Rethinking the Virtual Community: Part Four

Early visions of the Virtual Community haven't come to pass for a variety of reasons. The idea is powerful and enduring, but is in need of reconception and redesign. VC's of the future may have to draw from the backyard fence, the tavern and town hall, water cooler, and the old-fashioned office. Is the Virtual Community a real possibility? Can it survive the growth, size and commercialization of the Net, as well as flamers, thieves, vandals, fakers and digital anarchy? What ought to be the responsibilities of members? How would you design or redesign it?

Comments

Sorry, you can't plan a real community

[brennanw]

You can plan an army. You can plan a cult. You can plan a corporate environment. You can't plan a community.

A community is the sum of the myriad of individuals, with all their quirks and idiosyncrasies, who interact with each other in the same space, real or virtual. These things happen, they can't be planned, they can't be regulated and remain a community. Communities are not cut and dry things, they just happen. It's messy.

The reason why communities fall apart is because the people who participate in them stop participating. Perhaps the environment within the community has changed, and the people who add value to it no longer wish to participate. Perhaps they no longer have the time to do so. Who knows? But you can't just go out there and plan a community.

thats it?

[EnderWiggnz]

thats all of the katz article?

BRAVO!!! BEST EVER!!!
tagline

Does he EVEN read our comments?

[Karen_Frito]

I've been rather faithfully reading all of his "Virtual Community' articles - and I'm getting the distinct impression that Katz isn't even READING the comments.

There've been HOW many comments saying he's wrong? And how many were actually written intelligently and with proofs to backup what the were saying?

I wouldnt' change the 'virtual' community at all. Its FINE how it is. They exist, they're hard to find - AND WE LIKE IT THAT WAY!

Sheesh. Noone wants half a billion teenagers invading their personal space. Things start to suck when they get crowded.

This is WHY slashdot has to use moderation. ITs WHY we've got Natalie Portman-hot grits-naked AND fearless troll posts.

Its why the BBS's went down. Its why Usenet sucks sour frog ass. Its why Aol and Compuserve and Prodigy and webTV have caused the downfall of many, many intelligent forums.

So... actually, I WOULD change something - I'd make the virtual communities even HARDER to find. I don't like crowds, I don't like morons.

And if it means Katz is more convinced we don't exist -- GOOD. I'm more and more inclined to think he's jus a Perl Script anyway.

Frito - Grouch, elitist, capitalist. And damn proud of it.

Poor little no puppy toe!

Something to live for

[vivarin]

In MUDs, you have something to live for within the community -- even if it's just levels and loot.

In some MOOs, you can construct an elaborate habitat.

The thing I've noticed about community is that a shared purpose is required. This is different from a shared interest. A purpose means that there is a reason you are participating in a community at that moment.

So... if we just toss a few predatory Orcs into the high school chemistry chat room, maybe it will turn into an actual community. ('Cause you can't get your homework graded until you band together to kill the Orcs?)

Re:Something to live for

[Kingfox]

Could you call /.'ers a community?

I'd go so far as to call /.'ers a group of communities. The clever trolls, the simple goatse.cxers and spammers, the Linux zealots, the corporate sysadmins sitting bored in their office /.'ing all day, etc. A series of communities, with their own forums for discussion, clashing or joining every so often in an article or secret SID that spans a few of their interests at once.

Regarding MOOs, I think one of the best examples is a MOO that has some of the MUD-drawing aspects as well as the building aspects of a MOO and the roleplaying aspects of a MUSH. CyberSphere, a MOO I've worked on and played for years, combines all of these quite well. All of the dangers that Katz has mentioned in his intro paragraph have come and gone. From flamers to thieves and beyond, and it's still going well after seven years.

The members are quite close, many people have moved across the country or made their college choice through CyberSphere. A few admins on the game got job offers from other admin and players, after seeing that they could code on the game. Recently a few losers (myself included) drove a thousand miles from all over the country to have a party IRL. While there everything from drug deals to job offers went down. Though after the long return trip home, the group of us are still a community in many ways, in almost every sense of the word.

Virtual Community or virtual comm...

[vergil]

Is the Virtual Community a real possibility? Can it survive the growth, size and commercialization of the Net ...?

I think "virtual communities" are indeed a possibility -- many, in fact, currently thrive amidst the "commercialization of the Net."

First, I believe it's a fallacy to speak of the "Virtual Community" with a capital V and C, as if it was a single, monolithic entity. Not that Jon Katz was making such an assertion, of course.

Take, for instance, Slashdot's favorite topic -- Linux. LUG's (Linux User Groups) are a decent example of regional-based congregations (forgive me for using that word) that discuss current, topical issues both online and in person. No LUG that I've witnessed seems to functions as an insular, exclusive body. Rather, they localize concerns and themes important to the broader Linux community.

Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell