Powazek hits on one critical aspect of community that the other authors in this reading section missed: necessity. Communities - online or face-to-face - flourish from necessity. While many authors did mention that individuals interacting in communities share a common purpose or action, they did not mention the motivation for becoming part of the community to begin with. Each person in the community is there out of some necessity - the desire for companionship, an unanswered question, a participation grade for a school assignment. These motivations are often unspoken, but they are the fundamental force driving the actions of the community members.
Nice point. It is important to include necessity into considering a physical or vritual community. But I was thinking if we should use a larger concept like Motivation, which can include the necessity, the goal, the intended or unintended benifit etc. as all the reasons for people's participation. Online communities can always offer us something more than our necessity.
Submitted by Tracy Liu on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 16:26.
0
points
I agree with the idea that the emergences of online communities enrich people’s interaction in some aspect. However, I would like to say that most online communities my friends and myself participate are not for daily life necessity. We do go to Amazon, Ebay to buy books, Cds and other useful goods, however, we mess around so many hours to read friends’ blog, facebook and pictures on flickers. Does it mean that people in modern time are more and more vacuous or lonely? If it is true, what’s the reason behind this phenomenon? Do these online communities provide more spiritual support between individuals or merely alienate/indulge people?
Submitted by Daniel Zhou on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 13:40.
0
points
Good point. It reminds me of Maslow's theory of hierarchical needs. Is there any prerequiste need that has to be satisfied before "community" becomes a necessity?
Submitted by Beth_St_Jean on Sat, 01/05/2008 - 16:07.
0
points
The person who drew the tiny arrow ensured that only those most motivated to continue the communication would find his/her message. The person who wrote "You're stupid" and the person who wrote "Shut up!" probably had little motivation to continue such trivial, unsatisfying communication. However, the author of this preface had a lot of motivation to try to continue the communication.
The author describes the tiny arrow as a "user-filtering solution", and indicates that "anyone smart enough to find the arrow and see what it meant could have participated" (p. xviii). However, I think that it wasn't a matter of "smart" -- it was more of a matter of being motivated to continue the communication.
Submitted by Matt Adamo on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 18:06.
0
points
Another way to look at the people who wrote "You're stupid" or "Shut up!" is that they were motivated to continue the communication, just in a different way from the original participants. They could have ignored the messages, or erased them altogether, but instead, for whatever reason, they chose to contribute with the wit typical of most trolls. I suppose we'll get to protecting communities later in the semester, but I just want to note a parallel from the Oldenberg chapter, where it is mentioned that "bores" are the inevitable scourge of the third place and that size and inclusivity of a club is the best way to deal with them (pg 10 of the pdf). It would be interesting to see, based on some of Wellman's characteristics, which types of online networks are most troll-resistant.
I agree that the people writing "stupid" and "shut up" were motivated in a different way. However, they were somehow forced
to be part of the conversation, especially when the conversation
happened ON the desk they had to use, and this would be difficult to ignore if the conversation grew everyday. I'd say they didn't want to be part of the "community" in the first place, but they didn't have a choice -- they probably were assigned the desk in the story.
I am not sure, but this looks more like a physical community with an online forum or other communication channel. For example, we are all a part of the SI community, and so we automatically would (well, you can opt out) receive all the emails sent to si.all.open. In this case, some of us would be more in the same boat with the "shut up" guys.
I agree that one of the biggest lessons from this reading is the mention of necessity. However, if asked to analyze this "community" would we say it was useful? What purpose did it serve? Do communities like this have to serve some purpose for the participants or is light entertainment all that’s needed? The author concedes that this community increased motivation to go to class and that it could have served a better purpose to get better grades in class, but in the end it was (as far as we know) merely for fun, and ultimately a distraction to learning.
This brings to mind the idea that peer-based communities like this one may feel secret (away from the watching eye of the teacher) and may be more informal when faced against the academic discourse of the classroom. The implications of what was written and how interest me most about this community.
My own life has intersected with Derek's for many years, connecting and disconnecting according to the dictates of necessity. I connected with him when he began fray.com, again when I read his online community book, and then later after I started working for Howard Rheingold and discovered that Derek was my predecessor. Oddly enough, we have rarely actually communicated, like scraps of paper under a desk infrequently occupied. Nevertheless, it is sufficient, and in this preface, Derek identifies why, a crucial aspect of human community: "all I was really interested in was this new person and our fragile conversation."
Human connection stems from need (as Derek notes), but that need is not goal-directed or functional. Human communication is not for anything. It is its own justification, and each connection is fragile, as are we. His example shows that people will connect, by any means necessary.
Only connect.
-------------------------------------------------------- PHartzog@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
--Muriel Rukeyser
While I liked this story and I can see why it could be seen as a metaphor for communication online there is a significant differences that bothered me. The author was working with the assumption that the respondent was a students who sat in the same seat for one of the other lectures. This would mean that they were roughly the same age, attended the same school and were going through similar life circumstances. If online communities created a situation where these assumptions were true then perhaps this story would be more relevant. But, this is often not the case.
After reading the story I felt that this should be considered as a somewhat cautionary tale. When you examine the assumptions that the student made and what they were founded on it is easy to see that he could have easily been mislead. If you re-read the story without assuming it was a student he was conversing with it is concerning to see how people are willing to reach out to strangers when motivated by dubious assumptions and desperation.
I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.
Submitted by Satyendra on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 00:23.
0
points
I enjoyed this reading. It is interesting and fun to read and it drives home the central point strongly. Communities are born of a necessity to interact with others – for various reasons- and thrive because we can connect with people without we can connect at some level. Sometimes we are so caught up in trying to understand the complexities of designing features and attributes that we forget that the most important thing should be that it fulfills a fundamental need for communication that isn’t being met easily.
Further, it is also a reminder that people will use the system in ways that are hard for a designer to imagine and hence building flexibility into the system is important. Once people have a reason, and know that there is someone they can connect with they will find a way. If a basic way exists they will develop their own methods and codes of communication to enhance the experience.
The last few points of the author though I’m not sure I fully agree with. I think it’s always a good idea to have as more people in the community as long as you have a way to avoid people and information that is not relevant for you. What is important is having the ability to control access to information according to your preferences.
Also, while virtual intimacy may take time, I think with virtual communication between strangers becoming more and more common people are adapting and it is becoming easier to trust strangers online quicker. For example, I travelled to New York for the new year and both times I drove with complete stranger I’d met on craigslist. Although talking to them on the phone before we decided on travelling together helped build the trust I think people are a lot more accepting and trusting of others we meet online now because it’s becoming an increasingly common way of connecting with people.
It’s also a reminder that communities and interactions with others is a fundamental human drive and although the media changes, the drive will always remain.
Luckily, Powazek didn't reply to the trolls, or the desk could've turned into an all out flame war! Which would mean the desk could've literally ignited!
The limited communication that the author had reminds me of the Luis von Ahn talk at SI where he said the people who played the ESP game together felt they had formed some kind of bond with fellow players, even though they had never spoken with each other. I recall seeing a "message in a bottle" website a while ago too where you'd input a message and receive another that someone had written. Unfortunately those messages weren't really created through necessity.
Many others have mentioned the emphasis on necessity in this piece. While not emphasized in the other readings this week, several did include necessity as part of their criteria for online communities - the fact that the community exists to serve some need, be it for information, friendship, shared interest, etc.
With this being such a specific example of a community, I don't know if I'd agree with his lesson that sometimes communities are better with fewer members, not more. It all depends on what the community members are looking to get out of the community. This will vary across members - maybe some are there for the interaction, so having a smaller, closer community is better. But for others, gaining information is key, so larger communities would have more to offer. Still, Powazek's story is a powerful way to remind us how simple an effective community can be.
It was a fun reading - Powazek conveyed important points in such a lucid way! I drive home the point that communities will naturally be succesful if their users felt a genuine - perhaps of equal intensity - need for them. I also learned that communities are sometimes better with fewer genuine users, not necessarily too many. Frequent and meaningful interactions are important - intimacy takes time to develop, and physical presence or real-life glance is not important for building trust.
Powazek’s anecdote introduces the concept of communities, or rather, how communities are formed. Also in this week’s reading, Preece proposes 4 high-level criteria for “online communities,” of which one states that an “online community consists of people, who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs.” This description perfectly resonates with Powazek’s description for virtual communities. When you think about the physical world, all sorts of networks and tangible groups exist to cater to specific needs. How much different is the virtual world?
This reading was definitely the most charming, and brought up both the bittersweet side of spontaneous connection with strangers and the joys and dangers of insularity. There are both the warm fuzzy associations of bonding in the story, and the retaliation of those not included in the bonding (who must also be "bored" in algebra to have time to contribute to the on-desk community occupied by the original two).
Communities often form based on shared interests, shared grievances, etc; The research on communities with which I am most familiar is social work research, which often frames communities as inherently positive, focusing on how to build more resilient communities (primarily geographical). People also form strange and malicious communities based on shared intolerance of others. Although I don't think that constitutes a rational reason not to support community-building, I think its important to highlight that communities are often exclusive in a number of ways that are less than ideal.
The algebra-desk dialogue reminded me of the pseudo-anonymous bathroom stall virtual community formation. I once tried to document all the graffitti on the study room radiators in Hatcher, based on a hunch that I would be able to find trends in local forms of angst. It was common to stumble across the beginnings of a back and forth dialogue like the one described in the reading. This kind of correspondance must somehow welcome sabotage, because rarely would I find one that was untouched by some bullying interjection of "you guys suck" or some trailing inappropriate rant somehow trying to link the dialogue to the interjectors political views or other suppressed thoughts. What Wellman calls the "two-person" dyad community and bigger communities are two very different animals.
These reflections have not led me to any revelations, beyond noting that "anonymous" or "virtual" communities off-line, at least in the case of conversational graffitti, are ridden with the same accumulation of spam as online communities.
Personally, everything I needed to know about the dangers of community formation I learned from jingles on sesame street and Mr. Rogers towards which i am often resentful.
Case in point:
Three of these kids belong together
Three of these kids are kind of the same
But one of these kids is doing his (her) own thing
Now it's time to play our game
It's time to play our game.
-"One of these things is not like the others" by Joe Raposo and Jon Stone
This is an interesting story. Some attributes of online communities that I learned from Preece’s article can be applied to this story. For example, conversations between the author and his anonymous friends are fragile. Thus, it takes time and effort to establish trust. In addition, what connect author and the anonym is common interests (or hate).
In addition to the necessity to socialize with people, I am thinking the other reason that make the author started/kept writing notes may be curiosity, since this is a person he did not know before. If some common interests are shared, it may be more interesting to talk with strangers than somebody you have known.
Anonymous communication can be useful, even within a
restricted group. Powazek has used a nice parable to highlight some of the
nuances of anonymous communication. Even in the midst of anonymous comments
Powazek was able to distinguish the participants by their handwriting. However,
in digital communication it may be difficult to distinguish the participants. The
story also illustrates the importance of connecting with the recipient and
having the right size of a community.
Interesting piece. I can actually relate to it. My first love began like this, anonymously, in school... middle school. But are two people enough to form a community? I guess the author included the silent readers in his definition of community as well. Which brings me to the question of "can silent members be considered part of the community?" As they dont contribute (but the hit count rises), how will other member of the community gain from them, in the name of community (unless it's just a grouping)? I guess it depends on the purpose of that network.
Submitted by John Blair on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 13:40.
0
points
John Blair
A great short story, but I do have to question the necessity aspect. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of the definition of the word, but I don't think I really agree that communities are formed out of necessity. That seems to give entire realm of communties too much pre-meditated construction. Is the way most instant messaging is used a necessity? Do these people have to chat with each other or are they just bored and avoiding doing something they'd rather not do?
I'm reminded of a routine from a comedian (I can't recall his name) who referred to buying shoes for his teenage son. His son "needed" $150 Nike shoes, his dad had $40 budgeted for shoes. He simply explained to his son the difference between need/necessity and want. The kid wanted $150 shoes, what he needed was $110.
Submitted by Bailey Zhang on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 00:31.
0
points
Funny story. I got to know communities will naturally be successful if there is necessity. The first connection between community members start with common interest. And because not all of the six people have the same need, the community was finally broken by someone treat this need as stupid.
I also learned through this article the success of community to be last largely based on choosing the appropriate media. I don't fully agree with the user that it is a good idea to build user-filtering solution. In my mind, community should involve as many as users with the same interest as possible. The better way is to choose the right communication media. For example, desk is a public place and both good students and those who don't listen at class use desk so only a small part of those users happen to have common needs. When it turns to the paper jammed between bar and desk, only those who feel boring at class with put paper there. So it is a much better channel or media to form communities.
Short article, but interesting enough to read over quickly. Actually that reminds me of my days in high school when I almost did the same thing. that experience was unforgetful and really of fun. In terms of some of the points the author made, it seems to me that in today's world, community is not always formed out of necessity as Daniel has mention as well, examples are everywhere: when we chat meaningless words, when we just shop online for fun ... Sometimes people just do it for fun or o kill leisure time, kind of an interesting incentive from economis's perspective. Of course, communities formed of necessity still exist and form a majority part. While all these were born under continuous development of technology, community, especially virtual online communities are becoming more and more indispensible to people including myself.
Even though short and maybe "unscientific" I think this might be the best reading for week 1. It was very graphic and really got it's point accross. The other readings might offer useful definition and such but after reading this piece I can honestly say "Now I have a better understand of what an online community is". It was a great analogy.
Necessary Necessity
Powazek hits on one critical aspect of community that the other authors in this reading section missed: necessity. Communities - online or face-to-face - flourish from necessity. While many authors did mention that individuals interacting in communities share a common purpose or action, they did not mention the motivation for becoming part of the community to begin with. Each person in the community is there out of some necessity - the desire for companionship, an unanswered question, a participation grade for a school assignment. These motivations are often unspoken, but they are the fundamental force driving the actions of the community members.
re: necessity
Nice point. It is important to include necessity into considering a physical or vritual community. But I was thinking if we should use a larger concept like Motivation, which can include the necessity, the goal, the intended or unintended benifit etc. as all the reasons for people's participation. Online communities can always offer us something more than our necessity.
material necessity or spiritual necessity?
I agree with the idea that the emergences of online communities enrich people’s interaction in some aspect. However, I would like to say that most online communities my friends and myself participate are not for daily life necessity. We do go to Amazon, Ebay to buy books, Cds and other useful goods, however, we mess around so many hours to read friends’ blog, facebook and pictures on flickers. Does it mean that people in modern time are more and more vacuous or lonely? If it is true, what’s the reason behind this phenomenon? Do these online communities provide more spiritual support between individuals or merely alienate/indulge people?
Good point. It reminds me of
Good point. It reminds me of Maslow's theory of hierarchical needs. Is there any prerequiste need that has to be satisfied before "community" becomes a necessity?
Motivation to continue communication
The person who drew the tiny arrow ensured that only those most motivated to continue the communication would find his/her message. The person who wrote "You're stupid" and the person who wrote "Shut up!" probably had little motivation to continue such trivial, unsatisfying communication. However, the author of this preface had a lot of motivation to try to continue the communication.
The author describes the tiny arrow as a "user-filtering solution", and indicates that "anyone smart enough to find the arrow and see what it meant could have participated" (p. xviii). However, I think that it wasn't a matter of "smart" -- it was more of a matter of being motivated to continue the communication.
--- Beth
Beth St. Jean
Motivated to annoy
Another way to look at the people who wrote "You're stupid" or "Shut up!" is that they were motivated to continue the communication, just in a different way from the original participants. They could have ignored the messages, or erased them altogether, but instead, for whatever reason, they chose to contribute with the wit typical of most trolls. I suppose we'll get to protecting communities later in the semester, but I just want to note a parallel from the Oldenberg chapter, where it is mentioned that "bores" are the inevitable scourge of the third place and that size and inclusivity of a club is the best way to deal with them (pg 10 of the pdf). It would be interesting to see, based on some of Wellman's characteristics, which types of online networks are most troll-resistant.
Forced to be motivated?
I agree that the people writing "stupid" and "shut up" were motivated in a different way. However, they were somehow forced
to be part of the conversation, especially when the conversation
happened ON the desk they had to use, and this would be difficult to ignore if the conversation grew everyday. I'd say they didn't want to be part of the "community" in the first place, but they didn't have a choice -- they probably were assigned the desk in the story.
I am not sure, but this looks more like a physical community with an online forum or other communication channel. For example, we are all a part of the SI community, and so we automatically would (well, you can opt out) receive all the emails sent to si.all.open. In this case, some of us would be more in the same boat with the "shut up" guys.
Necessity and purpose in peer-based communities
I agree that one of the biggest lessons from this reading is the mention of necessity. However, if asked to analyze this "community" would we say it was useful? What purpose did it serve? Do communities like this have to serve some purpose for the participants or is light entertainment all that’s needed? The author concedes that this community increased motivation to go to class and that it could have served a better purpose to get better grades in class, but in the end it was (as far as we know) merely for fun, and ultimately a distraction to learning.
This brings to mind the idea that peer-based communities like this one may feel secret (away from the watching eye of the teacher) and may be more informal when faced against the academic discourse of the classroom. The implications of what was written and how interest me most about this community.
Only Connect
"Only connect." begins E.M.Forster's masterpiece Howard's End.
My own life has intersected with Derek's for many years, connecting and disconnecting according to the dictates of necessity. I connected with him when he began fray.com, again when I read his online community book, and then later after I started working for Howard Rheingold and discovered that Derek was my predecessor. Oddly enough, we have rarely actually communicated, like scraps of paper under a desk infrequently occupied. Nevertheless, it is sufficient, and in this preface, Derek identifies why, a crucial aspect of human community: "all I was really interested in was this new person and our fragile conversation."
Human connection stems from need (as Derek notes), but that need is not goal-directed or functional. Human communication is not for anything. It is its own justification, and each connection is fragile, as are we. His example shows that people will connect, by any means necessary.
Only connect.
--------------------------------------------------------
PHartzog@umich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
--Muriel Rukeyser
What if the janitor had written it?
While I liked this story and I can see why it could be seen as a metaphor for communication online there is a significant differences that bothered me. The author was working with the assumption that the respondent was a students who sat in the same seat for one of the other lectures. This would mean that they were roughly the same age, attended the same school and were going through similar life circumstances. If online communities created a situation where these assumptions were true then perhaps this story would be more relevant. But, this is often not the case.
After reading the story I felt that this should be considered as a somewhat cautionary tale. When you examine the assumptions that the student made and what they were founded on it is easy to see that he could have easily been mislead. If you re-read the story without assuming it was a student he was conversing with it is concerning to see how people are willing to reach out to strangers when motivated by dubious assumptions and desperation.
I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.
-Jorge Luis Borges
an urge to reach out
I enjoyed this reading. It is interesting and fun to read and it drives home the central point strongly. Communities are born of a necessity to interact with others – for various reasons- and thrive because we can connect with people without we can connect at some level. Sometimes we are so caught up in trying to understand the complexities of designing features and attributes that we forget that the most important thing should be that it fulfills a fundamental need for communication that isn’t being met easily.
Further, it is also a reminder that people will use the system in ways that are hard for a designer to imagine and hence building flexibility into the system is important. Once people have a reason, and know that there is someone they can connect with they will find a way. If a basic way exists they will develop their own methods and codes of communication to enhance the experience.
The last few points of the author though I’m not sure I fully agree with. I think it’s always a good idea to have as more people in the community as long as you have a way to avoid people and information that is not relevant for you. What is important is having the ability to control access to information according to your preferences.
Also, while virtual intimacy may take time, I think with virtual communication between strangers becoming more and more common people are adapting and it is becoming easier to trust strangers online quicker. For example, I travelled to New York for the new year and both times I drove with complete stranger I’d met on craigslist. Although talking to them on the phone before we decided on travelling together helped build the trust I think people are a lot more accepting and trusting of others we meet online now because it’s becoming an increasingly common way of connecting with people.
It’s also a reminder that communities and interactions with others is a fundamental human drive and although the media changes, the drive will always remain.
Don't feed the trolls
Luckily, Powazek didn't reply to the trolls, or the desk could've turned into an all out flame war! Which would mean the desk could've literally ignited!
The limited communication that the author had reminds me of the Luis von Ahn talk at SI where he said the people who played the ESP game together felt they had formed some kind of bond with fellow players, even though they had never spoken with each other. I recall seeing a "message in a bottle" website a while ago too where you'd input a message and receive another that someone had written. Unfortunately those messages weren't really created through necessity.
Necessity
Interesting story.
Many others have mentioned the emphasis on necessity in this piece. While not emphasized in the other readings this week, several did include necessity as part of their criteria for online communities - the fact that the community exists to serve some need, be it for information, friendship, shared interest, etc.
With this being such a specific example of a community, I don't know if I'd agree with his lesson that sometimes communities are better with fewer members, not more. It all depends on what the community members are looking to get out of the community. This will vary across members - maybe some are there for the interaction, so having a smaller, closer community is better. But for others, gaining information is key, so larger communities would have more to offer. Still, Powazek's story is a powerful way to remind us how simple an effective community can be.
It was a fun reading -
It was a fun reading - Powazek conveyed important points in such a lucid way! I drive home the point that communities will naturally be succesful if their users felt a genuine - perhaps of equal intensity - need for them. I also learned that communities are sometimes better with fewer genuine users, not necessarily too many. Frequent and meaningful interactions are important - intimacy takes time to develop, and physical presence or real-life glance is not important for building trust.
Some thoughts on Powazek reading
Powazek’s anecdote introduces the concept of communities, or rather, how communities are formed. Also in this week’s reading, Preece proposes 4 high-level criteria for “online communities,” of which one states that an “online community consists of people, who interact socially as they strive to satisfy their own needs.” This description perfectly resonates with Powazek’s description for virtual communities. When you think about the physical world, all sorts of networks and tangible groups exist to cater to specific needs. How much different is the virtual world?
Exclusivity and Othering in Communities
This reading was definitely the most charming, and brought up both the bittersweet side of spontaneous connection with strangers and the joys and dangers of insularity. There are both the warm fuzzy associations of bonding in the story, and the retaliation of those not included in the bonding (who must also be "bored" in algebra to have time to contribute to the on-desk community occupied by the original two).
Communities often form based on shared interests, shared grievances, etc; The research on communities with which I am most familiar is social work research, which often frames communities as inherently positive, focusing on how to build more resilient communities (primarily geographical). People also form strange and malicious communities based on shared intolerance of others. Although I don't think that constitutes a rational reason not to support community-building, I think its important to highlight that communities are often exclusive in a number of ways that are less than ideal.
The algebra-desk dialogue reminded me of the pseudo-anonymous bathroom stall virtual community formation. I once tried to document all the graffitti on the study room radiators in Hatcher, based on a hunch that I would be able to find trends in local forms of angst. It was common to stumble across the beginnings of a back and forth dialogue like the one described in the reading. This kind of correspondance must somehow welcome sabotage, because rarely would I find one that was untouched by some bullying interjection of "you guys suck" or some trailing inappropriate rant somehow trying to link the dialogue to the interjectors political views or other suppressed thoughts. What Wellman calls the "two-person" dyad community and bigger communities are two very different animals.
These reflections have not led me to any revelations, beyond noting that "anonymous" or "virtual" communities off-line, at least in the case of conversational graffitti, are ridden with the same accumulation of spam as online communities.
Personally, everything I needed to know about the dangers of community formation I learned from jingles on sesame street and Mr. Rogers towards which i am often resentful.
Case in point:
Three of these kids belong together
Three of these kids are kind of the same
But one of these kids is doing his (her) own thing
Now it's time to play our game
It's time to play our game.
-"One of these things is not like the others" by Joe Raposo and Jon Stone
Lisa McLaughlin
Interesting Story
This is an interesting story. Some attributes of online communities that I learned from Preece’s article can be applied to this story. For example, conversations between the author and his anonymous friends are fragile. Thus, it takes time and effort to establish trust. In addition, what connect author and the anonym is common interests (or hate).
In addition to the necessity to socialize with people, I am thinking the other reason that make the author started/kept writing notes may be curiosity, since this is a person he did not know before. If some common interests are shared, it may be more interesting to talk with strangers than somebody you have known.
Size does matter
Anonymous communication can be useful, even within a
restricted group. Powazek has used a nice parable to highlight some of the
nuances of anonymous communication. Even in the midst of anonymous comments
Powazek was able to distinguish the participants by their handwriting. However,
in digital communication it may be difficult to distinguish the participants. The
story also illustrates the importance of connecting with the recipient and
having the right size of a community.
Interesting
Interesting piece. I can actually relate to it. My first love began like this, anonymously, in school... middle school. But are two people enough to form a community? I guess the author included the silent readers in his definition of community as well. Which brings me to the question of "can silent members be considered part of the community?" As they dont contribute (but the hit count rises), how will other member of the community gain from them, in the name of community (unless it's just a grouping)? I guess it depends on the purpose of that network.
necessity or desire
John Blair
A great short story, but I do have to question the necessity aspect. Perhaps it's just my interpretation of the definition of the word, but I don't think I really agree that communities are formed out of necessity. That seems to give entire realm of communties too much pre-meditated construction. Is the way most instant messaging is used a necessity? Do these people have to chat with each other or are they just bored and avoiding doing something they'd rather not do?
I'm reminded of a routine from a comedian (I can't recall his name) who referred to buying shoes for his teenage son. His son "needed" $150 Nike shoes, his dad had $40 budgeted for shoes. He simply explained to his son the difference between need/necessity and want. The kid wanted $150 shoes, what he needed was $110.
necessity and media
Funny story. I got to know communities will naturally be successful if there is necessity. The first connection between community members start with common interest. And because not all of the six people have the same need, the community was finally broken by someone treat this need as stupid.
I also learned through this article the success of community to be last largely based on choosing the appropriate media. I don't fully agree with the user that it is a good idea to build user-filtering solution. In my mind, community should involve as many as users with the same interest as possible. The better way is to choose the right communication media. For example, desk is a public place and both good students and those who don't listen at class use desk so only a small part of those users happen to have common needs. When it turns to the paper jammed between bar and desk, only those who feel boring at class with put paper there. So it is a much better channel or media to form communities.
Interesting reading
Short article, but interesting enough to read over quickly. Actually that reminds me of my days in high school when I almost did the same thing. that experience was unforgetful and really of fun. In terms of some of the points the author made, it seems to me that in today's world, community is not always formed out of necessity as Daniel has mention as well, examples are everywhere: when we chat meaningless words, when we just shop online for fun ... Sometimes people just do it for fun or o kill leisure time, kind of an interesting incentive from economis's perspective. Of course, communities formed of necessity still exist and form a majority part. While all these were born under continuous development of technology, community, especially virtual online communities are becoming more and more indispensible to people including myself.
Very graphic reading. I like it!
Even though short and maybe "unscientific" I think this might be the best reading for week 1. It was very graphic and really got it's point accross. The other readings might offer useful definition and such but after reading this piece I can honestly say "Now I have a better understand of what an online community is". It was a great analogy.