|
Definition of Web Based Community
Recognizing
the words “common” and “united” as the root elements of the word community,
we can now attempt to define the origin and definition of a web based
community. As in other pursuits, personality and agenda come into play when
seeking to define an online community. Therefore, after considering
definitions as offered by various professionals in the field of online
community building, we will attempt once again to understand the base
elements which lie at the source of these definitions and determine if a
common germ exist from which to unite them.
A federal
judge at an FCC workshop is said to have remarked that "Community is like
pornography, I don't know how to define it, but I sure know it when I see
it" (Gozdz, 1995). It could be extrapolated from the above that the judge
feels as if community is not easily defined but readily understood when
experienced.
Those who
have attempted to define web based communities have not been so free
thinking in their opinions. In his book, Hosting Web Communities, Cliff
Figallo describes a set of attributes which he feels capture the essence of
connected communities in terms of relationships (Figallo, 1988). Using
subjective vernacular, he chooses phrases such as “feeling part of a larger
social whole”, “web of relationships”, “relationships that last through time
creating shared histories” and “an exchange of commonly valued things”.
Author M. Scott Peck goes even further when describing community stating,
"If we are going to use the word meaningfully [community] we must restrict
it to a group of individuals who have learned how to communicate honestly
with each other, whose relationships go deeper than their masks of
composure, and who have developed some significant commitment to "rejoice
together, mourn together," and to "delight in each other, make others'
conditions our own" (Peck, 2000).
It could be
argued that while Mr. Peck’s description adds depth and character to the
subject of community, it attempts to find a deeper meaning in the word
community and does little to define community itself. Mr. Peck presumes, for
instance, that “commitment” is requisite to community. To this requisite, he
also adds “honesty” and the ability to “rejoice together, mourn together”.
These attributes, though certainly noble, add degrees of complexity which
are both environmentally subjective and functionally circumstantial. One may
infer from Mr. Pecks remarks that a community is a community if it embodies
these attributes, and is not a community if it lacks these attributes. What
then if it lacks only one of the three? Does it then cease to be a
community, or is it somehow less of a community? Following this train of
thought, we could liken Mr. Peck’s ideal of a community to a still life
painting of a basket with fruit. In the basket are peaches, pares and
apples. If the artist had omitted apples from the basket, would the painting
somehow cease to be a painting? Is it somehow less than the ideal painting?
Such thinking presumes absolutes and that anything less is simply a shadow
or counterfeit of the original.
Luciano
Paccagnella of the University of Milan assumes a more academic perspective
when describing web based communities stating, "Virtual communities has
lately become a fashionable term which will be used here as a useful
metaphor to indicate the articulated pattern of relationships, roles, norms,
institutions, and languages developed on-line” ([Jones, 1995]; [McLaughlin
et al. 1995]). Recognizing that the word “fashionable” is closely associated
with trendy, it is admitted that any term or verbal configuration used to
describe online communities is subject to frequent revision. Paccagnella’s
use of the word “metaphor” in the context in which it is used seems
inappropriate and is perhaps the result of poor translation.
Maintaining the academic perspective, Paccagnella further goes on to state,
“This is not to say that we take the term virtual community as a positive
value in itself, nor that we advocate an enthusiastic or optimistic view of
computer networks. Even the very authenticity of communities developed
on-line should not be taken for granted without an effort to come to a
commonly accepted definition of what a community really is. The term virtual
community is therefore still a problematic scientific concept.” (Jones,
1995).
As
evidenced in the above statement, Paccagnella admits to the problematic
nature of defining what a virtual community is and had in essence, given up
on the attempt. It is unfortunate that after an otherwise worthy and
scholarly approach, the author abandons the reader with no more clear
understanding of online communities than what they began with.
Other
scholars have attempted to bridge the gap by adding additional layers of
complexity to the topic. In her book, "Inhabiting the Virtual City: The
design of social environments for electronic communities", Judith Stefania
Donath states, “People on the net should be thought of not only as solitary
information processors, but also as social beings. People are not only
looking for information, they are also looking for affiliation, support and
affirmation.” (Donath, 1997). Recognizing that the social aspect of humanity
or consciousness is not turned off simply because a person is “online”,
Donath suggest that online environments should cater to a person’s social
needs and not informational curiosities only. Focusing on the latter only
would yield a mechanical, one dimensional world in which personalities are
essentially reduced to robotics. Such an online environment could not
function as a community and might be considered nothing more than a
database. Donath further goes on to state, “If we view people as social
actors, then we should view the net as a social technology. A social
technology is one that makes it possible to find people with common
interests, to talk with them and listen to them, and to sustain connections
with them over time." The additional element of complexity is introduced
when Donath suggest that the net is a “social technology” which enables the
users to find others of common interest. In this sense, the “net” exist as
tool which is both a roadmap, and a vehicle. In this analogy, the roadmap is
the means of identifying the location of like minded individuals and the
vehicle is the means of interaction.
Jake McKee
of Community Guy (McKee, 2005), is quick to distinguish between the tool and
the intent as he states, “People often think that blogs, forums, wikis, and
other tools are community. In actuality, those tools are just that - tools.
They can help you to build community, but they aren't actually "community".
When we talk community, we're simply talking about an interaction, a
connection. Blogs or forums are a way to initiate and sustain that
interaction.” McKee’s view of what constitutes community is in opposition to
that of Peck. In McKee’s opinion, community is crystallized in the word
“interaction”, regardless of the intent or level of commitment of the
participant. At surface level, such disparities would seem devoid of common
ground. If, as Peck suggest, community is not simply the result of
interaction, but is a function of the depth and character of that
interaction, how can McKee’s view be valid? Considering that the above
question can be easily reversed, the same could be said of Peck’s view. In
the absence of common ground, both views become mutually exclusive.
Interjecting Donath’s view of the web as a “social technology”, recognition
of an individual’s social need is implied and built into the architecture of
the community. A community which fails to offer social functionality would
cease to exist as a community. It is in this view that the opinions of both
Peck and McKee become sustainable. Perhaps Kirk Donovan in “The Life Cycles
of Communities” (Donovan, 2005) offers the best definition of online
communities as he states, “Simply put, an online community is a medium of
interaction to connect people in different locations based on a common
interest or need” (Kollock and Smith 1999).
Ethnography
It should
be stated that defining Web Based Communities does not imply consensus. A
debate continues within the ethnographic community as to the validity of
community like relationships which develop through the means of
computer-mediated interaction, with some scholars suggesting that web based
interaction is too ephemeral or superficial to warrant serious research.
Calhoun (1991) contends that the modern condition is suggestive of “indirect
social relationships in which connectivity with others is more imagined, or
parasocial, than “real.” Calhoun further suggest that computer based
interaction may facilitate the development of “categorical identities” or
“imagined communities”, in which the only true element of community is in
the “feeling” of belonging to a group. In so stating, Calhoun contends that
true community only exists in the presence of direct relationships. Calhoun
further suggest that computer based communities are more likely to produce
social isolation than true connectivity in that the absence of self
disclosure and intimacy found in traditional relationships renders online
activities incapable of producing legitimate social bonding.
In
opposition to this, Oldenburg (1989) argues that closeness and social
bonding in modern communities has eroded into an emotional disconnect of
impersonal relationships and that online communities may fill a social need
in this regard. Oldenburg states that a person moves through life in three
basic environments. These include where we work, where we live, and where we
join with others for social intercourse. Oldenburg defines the third as the
place of “idle talk and banter with acquaintances and friends”, suggesting
that this is where the sense of community is experienced. While barber
shops, cafes and social clubs once served this purpose, shopping malls, fast
food and busy schedules have left this need largely unfulfilled. Therefore,
Oldenburg feels it not a surprising thing that many turn to the internet to
recreate a sense of connectivity and community.
Jones
(1995) shares Oldenburg’s view that bulletin boards, newsgroups, chat rooms
and other types of computer facilitated interaction have evolved from the
need to recreate the sense of community as people struggle with the
disappearance of informal public space.
Cerulo
(1997) attempts to add balance to this issue writing that sociologist and
communication researchers must reevaluate their view of the computer
mediated world, as well as past assumptions concerning human interactions in
order to effectively understand online communities. This sentiment is echoed
by Virnoche and Marx (1997) who suggest a need to redefine “community” in
consideration of an increasing overlap between the “real” and the “virtual”
worlds, and the increasing number of people who interact via online
communities. In light of new and expanding modalities of communication
afforded via the internet, the writer adds that historical definitions of
community cannot be held as definitive standards by which to validate
present day communities whether real or virtual.
Following
Calhoun’s logic, one might conclude that communications which occur over a
telephone are not conversation in the true sense because intimate physical
proximity is lacking. Though this argument would seem absurd in the present
day, ethnologist of the last century may not have found it so and argued for
the former. Motorized vehicles were once considered a passing fad and
telephones were luxuries of the wealthy. With the progression of time, these
things have become integral elements of modern society. Today, no rational
person would deny that two people talking over a phone line are having a
conversation. So it may be with web based communities. As the debate
continues among ethnographers and sociologist, the day may not be far off
when one questions the logic of those who questioned the validity of online
communities to begin with. |
