As someone of an age where the internet has been in existence for the entirety of my adult life virtual communities are not a new concept. From a personal standpoint there are a number of online communities that I myself belong too such as Facebook and aintitcool.com. These two communities are completely different from one another in terms of their purpose and the sort of people involved in the community. The fact remains, however, that they are both online communities and the question of how much these sites and discussions effect, and indeed, have in common with offline communities is an important issue.
Online communities have been defined as “social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on … public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationship in cyberspace” (Rheingold in Flew 2004 62). This definition is not completely whole however when one takes into account the emergence of social networking sites such as Facebook where there is a strong possibility that any ‘personal relationships’ found there exists both in and out of cyberspace. This is important to consider for, using Facebook as an example, if someone were to have an argument with a Facebook friend who they also happened to know in their offline community both relationships would suffer. Therefore it could be argued that social networking sites such as this, by combining one’s online and offline lives, effectively bridge the gap between online and offline communities. This view is a little narrow minded however as social networking sites are still, at their core, online communities where much of the appeal of the site comes from “a desire to be connected to those who are like you and to avoid situations in which you would feel awkward” (Winner in Flew 2004 67). The recent addition of a ‘news feed’ feature on Facebook served as a reminder of the vast differences between cyberspace and reality as people were now able to monitor all of your online activities, effectively making simple something that would be difficult and illegal to do offline. The fact that the feature garnered such outrage from Facebook users is an example of just how effectively social networking sites do blur the lines of online and offline community (Glaser 2006).
The balance between online and offline may always be an issue with sites such as Facebook but what of online communities such as aintitcool.com where members are drawn together from around the world by a shared interest, their identity and other features of their offline life not discussed and not overly important; what does an community such as this have in common, if anything, with offline communities? Among the reasons why people participate in online discussion groups such as this are:
- The opportunity to form friendships and relationships that may be perceived as being more difficult to develop in the off-line community
- The ability to play with personas
- The capacity to circulate new ideas among a froup of like-minded people
- The chance to find people who share the same interests
- The search for romantic and sexual relations
(Shenton and MecNeely in Flew 2004 69)
The majority of the reasons mentioned above are the same things that people want from their offline community also. Once again it is a matter of people feeling this desire for connection without the need for awkwardness. So therefore, if one’s motivations are similar in an offline and online environment then perhaps the only real difference between the two communities is the technology itself.
Glaser, M. (2006) Why Participants Matter in Online Communities MediaShift (Online)
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction,
1 comment:
In so many ways, I agree that there are similar social motivations of online and offline communities, despite the technological differences between the two. I have been researching a similar topic, and found that some of the main differences lie in the fact that in offline communities, individuals have a sense of responsibility for their actions that reflect upon their lives, networks, and friends.
You mentioned as an example that a dispute on Facebook would carry on to a face-to-face dispute, but how about other online communities where there is no supplementary offline communication or interaction? The user is somewhat free from prosecution, as they can simply delete their account, or blame hackers for the disposition caused. This eliminates a major facet of community involvement: mutual trust and respect.
That leads me on another point that I would like to consider for further research, which is the give-and-take of community involvement that is not overly enforced by online communities. In most cases, a user can join a group, and extract information and knowledge from that group, without exchanging new information and knowledge. For sustainable community practice and social capital, there has to be a mutual sharing between users.
What.cd is a good example of online community sharing, and perhaps other online communities should follow. What.cd is an online music sharing website - yes, it is ‘illegal’ file sharing, however the site is designed in a way the users must maintain a download/upload ratio in order to remain users. This ensures that a healthy community attitude is upheld.
What.cd explains on their website, that:
This is a torrent site which promotes sharing amongst the community. If you are not willing to give back to the community what you take from it, this site is not for you. In other words, we expect you to have an acceptable share ratio. If you download a torrent, please, seed the copy you have until there are sufficient people seeding as well before you stop.
We're a community. Working together is what makes this place what it is.
I guess it depends on the nature of the community, but I believe that give-and-take is important in any social relationships - online or offline.
To read my thoughts on social capital in online and offline communities, visit my blog, and feel free to share your thoughts.
Post a Comment