How much weight to attach to the "community" in "online community?" April 5, 2002 7:52 PM   Subscribe

I saw this thread over at kuro5hin about the recent suicide of an Everquest fanatic and the surrounding issues. This thread was about online games but the poll in the sidebar lists "blogs" as the #2 "online addiction." Rusty and his crew have given the topic a good going-over, but I'm interested in what the MeFiosi have to say on these. Firstly, just how much weight should we attach to the "community" in "online community?" Second, if we are all members of a community, just what responsibilities do we have to our fellow citizens? I'm not taking any position yet, I just found it a thought-provoking set of questions.
posted by jonmc to General Weblog-Related at 7:52 PM (17 comments total)

"MeFiosi" -- that's awesome.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:59 PM on April 5, 2002


Credit goes to my man riffola for that, ds. But the fact that we even sit around coming up with names for our little tribe here underlines the "community" aspects of the issue and all the questions it brings up.
posted by jonmc at 8:03 PM on April 5, 2002


good question.
posted by clavdivs at 8:09 PM on April 5, 2002


I think your two questions are related, in that the investment one makes in a community is inextricably linked to the responsibility one has to it.

I would venture to say that we are all members of many, or at least several, "communities," online or off, and we invest varying levels of participation and involvement in them -- the ones in which we invest the most of ourselves are the ones to which we are most responsible, and the ones to which we turn when we are in trouble. Now, I would guess that for most of us, Metafilter wouldn't be included in this, but someone who obviously is not typical, such as the guy discussed in the article, would probably expect more from this community than it is willing to invest. Maybe? I don't know.
posted by transient at 8:34 PM on April 5, 2002


This is an interesting essay that would assert we can't really be a community given our size. It goes into detail about the differences between community and a mass audience and the difficulty maintaining community as the size of an on-line community grows.

It seemed appropriate in relation to some of the growing pains MeFi has felt, and I almost posted it, but MetaTalk has been way too crowded with posts lately.
posted by willnot at 8:37 PM on April 5, 2002


In deference to willnot's article, I'd say size notwithstanding, our interaction with each other defines this as a community, simply because we're beings of thought, we put ideas into each other's heads.

However, the paradoxical thing about the very concept of "community" is it's being defined by level of involvement, which is an individual thing.
Hence, there really can't be one answer to jonmc's responsibility question.

In my case, I certainly feel warmly towards all of you, particularly those of you with whom I interact chummily, but, if say, jonmc posted his intent to punch his own ticket with a shotgun if I couldn't tell him the right things, Johnny would almost certainly end up with a new Jackson Pollock knock-off on his bathroom wall. I may be ideas in his head, but I'm also just white text on his screen. I'm not present enough in jon's life to take responsibility for it. He might have better luck with someone he'd met at a gathering, since they'd have more of a connection.
If I were the one that met him, and hence we had a broader relationship, then it'd be fair to say my responsibility level would increase with my influence as a real person in his life.

We're a community, but a decidedly ethereal one.
posted by dong_resin at 9:52 PM on April 5, 2002


*puts shotgun back in closet*

Well, that's kind of an extreme example, just like the Everquest one over at kuro5hin. But consider perhaps the googlebombing incidents or the Sabia hoo-ha-this place is well-known enough to have an impact outside of our little hang-out. I'm certainly not saying that we should curtail saying what's on our mind in any way, but it has given me pause before hitting the post button a time or two.
posted by jonmc at 10:02 PM on April 5, 2002


What is this "pause" you speak of, earth creature?
posted by dong_resin at 10:09 PM on April 5, 2002


What is this "earth creature" you speak of, being of thought?
posted by y2karl at 10:58 PM on April 5, 2002


Hey, you're one too, dingus.
posted by dong_resin at 11:02 PM on April 5, 2002


jonmc, to be honest with ya, I think that this subject is being handled in an improper fashion. The point of the given thread, IMHO, is that perhaps video games are like a drug. The way you bring this subject to the table, you act as if online communities have some relevance. So, based on simply deduction, I believe you brought this subject to us with a fairly unrelated subject.

Shit, I don't care. You want to talk about the impact of online communities, cool. But the pretext you've given us is completely unrelated, or mostly unrelated, to the subject at hand.


MeFi is COMPLETELY what you make of it. The beautiful thing is that behind our screen names are real people with real problems. I love that. I love that fact that, in MeFi anyway, when you have a discussion online, you're actually having one with a real person. Unlike Fark, where you are probably talking to a 12-17 year old, male idiot. Here a real person is probably commenting.

BUT...BUT...we're just text. You can't tell if we're being sarcastic, compassionate, sadistic, or even serious. I understand that some people who read this are taking MeFi too seriously. No doubt in my mind about that. But, we can't let that change our writing, our position. We cannot change ourselves because some take our words for more than just text.

Eh...let's get real. In online life, in real life....some people understand reality, some don't. We can't blame ourselves for people taking us too seriously. We can't blame ourselves for suicides or murders based on our ONLINE TEXT. It's just that...text.

posted by BlueTrain at 11:53 PM on April 5, 2002


"BUT...BUT...we're just text. You can't tell if we're being sarcastic, compassionate, sadistic, or even serious."

i am never sarcastic. ever.
posted by jcterminal at 5:03 AM on April 6, 2002


"Unlike Fark, where you are probably talking to a 12-17 year old, male idiot."

Where do you think that "12-17 year old, male idiot" gravitates when he turns 18? If he has "slightly less than" perfect spelling and impeccable grammar, his choice is MeFi or Plastic. Otherwise, he heads to /.

Of course, Fark has no "12-17 year old, FEmale idiots."


posted by mischief at 5:29 AM on April 6, 2002


willnot's article draws a useful distinction between a community, in which people maintain personal connections to each other, and an audience, in which people communicate to more passive recipients, who may or may not be personally interconnected. One of the salient points about MeFi is that the regulars, by definition, are individuals who are not particularly fascinated by their curent external circumstances. Much like the corner bar, the Internet-addicted among us become the social glue, providing a shared personal experience which enables less frequent participants to find common ground.

My take is that MeFi is the cyberspace version of the corner bar, hot tub place, or coffee house-- a public place for interacting and making new connections.

Obligation to the community: making new connections happen. How to do this? "Add something new to the world, and dangerous to its complacency." Add value by filtering info, posting interesting links, making contact with like-minded participants.
posted by sheauga at 10:08 AM on April 6, 2002


MeFi has long been very ... oh, what's the proper phrase ... sort of off-kilter a bit compared to what most people think of as an "online community." They've tended to be geographically centered in one area (i.e. the WELL is largely composed of Bay Area residents), non-anonymous, focused on narrow subject matter, or some combination of all three. MeFi is none of these things (except for those that choose to be non-anonymous), so it's always been less a "community" than a random online gathering place. Sure, we all "know" each other in a general sense of personalities and who believes what and so on, but there's been little cohesiveness and interpersonal bonding. This is slowly starting to change, though; see the rash of Meatfilter gatherings as an example.

(I also think we're drawing the wrong conclusion based on Shirky's article. Yes, MeFi has 15000 members, but what's important is: a) How many of them are active? Here I'd say that number is around 150-300. Not far out of Shirky's own range. b) How capable is the community of splitting into its own little cliques without disrupting the overall community in the process? I'd say in MeFi's case, it's quite capable, and has already done so. (Though really, these days any community can have little side groups; all you gotta do is start a mailing list.))

I'd also like to know more about what they're trying to say by listing "blogs" as "#2 addiction." Reading them or writing them? Or both? If mommy takes your modem away for a week because you're grounded, you're going to go off yourself because you can't read Camworld? Or - even weirder - because you can't post to your own blog that probably only gets a few dozen hits a week anyway and little feedback? I don't get it. In the grand scheme of things, blog access doesn't seem to rank that highly to me on the importance scale, no matter how much fun they might be. You don't go on a mass-murder rampage because the post office lost your latest issue of Newsweek.
posted by aaron at 1:17 PM on April 6, 2002


You don't go on a mass-murder rampage because the post office lost your latest issue of Newsweek.

Well, OK-- but I still wonder why post office employees go on mass-murder rampages. (Stressed out from all the complaints about lost Newsweeks?).

Actually, I don't read Newsweek, but right now I'm in the category before that:
you can't post to your own blog that probably only gets a few dozen hits a week anyway and little feedback.

So I'm reduced to posting to MeTa...slightly more on topic, however:
How capable is the community of splitting into its own little cliques without disrupting the overall community in the process? (?) I've never seen any community which wasn't composed of cliques. The only disruption occurs when one clique tries to dominate the community.

there's been little cohesiveness and interpersonal bonding
If interpersonal connections do form, all well and good, but I think dong_resin said it: "the paradoxical thing about the very concept of 'community' is it's being defined by level of involvement, which is an individual thing." Or BlueTrain: "MeFi is COMPLETELY what you make of it," and "some people who read this are taking MeFi too seriously." Too much of an emotional investment is inadvisable, I agree.

Still, I think it's cool to be a part (if not an upstanding citizen) of this virtual community--or as the late Charles Crumb liked to say, "How perfectly goddamned delightful it all is to be sure."
posted by StOne at 12:56 AM on April 7, 2002


I have to be honest here, I don't remember coming up with MeFiosi, but I love it, it's a cross between the Mafioso, the Tifosi, and well all of us here. I am definitely gonna use it.
posted by riffola at 9:50 PM on April 10, 2002


« Older MeFi in LA Weekly   |   Singapore meetup? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments