commitment (easy entrance/exit) and overcoming the boundaries of proximity make online communities appealing. You mentioned that "Online communities are not build based on place, or face-to-face relationships." I know you're probably referring to a physical or real place, but can the Internet or SNS be considered a 'place,' too? A common virtual place where the online community meets?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Dean Kim:
ReplyDeleteFrankly say, there are no standard way to evaluate the quality of the answers you got from this community. It depends on the judgement of yourself. I used it as a place for relax and entertainment.
Response to j_mastin:
ReplyDeleteYes, the relations have no face-to-face contact. It also has no relation with our "real" world. It's very different with the real world communication. For the online communities as an extension of their existing relationships at work and at school, the communications are more like the real world communication which require equal commitment.
Response to kat:
ReplyDeleteYes, we can say the Internet or SNS be a 'place,', a common virtual place where the online community meets. There still have lots of different with the real world community. They have no 'threat' to your real world situation and they don't require equal commitment etc.
I think there are different ways to look at online communities that wouldn't limit the comparison to be either online or offline. I would argue there are online communities where the members feel a stronger bond with each other than their offline peers. And while there is no face-to-face contact, people can still become invested in an online community with as much time and effort as anything offline. There isn't a need to say that online communities are more... pure (?) because they are based on common interest rather than geographic location. Online communities can evolve much faster than their offline peers, and maybe different groups can and do have face-to-face meetings, to further build their relationships. Obviously, these members felt their virtual relationships were strong enough where meeting in person was not threatening, and could improve their interactions.
ReplyDeleteYili, if you are interested in evaluating the answers from online community. One good example is stackoverflow.com. You can look at my post for some introduction. I think it broke some new ground in creating a example for better online Q&A community.
ReplyDeleteSEO MAMA Search Engine Optimization
ReplyDeleteWVSS Website Design Dubai
MEBreaks Dubai hotels
Dubai Night Planner Night Clubs Dubai