What is an online community (and can we eat it)?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
What defines an online community? What rules (if any) does a successful online community have? What level of personal responsibility does the individual poster have towards humoring the desires of all of the other posters in an unmoderated online community?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:01 (twenty-three years ago)

This is the classic definition from Howard Rheingold:

“Social aggregations that emerge from the net when enough people carry on those public discussions, long enough, with sufficient human feeling to form webs of personal relationship in cyberspace” (quoted in Wilbur 1997 pg. 5)."

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:07 (twenty-three years ago)

rules: as little as possible. an open board where trolls can come in.

the only responsibility is not to be nasty and make personal attack on posters for no reasons whatsover.

The thing is if you gonna post just post: even if you think some ppl will think its dumb or stupid or insulting because some might not actually.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:10 (twenty-three years ago)

What responsibility does an online community have to the individuals who participate in it?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I think an essential element of a successful online "thing", is that the people who reside there in do not become one-dimensional characters, and that they feel free to discuss a range of feelings and emotions.

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:18 (twenty-three years ago)

well the individuals make up this community so they can have some input into it.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:19 (twenty-three years ago)

My definition of an online community: a BBS/message board/newsgroup/mailing list with a group of regular participants.

The responsibility of individuals to the group is to encourage interaction among members of the group. The responsibility of the group to individuals is non-existent; the group is not required to change its ways to satisfy members who have become tired of the group.

I think that online communities do take on characteristics and "lives" of their own independent of the people who make them up, largely because it is a distillation of the wide range of personalities which make up the group and the personalities in the group is constantly in flux. Overall "rules of communication" arise partially from existing social convention and partially because they are the most successful at encouraging others to respond.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:26 (twenty-three years ago)

''the group is not required to change its ways to satisfy members who have become tired of the group.''

OTM!

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Is there an ulterior motive behind this thread, namely showing that posting an academic version of a thread (ie, this one) will draw fewer posts than a "self-indulgent" version (ie, Ronan's thread) because people feel more comfortable discussing things in a framework of emotions and shared experience rather than in a dry, analytical manner? (Plus, Ronan's thread was there first.)

Honestly, isn't this what Ronan's thread is really about? Is there an answer we can come up that will satisfy everyone or (more importantly) change people's minds about how ILXOR should operate?

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:31 (twenty-three years ago)

I do personally think that ILX would not survive if it were self contained - the FAPS, the international visiting, the IM conversations are all essential to the group.

The question I ask:

If there were no meet-ups would an online community be that strong?

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:32 (twenty-three years ago)

i think what makes an "online community" is a level of comfort and cohesiveness that allows posters to say personal things and feel safe (not because they're anonymous, but because they're liked). posters owe other posters basic civility. the community owes posters a chance to slip up once in awhile and break that rule or be self-indulgent or whatever.

Maria (Maria), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Jel, I think it depends. My connection to certain regulars would be just as strong because I've been corresponding with them via various online forums for something like 11 years now (USENET REPRAZENT!). My connection to ILXOR exists partially because many of them are here and partially because I've encountered other people I enjoy bantering with here (and, as any of my friends could tell you, my main mode of conversation is banter).

So, I might not care as much if my old skool posse didn't post here, but I would probably still be here if they all left and I'd probably act the same way.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:38 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, Maria, I found that feeling of comfort was very important to people who write online diaries.

Another aspect of community, is what about lurkers/googlers? In my view they are part of the community, as they constitute the audience. What we say on these boards is in someway influenced by this audience.

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:39 (twenty-three years ago)

How does one measure that influence, though? You can't know the effect you're having until the lurkers speak up, at which point they aren't really lurkers anymore.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:40 (twenty-three years ago)

it's like demi moore and whoopi goldberg!!

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:41 (twenty-three years ago)

i don't consider myself part of the ilx community so much as an observer of it, even though i post a bit...so i don't think the audience really counts

Maria (Maria), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:42 (twenty-three years ago)

In light of what you say Dan, I think a study of people who have formed online friendships over a number of years would make a really good piece of research. And I'm not sure if it's something that has been studied given the relative youth of the 'net.

Me personally, I know I would post if there were no FAPS, but my experince of online community is that it's the coolest thing to be able to meet up with the people you talk to online

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:44 (twenty-three years ago)

(Dan, what you ask is probably why my dissertation fell on it's ass! - as you can only get the views of people who contribute, as to how they feel the audience influences them)

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:46 (twenty-three years ago)

And I'm not sure if it's something that has been studied given the relative youth of the 'net.

Quite a lot -- it was in vogue in the mid-90s -- but a lot of it was extremely superficial, and not much more than cataloguing of differences between online friendships and off (online romances received particular attention). At a time when most supervisors and audiences were pretty net-illiterate, it was easy to get any kind of "study of online communities" approved (says he who did exactly that :))

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:49 (twenty-three years ago)

Can one participant be MORE a part of an online community than another?

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:50 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, I did one on online diaries, but it turned into this big thing on identity and the influence of the audience.

jel -- (jel), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Sure, just like with any other community. Figure in any given scene, there were at least 20-30 people in Cheers, but how would you think of it differently without Norm and Cliff?

The relative "weight" of a given participant is often subjective, though -- for all we know, there were five or six guys off in the corner at Cheers with zany adventures all their own.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Whoops, that's in response to mark p.

Tep (ktepi), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark's question is an interesting one. It completely depends on how you view posting volume and subject matter with respect to the poster's individual worth. If I was more sensitive, I'd probably never post here again after reading in Ronan's thread that a bunch of people I enjoy corresponding with on the banter level are really fucking tired of banter. However, the cynical, self-absorbed person I am is equally tired of people who want to view every thread as an opportunity to go into an academic citing frenzy and I figure that if I can avoid and ignore all of that, they can avoid and ignore my five hundreth variation of a tired sex joke. Lack of this type of give and take for methods of conversation that don't interest you strikes me as deeply selfish and hurtful to the community as a whole; once everyone starts talking just like you, you're about five seconds away from running out of things to talk about IMO. (Yes, that's a huge overstatement of how I actually feel.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 22:59 (twenty-three years ago)

(For a horrible second, I thought my point about the academic approach being more alienating than the personal approach was in danger of being debunked. Note to self: I AM ALWAYS RIGHT SO NO MORE SELF-DOUBT.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 13 February 2003 23:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Dan, a gross generalisation but one most, I think, will agree with. Your banter is close to the highest state of banterness, and most of the time you make people feel happy and comfortable through the medium of "humour" , which is just as valid as being welcoming, friendly, sympathetic or profound.

Some people aren't either as able to be funny in the right place at the right time, aren't as intuitive towards the moods of the readers, or their banter verges, intentionally or not, on the cliquey or sarcastic side. You may be a VULGAR YOUNG MAN, but it's a humour we all appreciate and (usually) understand.

Sorry if this seems patronising; it's meant with a lot of respect and affection. I have lots more to add to this thread (having been ripped apart in the past on ILE for daring to suggest that people should not behave in a way that was damaging to the community), but I want to think about it more when it's not 2.30am.

Night!

Mark C (Mark C), Friday, 14 February 2003 02:27 (twenty-three years ago)

The responsibility of individuals to the group is to encourage interaction among members of the group


We could batter this one to pieces all year I think. I agree this is part of what my post was about but I think alot of people overlooked the aspect of it which dealt with simply what happens when you begin to get irritated by the board.

Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 14 February 2003 02:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I like ILE because it makes me laugh, I occasionally learn things, and I value communication and would go mad if I had to go a whole working day without it. But I don't think I will ever feel that ILX is a 'community', or at least not one that I can belong to. I don't post anything personal unless I can make it into a joke and I keep back lots of opinions/questions just because I'm afraid of being shot down. You may demur, but it DOES happen and I won't allow it to happen to me. I don't and can't open up emotionally to people I have never met (though I know I HAVE met some of you and that's why I am here in the first place) and who can turn on other posters without warning.

I fully admit that it is my own sensitivity/hang ups that stop me 'embracing' the board or whatever, and not perhaps anyone else's fault. It's out of character for me to even type this. And of course it's true that one can always leave for a while blah blah. But 'community' - 'social intercourse; communion; fellowship; sense of common identity'? Hm. There's just too many people here for anything cohesive, I think, and if for some reason I had to give up my RL friends and throw myself on the mercy of ILX? Well I wouldn't.

That's all. (I really *do* still like it here on other levels.)

Archel (Archel), Friday, 14 February 2003 11:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Maybe I should have posted that on the 'necessary post' thread... what happened on that one is exactly the kind of bitchy deterioration that terrifies me. I don't like saying 'let's all be nice to each other' because it has nothing to do with me, but really. Do any of us treat people like this in real life?

Archel (Archel), Friday, 14 February 2003 12:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry I killed this thread. See, now I HAVE posted something I was really feeling for once I am getting paranoid about no one answering, and possibly priving my own point... whatever it was.

Archel (Archel), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I would have posted something to the effect of "I agree" but those types of posts are boring and redundant and I would have been told to shut up. But I don't think you've killed this thread.

Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:10 (twenty-three years ago)

I actually like 'I agree' posts.

N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:12 (twenty-three years ago)

What is it? It's a difficult question to answer in the abstract. I guess it depends on the purposes of the community. I think the people who run the community -- the people who do the work of programming, hosting and moderating -- are the ones who can most validly determine what they want it to be like and then try to accomplish it. It's nice if they take use input, but it's not like they have to.

It's nice if there is give and take among members, but that's true of any community.

Dan (since I know you will read this thread), I want to ask if you are going to answer your questions here. Not becaue I'm holding a grudge, but because I've always been interested in what you had to say about it and I imagine you were wanting to talk about it when you started the discussion.

felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:14 (twenty-three years ago)

(I knew someone was going to remember that I'd never gotten around to talking on the racism thread! Honestly, I will try to answer it; the problem is that there's a LOT I want to write and I never have enough time to fully marshall my thoughts and get them down when I'm in a position to post on ILX, ie at work.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I feel I often approach this place in a similar way to Archel. I have posted something really personal on a handful of occasions, but more often I will start typing something, think better of it and delete it before hitting submit. It's partly because I don't know anyone here and partly because there are certain things I would discuss with people face to face but I wouldn't feel happy about being there for anyone in the world to see for all eternity (or until this thing gets too big to archive).

I feel its a community in lots of ways, but one that I'm only on the fringes of. That's partly a result of not meeting people on here in person, partly a result of only being here for a few months, partly a result of not always having the time to post when I would like to.

But I also find that strange given the amount of my time and thoughts this place takes up. If its not a community or if I'm not a part of it, what am I doing?

James Ball (James Ball), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:29 (twenty-three years ago)

I think there's a double standard that operates w.r.t. honesty online, Archel - being honest about one's problems/anxieties/life is (generally) seen as a virtue and something that builds community by giving it depth. But being honest about things that piss you off is often seen as destructive of community and something that is and should be repressed usually. In my pragmatic way I'm not sure that's a bad double standard to have - but I also think one set of honesties creates the atmosphere for the other.

(And I'm as much involved in the ILX community as anyone else but I hardly ever post 'personal' things here so I completely take your first point - but I think online communities are both shallower and richer than real-life ones for lacking that personal aspect)

Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Thinking back on it, the only "personal" things I've posted on here are things that happened to me years and years ago which I feel like I've dealt with (like my oldest brother's death). I don't feel like this is an appropriate forum for me to bare my soul. (HUGE emphasis on "for me".)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I really, really want to give all the credit in the world to Tom for having such liberal guidelines about ILX. I think takes a lot of vision to have a good community.

I love the new users and think it is good for the community. I think it helps when people are familiar with basic Netiquette (reading FAQs and stuff) (USENET IN THE HizzOUSE) but it's not necessarily fair to expect a new generation to be familiar with that when commercial websites are so user-friendly nowadays. Online communities will have to evolve to adapt to new kinds of users to survive.

Sometimes, in the icier recesses of my heart, I wonder what would happen if we suffered a good old-fashioned Greenspun-style server failure of yore from time to time. I missed ILX desperately at those time, but it definitely made me appreciate it more.

felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I kinda miss those Greenspun failures in some weird way. At first day I'd be like 'good, now I can get some, er, work done' but after a few hours desperation would sink in. Soulseek being down lately was like a sorta mini-deja vu.

James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I echo your comments about Tom, Felicity. People complain about the odd thing here and there but on the whole this place works bloody well, and I think Tom sets the tone with an admirably light touch considering it's his baby.

James Ball (James Ball), Friday, 14 February 2003 14:59 (twenty-three years ago)

I agree with Felicity and JAmes so much that I'm not going to make the obvious joke about Tom lightly toughing babies. (Oops.)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

People complain about the odd thing here and there but on the whole this place works bloody well, and I think Tom sets the tone with an admirably light touch considering it's his baby.

Yes, there are a lot of people that would be a lot more territorial and dictatorial if the boards had been their idea from the beginning, but Tom has usually given people a lot of freedom and leeway to use the boards the way they want to.

Nicole (Nicole), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:03 (twenty-three years ago)

(It's DG's baby too, wherever he is. And DG's moderation skillZoR were much underrated too, with his I-DELETE-NOTHING hardline!)

Tom (Groke), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:04 (twenty-three years ago)

I have been calling DG out lately, to no avail.

Tom's modesty is becoming. Becoming what, I don't know.

felicity (felicity), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

This is a GREAT thread. I suppose this post is an I AGREE on a massive scale.

I come to ILE for many reasons. It depends on what sort of mood I'm in. I'm thankful that I haven't been too harshly attacked. I mean, it's kind of annoying hearing so much hate about cat pic threads as it is something that I do REALLY and truly enjoy, but at least no one has told me to fuck off (unless I missed that post...).

ILE is very much a community for me. I get on ILE every day, Monday thru Friday at work and tend to have it open my entire workday, posting on and off. I have really enjoyed getting to know other posters by the frequency of their posts and I feel like when/(if) I meet them it will not be like meeting strangers at all. Of course, there are a lot of posters, but I'm learning about more of them one at a time. And I hope that other posters see me as a person in this community as well.

I understand that people's feelings get hurt and people get angry and start threads about it... I really wish there was less of that. But everyone knows I'm a kitten-loving, mush-filled, vegetarian skirt that is enjoying Valentine's Day.

Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not comfortable posting personal stuff on ILE: and I'm not particularly interested in the 'getting-to-know-each-other' side of things (but probably only because I am no longer able to actually meet people IRL at FAPs etc.). I guess my idea of ILE is more of a 'meeting-of-minds' type cliche. Is deliberative democracy feasible? Is Tom just a benevolent dictator? I certainly don't think the (continuing) success of the boards is down to him, DG and the other current and ex-mods alone. It's down to everyone who came along and treated other people with courtesy and respect.

alext (alext), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Sarah, you (and others) have just made me feel better and kindlier towards ILX again, thank you :)

Archel (Archel), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I think there's a double standard that operates w.r.t. honesty online, Archel - being honest about one's problems/anxieties/life is (generally) seen as a virtue and something that builds community by giving it depth. But being honest about things that piss you off is often seen as destructive of community and something that is and should be repressed usually.

I think this is how it goes offline too. I don't know if that's good or bad. But there are ways to be honest about things that piss you off without seeming to turn on people, and if you're talking to individuals then a public messageboard is inherently NOT the right forum for that. It smacks of public humiliation too much.

I feel the same way as Archel and alext, or more like alext, in terms of being part of a community. I come here looking more for discussion/entertainment/education than friendships to carry on offline.

Maria (Maria), Friday, 14 February 2003 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd still be here if it was entirely an online thing (the meeting of minds), but the IRL aspect has been a huge bonus for me. I have posted some fairly personal stuff here, but there are things I've avoided really getting into, because I think people don't want to hear it, generally. That's all to with me and not the boards, though.

The phenomenon I find interesting is how attached I feel to people I've never met. The messages of sympathy to and affection for posters here that I've posted are entirely genuine and heartfelt, and it makes little sense to me that I can feel anything much for people in these circumstances. I do see this as a good thing, I should add, in case it looks as if I'm complaining.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 14 February 2003 23:40 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.