Online community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An online community is a virtual community whose members interact with each other primarily via the Internet. Those who wish to be a part of an online community usually have to become a member via a specific site. An online community can also act as an information system where members can post, comment on discussions, give advice or collaborate. Online communities have become a very popular way for people to interact, who have either known each other in real life or met online. The most common forms people communicate through are chat rooms, forums, e-mail lists or discussion boards. Most people rely on social networking sites to communicate with one another but there are many other examples of online communities. People also join online communities through video games, blogs and virtual worlds.

Categorisation[edit]

The idea of a community is not a new concept. On the telephone and in the online world, social interactions no longer have to be based on proximity; instead they can literally be with anyone anywhere.[1] The study of communities has had to adapt along with the new technologies. Many researchers have used ethnography to attempt to understand what people do in online spaces, how they express themselves, what motivates them, how they govern themselves, what attracts them, and why some people prefer to observe rather than participate.[2] Online communities can congregate around a shared interest and can be spread across multiple websites.[3]

Some signs of community are:

  • Content: articles, information, and news about a topic of interest to a group of people.
  • Forums or newsgroups and email: so that community members can communicate in delayed fashion.
  • Chat and instant messaging: so that community members can communicate more immediately.[4]

Development[edit]

There is a set of values to consider when developing an online community. Some of these values include: opportunity, education, culture, democracy, human services, equality within the economy, information, sustainability, and communication.[5] A developer's main focus is to create a technology that adheres to the interests, as well as the social and basic needs, of the community. An online community's main goal is to serve as a common ground for people who share the same interests.[6]

People may use online communities to keep up with events, such as upcoming church or sporting events, that are going on in their local communities. Online communities also form around activities and hobbies. They have become an important part of education; students can take classes online, and they may communicate with their professors and peers online. Businesses have also started using online communities to communicate with their customers about product and service enhancements and to share new information about the business. Many online communities relating to health care help inform, advise, and support patients and their families. Other online communities allow a wide variety of professionals to come together to share their thoughts and ideas on certain topics or issues.[7]

For people with very specific hobbies or passions, the ‘fandom’ has been an example of what online communities can grow and evolve into. Modern fandoms, which have strong online community bases, thoroughly portray these displays of development, communication, and connection within their realms of influence (e.g. social media sites like Facebook or Tumblr, or television shows). In a 2013 study by Alexis Lothian in the International Journal of Cultural Studies,[8] Lothian describes fandoms are “amorphous, as can be seen from the diverse communities (from music to sports to soaps),” and fandoms, “to the established groupings of media fans whose norms and expectations around production and discussion of fan fiction, art, and remix video the OTW (Organization for Transformative Works) has sought to represent.” There are many networks which these online communities communicate through. “Communication,” is a simple way of describing the types of interaction that fandoms/communities do. They create ideas, share opinions, report up-to-the-minute events, and create original content.

Online communities have grown in influence in “shaping the phenomena around which they organize” according to Nancy K. Baym's work.[9] She says that: “[More than any other commercial sector, the popular culture industry relies on online communities to publicize and provide testimonials for their products.” The strength of the online community’s power is notably displayed through the season 3 premiere of BBC’s Sherlock. Online activity by fans seemed to have had a noticeable influence on the plot and direction of the season opening episode. Mark Lawson of The Guardian recounts how fans have, in a way, directed the outcome of the events of the episode. Compared to most shows, Lawson states that “Sherlock has always been one of the most web-aware shows, among the first to find a satisfying way of representing electronic chatter on-screen.”[10] Though ideal for the fan base, Lawson worries of the narrowing of approach when creating the show, and how this approach may affect other shows in the future.

Whether it be for a grassroots campaign or a creative direction for a television series, online communities have become a significant force for change in today’s culture. Many major events in current news can be pinpointed to origins within online communities.[citation needed]

When developing an online community, it is important to have the technologies necessary to keep members interested, manage assets, and uphold community relations. Developers take into consideration whether all the online community members are good at using technology. If an online community is not workable for some users, they may be discouraged. Surveys and discussions where members may post their feedback are essential in developing an online community.[11]

Online communities are developed to encourage individuals to come together to teach and learn from one another. They encourage self learners to discuss and learn about real-world problems/situations as well as focus on things such as teamwork, collaborative thinking, personal experiences, et cetera.[12][13]

Classification[edit]

Online communities are dynamic by nature and researchers and organizations work to classify them. For example it is important to know the security, access, and technology requirements of a given type of community as it may evolve from an open forum to a private and regulated forum.[14]

A number of authors have looked at classifying online communities and those within them to better understand how they are structured. It has been argued that the technical aspects of online communities, such as whether pages can be created and edited by many, as is the case with wikis including Wikipedia, or whether only certain users can post entries and edit them, as is the case with most blogs, can place specific online communities into types of genre.[15] Another approach argues that 'online community' is a metaphor and that contributors actively negotiate the meaning of the term, including values and social norms.[16]

Some research has looked at the users of online communities. Amy Jo Kim has classified the rituals and stages of online community interaction and called it the 'Membership life cycle'.[17] Clay Shirky talks about community of practice whose members collaborate and help each other in order to make something better or improve a certain skill. What makes these communities bond is "love" of something as demonstrated by members who go out of their way to help without any financial interest.[18] Others have suggested character theories to break particular patterns of behavior of particular users into certain categories.[19][20][21]

A 2001 McKinsey & Company study showed that only 2% of transaction site customers returned after their first purchase, while 60% of new online communities users began using and visiting the sites regularly after their first experiences[citation needed]. Online communities have changed the game for retail firms, forcing them to change their business strategies. Companies have to network more, adjust computations, and alter their organizational structures. This leads to changes in a company’s communications with their manufacturers including the information shared and made accessible for further productivity and profits. Because consumers and customers in all fields are becoming accustomed to more interaction and engagement online, adjustments must be considered made in order to keep audiences intrigued. [22]

It may be beneficial to introduce a term described by Ray Oldenberg, in The Great Good place, called a third place to help classify online communities. A "third place is a generic designation for a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, informal, and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realm of home and work” (Oldenburg, p. 16). An online community can take on the role of a third place. Third places have characteristics that many online communities exhibit, for example: they provide neutral ground for all parties; they are levelers, easily accessible and highly accommodating; conversation is the main activity; allow people to keep a low profile, and a few others. While these may be characteristics to help classify online communities, they may not all apply to an online community nor does an online community need to embody each of these characteristics.

The four requirements of “virtual settlement” include: interactivity, a variety of communicators, a common public place where members can meet and interact, and sustained membership over time. Based on these considerations, it can be said that microblogs, such as Twitter, can be classified as an online community.[23]

Building communities[edit]

Not everyone is drawn to participate and engage in online communities, and age and lifestyle often discourage people from getting involved. According to Dorine C. Andrews, author of Audience-Specific Online Community Design there are three parts to building an online community: starting the online community, encouraging early online interaction, and moving to a self-sustaining interactive environment.[24] When starting an online community, it may be effective to create webpages that appeal to specific interests. Online communities with clear topics and easy access tend to be most effective. In order to gain early interaction by members, privacy guarantees and interwoven content discussion are very important.[25] Successful online communities tend to be able to function self-sufficiently.[26]

Participation[edit]

There are two major types of participation in online communities: public participation and non-public participation, also called lurking. Lurkers are participants who join a virtual community but do not contribute. In contrast, public participants, or posters, are those who join virtual communities and openly express their beliefs and opinions. Both lurkers and posters frequently enter communities to find answers and to gather general information. For example, there are several online communities dedicated to technology. In these communities, posters are generally experts in the field who can offer technological insight and answer questions, while lurkers tend to be technological novices who use the community to ask questions as opposed to offering advice.[27]

In general, virtual community participation is influenced by how participants' view themselves in society as well as norms, both of society and the online community.[28] Participants also join online communities for friendship and support. In a sense, virtual communities fill the social voids in participants' offline lives.[29]

Sociologist Barry Wellman presents the idea of “glocalization”- the ability for the Internet to extend participants’ social connections to people around the world while also aiding them in further engagement with their local community.[30]

Online learning[edit]

Online learning is a form of online community. The sites are designed to educate. Colleges and universities may offer many of their classes online to their students; this allows each student to take the class at his or her own pace.

According to an article published in Volume 21, Issue 5, of the European Management Journal titled Learning in Online Forums, researchers conducted a series of studies about online learning. They found that while good online learning is difficult to plan, it is quite conducive to educational learning. Online learning can bring together a diverse group of people, and although it is asynchronous learning, if the forum is set up using all the best tools and strategies, it can be very effective.

Another study was published in an article in Volume 55, Issue 1, of the Computers and Education Journal called Computer-supported team-based learning and found results supporting the findings of the article mentioned above. The researchers found that motivation, enjoyment, and team contributions on learning outcomes enhanced students learning and that the students felt they learned well with it. A study published in the same journal in Volume 55, Issue 4, called Can learning be virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts, looks at how social networking can foster individual well-being and develop skills which can improve the learning experience.

These articles look at a variety of different types of online learning. They suggest that online learning can be quite productive and educational if created and maintained properly.

One feature of online communities is that they are not constrained by time thereby giving members the ability to move through periods of high to low activity over a period of time. This dynamic nature maintains a freshness and variety that traditional methods of learning might not have been able to provide.[citation needed]

It appears that online communities such as Wikipedia have become a source of professional learning.[citation needed] They are an active learning environment in which learners converse and inquire, posting more and more accurate knowledge.

In a study exclusive to teachers in online communities, results showed that membership in online communities provided teachers with a rich source of professional learning that satisfied each member of the community.[31]

Saurabh Tyagi[clarification needed] describes benefits of online community learning which include:

  • No physical boundaries: Online communities do not limit their membership nor exclude based on where one lives.
  • Supports in-class learning: Due to time constraints, discussion boards are more efficient for question & answer sessions than allowing time after lectures to ask questions.
  • Build a social and collaborative learning experience: People are best able to learn when they engage, communicate, and collaborate with each other. Online communities create an environment where users can collaborate through social interaction and shared experiences.
  • Self-governance: Anyone who can access the internet is self-empowered. The immediate access to information allows users to educate themselves.

These terms are taken from Edudemic.[clarification needed] The article provides background information about online communities as well as how to incorporate learning within an online community.[32]

Aspects of successful online communities[edit]

An article entitled "The real value of on-line communities," written by A Armstrong and J Hagel of the Harvard Business Review, addresses a handful of elements that are key to the growth of an online community and its success in drawing in members. In this example, the article which was available on mendeley.com focuses specifically on online communities related to business, but its points can be transferred and can apply to any online community in general as well. The article addresses four main categories of business-based online communities, but states that a truly successful one will combine qualities of each of them: communities of transaction, communities of interest, communities of fantasy, and communities of relationship. Anubhav Choudhury, from incrediblogger.net, provides basic descriptions of each of these four types of online communities. Before continuing on to these types though, it is important that any confusion regarding the meaning of an online community is cleared up. A simple and clear definition is offered by Constance Elise Porter of Notre Dame in a paper entitled "A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research": "a virtual community is defined as an aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest, where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and guided by some protocols or norms."

  1. Communities of transaction emphasize the importance of buying and selling products in a social online manner where people must interact in order to complete the transaction.
  2. Communities of interest involve the online interaction of people with specific knowledge on a certain topic.
  3. Communities of fantasy encourage people to participate in online alternative forms of reality, such as games where they are represented by avatars.
  4. Communities of relationship often reveal or at least partially protect someone's identity while allowing them to communicate with others, such as in online dating services.

Membership lifecycle[edit]

Amy Jo Kim's membership lifecycle states that members of online communities begin their life in a community as visitors, or lurkers. After breaking through a barrier, people become novices and participate in community life. After contributing for a sustained period of time they become regulars. If they break through another barrier they become leaders, and once they have contributed to the community for some time they become elders. This life cycle can be applied to many virtual communities, most obviously to bulletin board systems, but also to blogs, mailing lists (listserve) and wiki-based communities like Wikipedia.

A similar model can be found in the works of Lave and Wenger, who illustrate a cycle of how users become incorporated into virtual communities using the principles of legitimate peripheral participation. They suggest five types of trajectories amongst a learning community:[33]

  1. Peripheral (i.e. Lurker) – An outside, unstructured participation
  2. Inbound (i.e. Novice) – Newcomer is invested in the community and heading towards full participation
  3. Insider (i.e. Regular) – Full committed community participant
  4. Boundary (i.e. Leader) – A leader, sustains membership participation and brokers interactions
  5. Outbound (i.e. Elder) – Process of leaving the community due to new relationships, new positions, new outlooks

The following shows the correlation between the learning trajectories and Web 2.0 community participation.

Learning trajectory in participation[edit]

Example – YouTube

Peripheral (Lurker) – Observing the community and viewing content. Does not add to the community content or discussion. The user occasionally goes onto YouTube.com to check out a video that someone has directed them to.

Inbound (Novice) – Just beginning to engage the community. Starts to provide content. Tentatively interacts in a few discussions. The user comments on other user’s videos. Potentially posts a video of his or her own.

Insider (Regular) – Consistently adds to the community discussion and content. Interacts with other users. Regularly posts videos. Either videos they have found or made themselves. Makes a concerted effort to comment and rate other users' videos.

Boundary (Leader) – Recognized as a veteran participant. Connects with regulars to make higher concepts ideas. Community grants their opinion greater consideration. The user has become recognized as a contributor to watch. Possibly their videos are podcasts commenting on the state of YouTube and its community. The user would not consider watching another user’s videos without commenting on them. Will often correct a user in behavior the community considers inappropriate. Will reference other user’s videos in their comments as a way to cross link content.

Outbound (Elders) – Leave the community. Their interests may have changed, the community may have moved in a direction that they don’t agree with or they may no longer have time to maintain a constant presence in the community.

Roles in an online community[edit]

Although online societies differ in content from real society, the roles people assume in their online communities are quite similar. Elliot Volkman[34] points out several categories of people that play a role in the cycle of social networking, these include:

  • Community architect – Creates the online community, sets goals and decides the purpose of the site.
  • Community manager- Oversees the progress of the society. Enforces rules, encourages social norms, assists new members, and spreads awareness about the community.
  • Professional member- This is a member who is paid to contribute to the site. The purpose of this role is to keep the community active.
  • Free members -These members visit sites most often and represent the majority of the contributors. Their contributions are crucial to the sites' progress.
  • Passive lurker - These people do not contribute to the site but rather absorb the content, discussion, and advice.
  • Active lurker- Consumes the content and shares that content with personal networks and other communities.
  • Power users - These people push for new discussion, provide positive feedback to community managers, and sometimes even act as community managers themselves. They have a major influence on the site and make up only a small percentage of the users.

These terms are taken from Social Media Today[clarification needed]. The article describes different aspects of online communities and specifically describes the different roles within a community.

Motivations and barriers to participation[edit]

Main article: Online participation

Successful online communities motivate online participation. Several research studies have investigated methods of motivating participation in online communities.

There are many persuasive factors that draw users into online communities. Peer-to-peer systems and social networking sites rely heavily on member contribution. Users’ underlying motivations to involve themselves in these communities have been linked to some persuasion theories of sociology.

  • According to the reciprocation theory, a successful online community must provide its users with benefits that compensate for the costs of time, effort and materials members provide. People often join these communities expecting a sort of reward, whether it is physical or psychological.
  • The consistency theory says that once people make a public commitment to a virtual society, they will often feel obligated to stay consistent with their commitment by continuing contributions.
  • The social validation theory explains how people are more likely to join and participate in an online community if it is socially acceptable and popular.

One of the greatest attractions towards online communities is the sense of connection users build among members. Individuals are likely to join these sites in order to enhance their likability.[35] Participation and contribution is influenced when members of an online community are aware of their global audience.[36]

The majority of people learn by example and often follow others, especially when it comes to participation.[37] Individuals are reserved about contributing to an online community for many reasons including but not limited to a fear of criticism or inaccuracy. Users may withhold information that they don’t believe is particularly interesting, relevant, or truthful. In order to challenge these contribution barriers, producers of these sites are responsible for developing knowledge-based and foundation-based trust among the community.[38]

There are two types of virtual online communities (VOC): dependent and self-sustained VOCs. The dependent VOCs are those who use the virtual community as extensions of themselves, they interact with people they know. Self-sustained VOCs are communities where relationships between participating members is formed and maintained through virtual encounters in the online community.[39] For all VOCs, there is the issue of creating identity and reputation in the online community. A person can create whatever identity they would like to through their virtual interactions with other members. Although limited, the most important attribute to an online member is the username. It is what other members identify you by but it says very little about the person behind it. In online communities, your name is your username.[40] The main features in virtual online communities that attracts people is a shared communication environment, relationships formed and nurtured virtually, a sense of belonging to a group, an internal structure of the group, common space shared by people with similar ideas and interests. The three most critical issues are belonging, identity, and interest. For an online community to flourish there needs to be consistent participation, interest, and motivation.[41]

Research conducted by Helen Wang applied the Technology Acceptance Model to online community participation.[42] As a result of research conducted, internet self-efficacy positively predicted perceived ease of use. Research found that participants’ belief in his or her ability to use the internet and web base tools determined how much effort was expected. Community environment positively predicted perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Intrinsic motivation positively predicted perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and actual use. For example if you are confident in your abilities online, you know how to use website tools, and enjoy the online environment, then you are more likely to participate in an online community. Technology acceptance model positively predicts an individuals likelihood to participate in an online community.

Consumer-vendor interaction[edit]

Establishing a relationship between the consumer and a seller has become a new science with the emergence of online communities. It is a new market to be tapped by companies and to do so, requires an understanding of the relationships built on online communities. Online communities gather people around common interests and these common interests can include brands, products, and services.[43] Companies not only have a chance to reach a new group of consumers in online communities, but to also tap into information about the consumers. Companies have a chance to learn about the consumers in an environment that they feel a certain amount of anonymity and are thus, more open to allowing a company to see what they really want or are looking for.

In order to establish a relationship with the consumer a company must seek a way to identify with how individuals interact with the community. This is done by understanding the relationships an individual has with an online community. There are six identifiable relationship statuses: considered status, committed status, inactive status, faded status, recognized status, and unrecognized status.[44] Unrecognized status means the consumer is unaware of the online community or has not decided the community to be useful. The recognized status is where a person is aware of the community, but is not entirely involved. A considered status is when a person begins their involvement with the site. The usage at this stage is still very sporadic. The committed status is when a relationship between a person and an online community is established and the person gets fully involved with the community. The inactive status is when an online community has not relevance to a person. The faded status is when a person has begun to fade away from a site.[45] It is important to be able to recognize which group or status the consumer holds, because it might help determine which approach to use.

Companies not only need to understand how a consumer functions with in an online community, but also a company “should understand the communality of an online community”[46] This means a company must understand the dynamic and structure of the online community to be able to establish a relationship with the consumer. Online communities have cultures of their own, and to be able to establish a commercial relationship or even engage at all, one must understand the community values and proprieties. It has even been proved beneficial to treat online commercial relationships more as friendships rather than business transactions.

Through online engagement, because of the smoke screen of anonymity, it allows a person to be able to socially interact with strangers in a much more personal way [47] This personal connection the consumer feels translates to how they want to establish relationships online. They separate what is commercial or spam and what is relational. Relational becomes what they associate with human interaction while commercial is what they associate with digital or non-human interaction. Thus the online community should not be viewed as “merely a sales channel”.[48] Instead it should be viewed as a network for establishing interpersonal communications with the consumer.

Growth cycle[edit]

Most online communities grow slowly at first, due in part to the fact that the strength of motivation for contributing is usually proportional to the size of the community. As the size of the potential audience increases, so does the attraction of writing and contributing. This, coupled with the fact that organizational culture does not change overnight, means creators can expect slow progress at first with a new virtual community. As more people begin to participate, however, the aforementioned motivations will increase, creating a virtuous cycle in which more participation begets more participation.

Community adoption can be forecast with the Bass diffusion model, originally conceived by Frank Bass to describe the process by which new products get adopted as an interaction between innovative early adopters and those who follow them.

Problems[edit]

Online communities are relatively new and unexplored areas. They promote a whole new community that prior to the Internet was not available. Although they can promote a vast array of positive qualities, such as relationships without regard to race, religion, gender, or geography,[49] they can also lead to multiple problems.

The theory of risk perception, an uncertainty in participating in an online community, is quite common, particularly when in the following online circumstances: 1. Performances 2. Financial 3. Opportunity/Time 4. Safety 5. Social 6. Psychological Loss [50]

Clay Shirky explains one of these problems like two hoola-hoops. With the emersion of online communities there is a "real life" hoola-hoop and the other and "online life." These two hoops used to be completely separate but now they have swung together and overlap. The problem with this overlap is that there is no distinction anymore between face-to-face interactions and virtual ones; they are one in the same. Shirky illustrates this by explaining a meeting. A group of people will sit in a meeting but they will all be connected into a virtual world also, using online communities such as wiki.[51]

A further problem is identity formation with the ambiguous real-virtual life mix. Identity formation in the real world consisted of "one body, one identity".[52] But the online communities allow you to create "as many electronic personae" as you please. This can lead to identity deception. Claiming to be someone you're not can be problematic with other online community users and for yourself. Creating a false identity can cause confusion and ambivalence about which identity is true.

A lack of trust regarding personal or professional information is problematic with questions of identity or information reciprocity. Often, if information is given to another user of an online community, one expects equal information shared back. However, this may not be the case or the other user may use the information given in harmful ways.[53] The construction of an individual's identity within an online community requires self-presentation. Self-presentation is the act of "writing the self into being," in which a person's identity is formed by what that person says, does, or shows. This also poses a potential problem as such self-representation is open for interpretation as well as misinterpretation. While an individual's online identity can be entirely constructed with a few of his/her own sentences, perceptions of this identity can be entirely misguided and incorrect.

Online communities present the problems of preoccupation, distraction, detachment, and desensitization to an individual. Ironically though, online support groups exist now. Basically any online community you can conceive, and if it currently does not it will in the near future or you could be the one to develop it. Online communities do present potential risks. Users must remember to be careful and remember that just because an online community feels safe does not mean it necessarily is.[54]

Trolling and harassment[edit]

The most common problem with online communities tend to be online harassment, meaning threatening or offensive content aimed at known friends or strangers through ways of online technology. Where such posting is done for the lulz, that is for the fun of it, then it is known as trolling.[55] Sometimes trolling is done in order to harm others for the gratification of the person posting. The primary motivation for such posters, known as Snerts, is the sense of power and exposure it gives them[56] Online harassment tends to affect adolescents the most due to their risk-taking behavior and decision-making processes. The most notable example being that of Natasha MacBryde who was tormented by Sean Duffy, who was later prosecuted.[57] In 2010, Alexis Pilkington, a 17-year-old New Yorker committed suicide. Trolls pounced on her tribute page posting insensitive and shamelessly hurtful images of nooses and other suicidal symbolism. Four years prior to that an 18 year old died in a car crash in California. Trolls took images of her disfigured body they found on the internet and used them to torture the girl’s grieving parents by sending them photos with subject lines like “Hey, Daddy, I’m still alive.” Hoping that they would click on them.[58] Psychological research has shown that anonymity increases unethical behavior through what is called: “the online disinhibition effect.” Many website and online communities have attempted to combat trolling, and not only has there not been a single effective method to discourage anonymity, but arguments exist claiming that removing Internet user’s anonymity is an intrusion of their privacy and violates the first amendment. “There’s no way to truly rid the Internet of anonymity. After all, names and e-mail addresses can be faked. And in many case many commenters write things that are rude or inflammatory under their real names. Thus, some trolls don't even bother to hide their actions and take pride in their behavior.[59] The rate of reported online harassments have been increasing as there has been a 50% increase in accounts of youth online harassment from the years 2000–2005.[60]

Another form of harassment prevalent online is called flaming. According to a study conducted by Peter J. Moor, flaming is defined as displaying hostility by insulting, swearing or using otherwise offensive language.[61] Flaming can be done in either a group style format (the comments section on YouTube) or in a one-on-one format (private messaging on Facebook). Several studies have shown that flaming is more apparent in computer mediated conversation than in face to face interaction [62] For example, a study conducted by Kiesler et al. found that people who met online judged each other more harshly than those who met face to face.[63] The study goes on to say that the people who communicated by computer "felt and acted as though the setting was more impersonal, and their behavior was more uninhibited. These findings suggest that computer-mediated communication . . . elicits asocial or unregulated behavior." [64]

Unregulated communities are established when online users communicate on a site although there are no mutual terms of usage. There is no regulator. Online interest groups or anonymous blogs are examples of unregulated communities. [65]

Cyber bullying is also prominent online. Cyber bullying is defined as willful and repeated harm inflicted towards another.[66] Cyber bullying victimization has ascended to the forefront of the public agenda after a number of news stories came out on the topic.[67] For example, a Rutgers freshman, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide in 2010 after his roommate secretly filmed him in an intimate encounter and then streamed the video over the internet.[68] Numerous states, like New Jersey, have created and passed laws that do not allow any sort of harassment on, near, or off school grounds that disrupts or interferes with the operation of the school or the rights of other students.[69]

Trolling and cyber bullying in online communities are very difficult to stop for several reasons: 1. Community members don't wish to violate libertarian ideologies that state everyone has the right to speak. 2. The distributed nature of online communities make it difficult for members to come to an agreement. 3. Deciding who should moderate and how create difficulty of community management.

Hazing[edit]

A lesser known problem is hazing within online communities. Members of an elite online community use hazing to display their power, produce inequality, and instill loyalty into newcomers. While online hazing doesn’t inflict physical duress, "the status values of domination and subordination are just as effectively transmitted".[70] Elite members of the in-group may haze by employing derogatory terms to refer to newcomers, using deception or playing mind games, or participating in intimidation, among other activities.[71]

"[T]hrough hazing, established members tell newcomers that they must be able to tolerate a certain level of aggressiveness, grossness, and obnoxiousness in order to fit in and be accepted by the BlueSky community".[72]

Privacy[edit]

Online communities like social networking websites have a very unclear distinction between private and public information. For most social networks, users have to give personal information to add to their profiles. Usually, users can control what type of information other people in the online community can access based on the users familiarity with the people or the users level of comfort. These limitations are known as "privacy settings". Privacy settings bring up the question of how privacy settings and terms of service affect the expectation of privacy in social media. After all, the purpose of an online community is to share a common space with one another. Furthermore, it is hard to take legal action when a user feels that his or her privacy has been invaded because he or she technically knew what the online community entailed.[73] Creator of the social networking site Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, noticed a change in users' behavior from when he first initiated Facebook to now. It seemed that "society's willingness to share has created an environment where privacy concerns are less important to users of social networks today than they were when social networking began".[74] However even though a user might keep his or her personal information private, his or her activity is open to the whole web to access. When a user posts information to a site or comments or responds to information posted by others, social networking sites create a tracking record of the user's activity.[75]

Legal issues[edit]

In the USA, two of the most important laws dealing with legal issues of online communities, especially social networking sites are Section 512c of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Section 512c removes liability for copyright infringement from sites that let users post content, so long as there is a way by which the copyright owner can request the removal of infringing content. The website may not receive any financial benefit from the infringing activities.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives protection from any liability as a result from the publication provided by another party. Common issues include defamation, but many courts have expanded it to include other claims as well.[76]

Online Communities of various kinds (social networking sites, blogs, media sharing sites, etc.) are posing new challenges for all levels of law enforcement in combating many kinds of crimes including harassment, identity theft, copyright infringement, etc.

Copyright law is being challenged and debated with the shift in how individuals now disseminate their intellectual property. Individuals come together via online communities in collaborative efforts to create. Many describe current copyright law as being ill equipped to manage the interests of individuals or groups involved in these collaborative efforts. Some say that these laws may even discourage this kind of production.[77]

Laws governing online behavior pose another challenge to lawmakers in that they must work to enact laws that protect the public without infringing upon their rights to free speech. Perhaps the most talked about issue of this sort is that of cyber bullying. Some scholars call for collaborative efforts between parents, schools, lawmakers, and law enforcement to curtail this kind of harassment in the wake of some alarming tragedies including suicide.[78]

Laws must continually adapt to the ever changing landscape of social media in all its forms; some legal scholars contend that law makers need to take an interdisciplinary approach to creating effective policy whether it is regulatory, for public safety, or otherwise. Experts in the social sciences can shed light on new trends that emerge in the usage of social media by different segments of society (including youths).[79] Armed with this data, lawmakers can write and pass legislation that protect and empower various online community members.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html
  2. ^ http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html
  3. ^ Baym, Nancy. "The new shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent music fandom."
  4. ^ http://webdesign.about.com/cs/communityonline/a/aa082599.htm
  5. ^ hci.uma.ptPreece03-OnlineCommunities-HandbookChapt.pdf
  6. ^ hci.uma.ptPreece03-OnlineCommunities-HandbookChapt.pdf
  7. ^ hci.uma.ptPreece03-OnlineCommunities-HandbookChapt.pdf
  8. ^ International Journal of Cultural Studies, September 2012, p.545
  9. ^ Baym, Nancy. "The new shape of online community: The example of Swedish independent music fandom."
  10. ^ Lawson, M. "Sherlock and Doctor Who: beware of fans influencing the TV they love", The Guardian, January 2014
  11. ^ Cothrel, Joseph, Williams, L. Ruth "Four Smart Ways to Run Online Communities"
  12. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1096751601000471
  13. ^ Plant, Robert. (Jan. 2004). Online Communities. Technology in Society 26 (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://0www.sciencedirect.com.sculib.scu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160791X030009 9X
  14. ^ http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.sculib.scu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160791X0300099X
  15. ^ Bishop, J. (2009). Enhancing the understanding of genres of web-based communities: The role of the ecological cognition framework. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 5(1)
  16. ^ Brown, Nicole R. (2002). ""Community" Metaphors Online: A Critical and Rhetorical Study Concerning Online Groups.". Business Communication Quarterly 65 (2): 92. doi:10.1177/108056990206500210. 
  17. ^ Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. Peachpit Press. ISBN 0-201-87484-9
  18. ^ Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. An example of community of practice he mentions is high dynamic range (HDR) photography on Flickr: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007925.html
  19. ^ Campbell, J., Fletcher, G. & Greenhil, A. (2002). Tribalism, Conflict and Shape-shifting Identities in Online Communities. In the Proceedings of the 13th Australasia Conference on Information Systems, Melbourne Australia, 7–9 December 2002
  20. ^ Bishop, J. (2008). Increasing Capital Revenue in Social Networking Communities: Building Social and Economic Relationships through Avatars and Characters. In: Romm-Livermore, C. (ed.) Social Networking Communities and eDating Services: Concepts and Implications. New York: IGI Global. Available online
  21. ^ Campbell, J., Fletcher, G. and Greenhill, A. (2009). Conflict and Identity Shape Shifting in an Online Financial Community, Information Systems Journal, (19:5), pp. 461–478.
  22. ^ Plant, Robert. (Jan. 2004). Online Communities. Technology in Society 26 (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://0www.sciencedirect.com.sculib.scu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160791X0300099X
  23. ^ Gruzd, Anatoliy, Barry Wellman, and Yuri Takhteyev. "Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community." American Behavioral Scientist (2011). Print.
  24. ^ Andrews, Dorine C. (April 2001). "Audience specific online-community design". Communications of the ACM 45 (4). Retrieved 6 February 2012. 
  25. ^ Andrews, Dorine C. (April 2001). "Audience specific online-community design". Communications of the ACM 45 (4). Retrieved 6 February 2012. 
  26. ^ Andrews, Dorine C. (April 2001). "Audience specific online-community design". Communications of the ACM 45 (4). Retrieved 6 February 2012. 
  27. ^ Nonnecke, Blair; Dorine Andrews; Jenny Preece (2006). "Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior". Electronic Commerce Research 6 (1): 7–20. doi:10.1007/s10660-006-5985-x. 
  28. ^ Zhou, Tao (2011). "Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective". Internet Research 21 (1): 67–81. doi:10.1108/10662241111104884. 
  29. ^ Ridings, Catherine M.; David Gefen (2006). "Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10 (1). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x. 
  30. ^ Horrigan, John. (October 2001). Online Communities Summary of Findings: The Vibrant Social Universe Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities/Summary-of-Findings/The-vibrant-social-universe-online.aspx
  31. ^ http://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7f2a1970-8af4-4bb5-9562-ca24f64aadde%40sessionmgr12&vid=2&hid=14
  32. ^ http://www.edudemic.com/build-effective-online-learning-communities
  33. ^ "Lave and Wenger". What is an online community?>Virtual Community online community or e-community>Membership life cycle>. Retrieved 19 July 2011. 
  34. ^ <http://socialmediatoday.com/elliot-volkman/343142/what-online-community>
  35. ^ Vassileva, J, & Cheng, R. (2005). User motivation and persuasion strategy for peer-to-peer communities. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=01385629
  36. ^ Lampe, C., Obar, J., Ozkaya, E. & Velazquez, A. (2012) Classroom Wikipedia participation effects on future intentions to contribute. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, p 403-406, http://dl.acm.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/citation.cfm?id=2145204.2145267&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=107794236&CFTOKEN=35203391
  37. ^ Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Ludford, P.J., & Terveen, L. (2004). Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity . Proceedings of the Proceedings of the sigchi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 631–638). New York, NY: ACM.
  38. ^ Wentling, T., Page, V., & Ardichvili, A. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=883796&show=abstract
  39. ^ Budiman, Adrian M. "Virtual Online Communities: A Study of Internet Based Community Interactions." Ohio University and OhioLINK. 2008. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Budiman%20Adrian%20M.pdf?ohiou1215559506>
  40. ^ Donath, Judith S. "Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community." Sociable Media Group – MIT Media Lab. MIT Media Lab, 14 Nov. 1996. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html>
  41. ^ Tardini, Stefano, and Lorenzo Cantoni. "A Semiotic Approach to Online Communities: Belonging, Interest and Identity in Websites' and Videogames' Communities (Stefano Tardini) – Academia.edu." Universita' Della Svizzera Italiana – Academia.edu. 2005. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. http://unisi-ch.academia.edu/STardini/Papers/783206/A_semiotic_approach_to_online_communities_belonging_interest_and_identity_in_websites_and_videogames_communities
  42. ^ Wang, H., et al. (2012). "Understanding Online Community Participation: A Technology Acceptance Perspective." Communication Research 39(6): 781-801.
  43. ^ Heinonen, Kristina. (2011). Conceptualizing consumers’ dynamic relationship engagement: the development of online community relationships. Journal of Customer Behavior, 10(1), 50.
  44. ^ Heinonen, Kristina. (2011). Conceptualizing consumers’ dynamic relationship engagement: the development of online community relationships. Journal of Customer Behavior, 10(1), 56.
  45. ^ Heinonen, Kristina. (2011). Conceptualizing consumers’ dynamic relationship engagement: the development of online community relationships. Journal of Customer Behavior, 10(1), 57.
  46. ^ Goodwin, C. (1996). Communality as a dimension of service relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(4), 401.
  47. ^ Heinonen, Kristina. (2011). Conceptualizing consumers’ dynamic relationship engagement: the development of online community relationships. Journal of Customer Behavior, 10(1), 69.
  48. ^ Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K-J., Edvardsson, B., Sundström, E. & Andersson, P. (2010). A Customer Dominant Logic of Service. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 537.
  49. ^ http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications
  50. ^ Shiue 2010
  51. ^ http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
  52. ^ http://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=lang_en&id=harO_jeoyUwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=online community virtual real world&ots=JXOP5H8rsW&sig=PS2VyJGqIgyjkDRZa2XKIoiqSes
  53. ^ Matzat 2010
  54. ^ Horrigan, John. (October 2001). Online Communities Summary of Findings: The Vibrant Social Universe Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities/Summary-of-Findings/The-vibrant-social-universe-online.aspx
  55. ^ Liverpool Daily Echo. Trolls and Snerts
  56. ^ Gulraiz Smith. Why do Trollers do what they do?
  57. ^ BBC News. Sean Duffy case highlights murky world of trolling
  58. ^ Lexisnexis.com
  59. ^ Lexisnexis.com
  60. ^ Lwin 2011
  61. ^ Moor, Peter J., Heuvelman, Ard (2010). Flaming on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, Vol. 26 (6)
  62. ^ Moor, Peter J.
  63. ^ Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D., Moses, A. M., Geller, V. (1985). Affect in computer-mediated communication: An experiment in synchronous terminal-to-terminal discussion. Human-Computer Interaction, 1985, Vol. 1
  64. ^ Kiesler, S.
  65. ^ Plant, Robert. (Jan. 2004). Online Communities. Technology in Society 26 (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://0www.sciencedirect.com.sculib.scu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160791X030009 9X
  66. ^ Mishna, Faye, Khoury-Kassabri, Mona, Gadalla, Tahany, Daciuk, Joanne (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully-victims. Children and Youth Sciences Review, 2012, Vol. 34 (1)
  67. ^ Tokunaga, Robert S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 2010, Vol. 26 (3)
  68. ^ Foderaro, Lisa W. (2010). Private moment made public, then a fatal jump. New York Times, 2010, September 30, 2010
  69. ^ Hinduja, Sameer, Patchin, Justin W. (2012). State cyberbullying laws: A brief review of state cyberbullying laws and policies. January 2012
  70. ^ Fraser, Matthew, and Soumitra Dutta. Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2008. Print.
  71. ^ Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking. Bloomington : Indiana University Press.
  72. ^ Honeycutt, C. (2005), Hazing as a Process of Boundary Maintenance in an Online Community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10: 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00240.x
  73. ^ Ken Strutin 2011
  74. ^ Connie Davis Powell
  75. ^ Patricia E. Salkin 2011
  76. ^ Fayle, Kevin. "Understanding the Legal Issues for Social Networking Sites and Their Users". FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. Retrieved 17 October 2011. 
  77. ^ Elkin-Koren, N. (2011). Tailoring Copyright to Social Production. Theoretical Inquiries In Law, 12(1), 309–347.
  78. ^ King, A. (2010). Constitutionality of Cyberbullying Laws: Keeping the Online Playground Safe for Both Teens and Free Speech. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(3), 845–884.
  79. ^ Palfrey, J. (2010). The Challenge of Developing Effective Public Policy on the Use of Social Media by Youth. Federal Communications Law Journal, 63(1), 5–18.
  • Shuie, Yih-Chearng. "Exploring and Mitigating Social Loafing in Online Communities". Computers and Behavior. v.26.4, July 2010. pp. 768–777
  • Matzat, Uwe. "Reducing Problems of Sociability in Online Communities: Integrating Online Communication with Offline Interaction". American Behavioral Scientist. 2010. pp. 1170–1193
  • Lwin, May O. "Stop Bugging Me: An Examination of Adolescents' Protection Behavior Against Online Harassment" Journal of Adolescence. 2011. pp. 1–11
  • Strutin, Ken. "Social Media and the Vanishing Points of Ethical and Constitutional Boundaries." Pace Law Review 31.1 (2011): 228–90. Wilson Web. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/browse/browse.jhtml;hwwilsonid=BIK3MBKLBQQTLQA3DIMSFGGADUNGIIV0?prod=OMNIFT>.
  • Heinonen, Kristina. (2011). Conceptualizing consumers’ dynamic relationship engagement: the development of online community relationships. Journal of Customer Behavior, 10 (1), 49–72.
  • Goodwin, C. (1996). Communality as a dimension of service relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5(4), 387–415.
  • Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., Mickelsson, K-J., Edvardsson, B., Sundström, E. & Andersson, P. (2010). A Customer Dominant Logic of Service. Journal of Service Management, 21(4), 531–548.
  • Lothian, A. "Archival anarchies: Online fandom, subcultural conservation, and the transformative work of digital ephemera", 541-556,url=http://ics.sagepub.com/content/16/6/541.full.pdf+html
  • Lawson, M. "Sherlock and Doctor Who: beware of fans influencing the TV they love",url=http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2014/jan/03/sherlock-doctor-who-fans-influencing-tv

Further reading[edit]

  • Barzilai, G. (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  • Bishop, J. (2007). Increasing Participation in Online Communities: A framework for human-computer interaction. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (2007), 1881–1893.

Dasgupta, S. (2010). Social Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. (ISBN 1-605-66984-9).

  • Dolata, Ulrich & Schrape, Jan-Felix (2014): Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements. Collective Formations in the Digital Age. Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies 2014-02 [1].
  • Ebner, W.; Leimeister, J. M.; Krcmar, H. (2009): Community Engineering for Innovations -The Ideas Competition as a method to nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations. In: R&D Management, 39 (4), pp. 342–356 [2]
  • Else, Liz & Turkle, Sherry. "Living online: I'll have to ask my friends", New Scientist, issue 2569, 20 September 2006. (interview)
  • Hafner, K. 2001. The WELL: A Story of Love, Death and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community Carroll & Graf Publishers (ISBN 0-7867-0846-8)
  • Fraser, Matthew, and Soumitra Dutta. Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom: How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World. Chichester, England: Wiley, 2008. Print.
  • Gurak, Laura J. 1997. Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: the Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Hagel, J. & Armstrong, A. (1997). Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press (ISBN 0-87584-759-5)
  • Honeycutt, C. (2005), Hazing as a Process of Boundary Maintenance in an Online Community. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10: 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00240.x
  • Horrigan, John. (October 2001). Online Communities Summary of Findings: The Vibrant Social Universe Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities/Summary-of-Findings/The-vibrant-social-universe-online.aspx
  • IRMA. Virtual Communities: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications. IGI Global: New York, NY (ISBN 1-609-60100-9)
  • Jones, G. Ravid, G. and Rafaeli S. (2004) Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration, Information Systems Research Vol. 15 Issue 2, pp. 194–210.
  • Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. London: Addison Wesley (ISBN 0-201-87484-9)
  • Kim, A.J. (2004). "Emergent Purpose." Musings of a Social Architect. January 24, 2004. Retrieved April 4, 2006 [3].
  • Leimeister, J. M.; Sidiras, P.; Krcmar, H. (2006): Exploring Success Factors of Virtual Communities: The Perspectives of Members and Operators. In: Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce (JoCEC), 16 (3&4), 277–298 [4].
  • Leimeister, J.M.; Krcmar, H. (2005): Evaluation of a Systematic Design for a Virtual Patient Community. In: Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (4) [5].
  • Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking. Bloomington : Indiana University Press.
  • Plant, Robert. (Jan. 2004). Online Communities. Technology in Society 26 (Issue 1). Retrieved from http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.sculib.scu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160791X0300099X
  • Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Supporting Sociability, Designing Usability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (ISBN 0-471-80599-8)
  • Davis Powell, Connie. ""Iou Already Have Zero Privacy. Getoverit!"1WouldWarrenand Brandeis Argue for Privacy for Social Networking?" Pace Law Review 31.1 (2011): 146–81.*Salkin, Patricia E. "Social Networking and Land Use Planning and Regulation: Practical Benefits, Pitfalls, and Ethical Considerations." Pace Law Review 31.1 (2011): 54–94.
  • Romm-Livermore, C. & Setzekorn, K. (2008). Social Networking Communities and EDating Services: Concepts and Implications. IGI Global: New York. (ISBN 1-605-66104-X)
  • Strutin, Ken. "Social Media and the Vanishing Points of Ethical and Constitutional Boundaries." Pace Law Review 31.1 (2011): 228–90. Wilson Web. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://0-vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.sculib.scu.edu/hww/browse/browse.jhtml;hwwilsonid=BIK3MBKLBQQTLQA3DIMSFGGADUNGIIV0?prod=OMNIFT>.
  • Armstrong, A., & Hagel, J. (1996). The real value of on-line communities. Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 134–141. Butterworth-Heinemann. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9710080066&site=bsi-live
  • Choudhury, Anubhav (2012). incrediblogger
  • Porter, Constance Elise. (2004). A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research.

External links[edit]