- o'reilly reading discussion
- announce teams
- teams get together & discuss activities (present activity ideas to class by 9:40)
watch an Anthropological Introduction to YouTube!
homework
- community reading: psychological sense of community
individuallyAS A TEAM propose your own community model (in writing) based on the reading, change it or expand it to incorporate restrictions or enhancements that the online space will bring, add it to this post's comments sections (as a team)- diagram your model for next class (post to your blogs)
- start research & brainstorming, activity parameters such as:
- physical boundaries
- what's/who's involved
- equipment needs
- demographics
- individual and community wants and needs
- symbols (uniforms, tools, markers of the activity's community)
- motivations, etc.
Team Josh-Morgan, Proposal for Web 2.0 Community Model
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading, Josh and I (and another member from a different team) began to uncover the differences between communities in the physical realm, and those on the internet. Using the same four psychological elements discussed in the McMIllan & Chavis's theory, we uncovered the Psychological Sense of Web Community and what it might look like in terms of examples.
MEMBERSHIP
In terms of boundaries certain expertise and technological language barriers could divide members (we are a community of mac users, and PC users are not allowed), or even more specifically to keeping a community "separate" from other communities (and/or excluding non-members) is a log-in & password system.
and furthering the idea of online security, we can see that emotional safety parallels such boundaries. my comfort level on facebook is linked with my profile accessibility, for instance those i allow to view "me" are those i am comfortable with. And to counter this example, chat rooms do not feel like communities because of the anonymity aspect.
to feel a sense of belonging there somehow exists a sense of remembrance (as much as a website can remember). caches remember my name, my information, my likes and dislikes (pandora knows i don't like radiohead playing on my fleet foxes radio). even email alerts reminding me of things lets me know, "hey member, you belong."
a key factor of web 2.0's definition is essentially all that personal investment entails. contributing to a blog, rating/voting/comments/feedback, and customization (information and aesthetics) are obvious ways we invest in the web and online communities. See: the design of my blog, the feedback I leave on ebay, the comments i leave on Good.is articles).
To unite us as members, I'll refer back to the reading again and say that memes are our uniting symbols. Like the "pig" and "the man" was to The Black Panther Party, I also share signs with my fellow member like "tweet," "poke," and ":)".
INFLUENCE
the ability to discuss, comment, and have a dialogue with members, is rooted in the web 2.0 infrastructure. Member curated content that is editable, and supplying simple feedback are good examples of how online members can influence one another.
FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS
the mere fact that many of us join web communities to compact the issue of space can serve as example of our "needs". i need to buy something not in KC, and i can because of ebay; or i want to talk to my friends from high school, and i can because of facebook. the internet is about our need for information, and the rapid collecting of it. i access the web because it can do that much easier than books, catalogs, or newspapers.
SHARED EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS
to the effect of honor, etsy has a "featured shop" and ebay gives different star colors to describe what kind of user you are. Some websites even mark an anniversary dates "Google has been around for this long!" or celebrate the power of their members by reaching certain goals (donation amounts, impacts on issues, etc.)
Merlicia's (Meredith and Alicia) Community Model Diagram
ReplyDeleteFor our model, we re-evaluated the terms and structure from Psychological Sense of Community to adapt to a more web-based and contemporary community. We felt that the reading made the community feel exclusive or "VIP". We wanted a community that anyone sharing a common interest could join. We took into consideration how much easier this is in a Web 2.0 era. Our model emphasizes the cycle of contribution and fulfillment that stems from a common interest within a community of people.
Common Interests (Membership)
Everyone in the community shares a connection because of interest in the subject matter. There's a greater chance to meet different people all over the world because there's no specific location and no initial judgement based on appearances, experience or age. The community is based solely around common interests. There is less of an emotional connection over the internet, and a greater sense of personal safety because you aren't facing anyone person to person.
Contribution
There is more of an opportunity to share a multitude of ideas with a lot of people. The ease of sharing documentation allows for a learning/teaching relationship within the community. You can invest yourself as an amateur or professional and not feel the boundaries that those titles may give you in real life. You can also instantly share results through technological equipment (computers, phones, etc.) Another benefit to an online community is its availability-- you can access and contribute to it anytime, anywhere.
Fulfillment
Information can be gained easily and quickly, which satisfies your purpose as a community member. By being active in the community you also gain recognition within the field and make connections with other people who share a common interest. (Depending on the rarity of your interest, this could be extremely beneficial). As a community member, you may change the field with new discoveries which would benefit the community as a whole. Lastly, there is an element of entertainment with videos, photography, and stories that you may not otherwise see in person.
Michael and I talked about the ways we saw these aspects existing online. They all exist in some regard, but we talked about the ways in which they are significantly different.
ReplyDeleteMembership
People tend to act differently on the internet than they do offline, as far as community membership goes; most people are members of multiple separate communities. The five attributes of membership translate perfectly to the internet.
boundaries - Online, the boundaries are defined by access. But within internet communities, boundaries aren't as clearly decided as they are offline. Individuality is encouraged within membership, so language and behavior are the main separating factors. People who don't fit into the groups tend to be people who intentionally try to stir trouble, or "trolls".
emotional safety - People tend to feel very secure on the internet, most communities provide users with the ability to be anonymous, or to craft their own persona. Consequently, users are more open to posting personal information (oddly enough).
sense of belonging (id)- People invest time and resources into creating elaborate "signatures" and "avatars" for online interactions. Many people see these things as representations of themselves online, making them feel involved. Someone's Identity may also built on others opinions opinions of them in the form of comments. The number of views can cause one to ascend through the ranks of popularity.
Influence
Many online communities specifically ask for user input, whether that may be rating content (to encorage more similar content), or rating users (to encourage them to comment, or to prohibit their speech from being seen). The ability to make posts or comments empowers a user. To deny someone these privileges is to exclude them.
Integration and fulfillment of needs
In an online community, it is easier to feel a sense of homogeneity because most of the information shared is related to that which brings them together. It's easier to assume similarities when differences are invisible.
Shared emotional connection
Online, it is more difficult to create a shared emotional connection outside of that which brings them together, or the shared history, because meaning gets lost more easily online.
Group Cassie, Corie, Jessica
ReplyDeleteThe Web 2.0 Community
1. Membership
For the Web Community this would involve authorship on the site. Members are able to add to the content in addition to being a reader and follower. Being apart of the online community would be less personal than a physical community, but it allows for a wide range of members because the community becomes globally accessible.
2. Influence
A community and individual’s influence within the community in a Web 2.0 environment would involve the quantity and effectiveness of the member’s participation in authorship, commentary and sharing. The community platform would allow access for all members to be published and heard equally by everyone and each other encouraging an equal exchange of power.
3. Integration and Fulfillment of Needs
Involvement in a Web 2.0 community allows participants with common interests to find what they desire and contribute information that enables others to obtain what they need.
4. Shared Emotional Connection
Emotional connection through Web 2.0 is enhanced by the quality of the interaction by the individual user. The time and energy invested into the community is rewarded by recognition and deeper involvement in the community.