Response To Bruckman Article

Kling and Courtright write that “casual use of the term community to characterize groups that are engaged in learning, or groups that participate in e-forums, is seriously misguided." I'm guessing that Kling and Courtright would agree, however, that neighbors in a small town are part of the same "community."

To me, this is flawed rationale. In my mind there is no question that social networks, forums, and other web tools of the same nature are communities. It is more essential to forming a community that individuals actively share ideas, beliefs, and values, which can be done online and in person, than simply existing nearby each other (like neighbors).

I am interested in Bruckman's logic that a community is dependent on a prototypical individual, and the community is made up of slight deviations from this prototype. I am curious to see what our class thinks as far as its application to social networks. I can see how it would apply to forums and online gaming, but is there a "prototypical" Facebook or Youtube user?

In addition, I think Bruckman makes a good point about the feeling of "a degree of membership" to the community. There has to be some sense of membership, or the community would have no boundaries and everyone would be included in the community.

Defining "community" is a completely subjective thing. Every person will see what defines a community differently, and some may say that with no face-to-face interaction, it would be a sin to call it a community. Which I can understand, but to these believers I ask: "When was the last time you had a face-to-face interaction with your neighbor?"