'Terry Flew states, Howard Rheingold's definition of virtual (online) communities as 'social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions [using the Internet] long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace' (Flew 2005, 62).
Therefore, the online community is a new way for people to communicate with, participate with and share content with other people all around the world; therefore, creating online relationships through the online communities, just like in the real world. This idea of online communities came from 'the building of social networks and social capital; the sharing of knowledge and information; and the enabling of new modes of democratic participation in public life.' (Flew 2005, 62)
One of the biggest benefits for online communities is that they are associated with fields of interest that are usually neglected by mainstream media. Communities like Bebo, MySpace and Facebook are communities that are solely to do with people who social network. With social network communities, users can become fans of musicians, comedians and filmmakers.
These online communities, like social networking sites, gaming sites, and music sharing sites all have a vast range of benefits of participating in and prescribing to.
The online communities opens up the door to new forms of personal and community identity. The notion of being able to create a new persona that is void of physical attributes, geographic location, race and gender. Therefore, creating a community that has no judgment over what clothes you wear or how much money you have. The online communities are created for free expression and for people to use their voice and speak about topics which are close to them.
I am an avid user of both MySpace and Facebook. Providing content about myself for others to comment on and share with others. For example, I add a song on MySpace a user of MySpace and a friend of mine view's my page hears the song, likes it, and then goes to the band's MySpace page. Therefore, sharing new content through these online communities widens the audiences of all users of MySpace, as we collect, share, create and manage content.
The online communities are a move from participating culture to collective intelligence; therefore, by sharing, collecting, creating and managing content, we as users are a collective intelligence.
As the online community is a move from participating culture to a collective intelligence, the collective (the users) must adhere to certain rules and create a trust within the community. This trust is what defines an online community, as users must trust one another without even knowing the person, a part from their online friendship.
The online community is the way of the future as Terry Flew argues that 'online and offline communities can no longer exist in separate spheres but rather the online world had become embedded in our offline lives'.
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While I agree with both yours and Terry Flews opinion of offline and online communities merging, your belief of trust between users in order to create this collaboration is arguable. Like yourself, I am a Facebook user. Most of these particular types of produser communities are not void of physical attributes, geographical location, race or gender. These qualities are listed on a person’s profile, eliminating the need for blind trust. Facebook is also an online community that used to communicate with people in their primary networks, therefore building on an already present trust. Other collaboration based communities, like search engines, do not need an element of trust at all, as the information that a person collects relies solely on their judgment. While other anonymous communities do theoretically rely on a trust between users, this is rarely respected, resulting in few people trusting information provided by others. I believe that trust is the main problem with offline and online communities merging because, as people rely more and more on what they cannot be sure of, online communities can become a dangerous environment. False information can be uploaded and passed off as credible. And worse, those few who do believe in a trusting environment without prejudice may see less value in physical social interaction. I think online communities can be beneficial for those seeking unity with others on the premise of shared interests, but should not be so strongly relied upon.
By looking at your posting on on-line community, you have used Terry Flew definition to describe the on-line community to support your opinion. On-line community reduces the gap between societies, separated by geographical location, multi-cultured; sharing interest, ideas and information. You also have touched the benefit of the present online communities which has been neglected by the mainstream media. You have demonstrated explicitly the definition of online communities, generally, by making several examples of social networking available to support your argument. But your comment is concerning merely on positive perspective point of view; single side only which is bias. To be fair, we cannot ignore the negative impact of it apart from the positive. I must admit that friendship is created based on trust and confidence. No doubt about it. But it is not always. In the case of social networking, just ask ourselves: are all the information upload by the members purely genuine? Is there any particular organization responsible of the authentication? This is a big question. Meaning to say that the information credibility posted on the website is questionable. Another thing I would like to argue is the fact that some users in the community tend to post harsh criticism thus abusing the freedom of opinion though the intention of the social network creation priority is for the welfare of the communities.
Post a Comment