Potentials of Information Technology in Building Virtual Communities

In recent years, virtual communities have become the topic of countless books, journal articles and television shows, but what are they, and where did they come from? According to Preece, Maloney-Krichmar, and Abras (2003), the roots of virtual communities date back to as early as 1971 when e-mail first made its appearance on the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), which was created by the United State’s Department of Defense. This network would lead to the development of dial-up bulletin board systems (BBSs) which would allow people to use their modems to connect to remote computers and participate in the exchange of e-mail and the first discussion boards. From these beginnings a host of multi user domains (MUDs) and multi-user object oriented domains (MOOs) would spring up all over the wired world. These multi-user environments would allow people to explore an imaginary space and would allow them to interact both with the electronic environment and other users. Additionally, listservs (or mailing lists) sprang up in 1986, and now, almost two decades later, they are still in use as the major method of communication among groups of people sharing common personal or professional interests (L-Soft, 2003). Since then the Internet has exploded due to the development of Web browsers as well as the development of communications technologies such as broadband, digital subscriber line (DSL), and satellite communications. Groups of people from as few as two and reaching to many thousands now communicate via email, chat, and online communities such as the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL) and such services as MSN, Friendster, America Online (AoL), Geocities, and Yahoo! Groups. Other examples of online communities are collaborative encyclopedias like Wikipedia. Web logs (Blogs) like Slashdot.com and LiveJournal allow users to create their own content and also to comment on the content of others. They also allow the users to create identities and to make virtual “friends” with other users. The definition of virtual community itself becomes as convoluted as the multitude of technologies that drives it. Are e-mail lists, message boards, and chat rooms online communities or are they virtual communities? Virtual communities might be persistent worlds as those found in popular online games (Everquest, 2004, Ultima Online, 2004) or virtual worlds (such as MUDs and MOOs) where the user is able to explore a simulated world or to take on a digital “physicality” in the form of an avatar. It becomes clear from the literature that the terms are still used interchangeably.

Download Full-text

MOOS as Virtual Communities

Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities and Technologies ◽

10.4018/978-1-59140-563-4.ch061 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 329-333

Author(s):

Shannon Roper ◽

Sharmila Pixy Ferris

Keyword(s):

Virtual Worlds ◽

Online Community ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Virtual Community ◽

The Internet ◽

Social Constructs ◽

Book Series ◽

Definition Of ◽

Defined Culture

Many researchers have observed that the Internet has changed the concept of virtual communities (Barnes, 2001, 2003; Jones, 1995, 1998; Rheingold, 1993). A unique example of virtual communities is a MOO—a specialized interactive online community that is usually based on a work of fiction such as book series, theater or television (Bartle, 1990). MOOs share many of the features of multi-user dimensions (MUDs) in that both allow participants to create their own virtual worlds, but some researchers consider MOOs to be “more sophisticated” (Barnes, 2001, p. 94). In a MOO community, the participants or “players” create their own virtual communities—fantasy communities complete with world structures, interpersonal norms and social constructs. Individual participants create characters complete with environment, history and personality constructs. The characters interact and influence each other and their environments, just as do the members of real-world communities. The MOO discussed in this case study is based on acclaimed fantasy author Anne McCaffery’s book series set on the fictional world of “Pern.” The players on DragonWings1 MOO create and develop characters over long periods, often many years, leading to the establishment and creation of a strong MOO. In this article we provide a case study of the DragonWings MOO as a unique virtual community. Because the concept of virtual communities is evolving with the Internet, and no definitive understanding of virtual community or virtual culture yet exists, we have chosen to structure our analysis of DragonWings MOO around the classical anthropological definition of culture and community. A seminal definition of culture, first articulated by Tylor (1871), provides the springboard for a number of anthropological definitions widely used today. Building on Tylor, White (1959), a prominent cultural scholar, defined culture as “within human organisms, i.e., concepts, beliefs, emotions, attitudes; within processes of social interaction among human beings; and within natural objects” (p. 237). He also identified symbols as a primary defining characteristic of culture. White’s simple yet comprehensive definition yields clear criteria that lend themselves to our analysis of MOOs. At the broadest level, an application of the criteria provides support for the acceptance of the Internet as a distinct and unique culture. At a more particular level, they provide a convenient tool for the analysis of a MOO as a virtual community. In the remainder of this article, we will utilize the definition outlined above to demonstrate the features that make DragonWings MOO a unique example of a virtual community.

Download Full-text

Conception, Categorization, and Impact of HR-Relevant Virtual Communities

Encyclopedia of Human Resources Information Systems ◽

10.4018/978-1-59904-883-3.ch023 ◽

2009 ◽

pp. 154-160

Author(s):

Anke Diederichsen

Keyword(s):

Social Interaction ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Economic Value ◽

Virtual Community ◽

Bulletin Board ◽

Negative Effects ◽

Bulletin Boards ◽

Potential Applications ◽

Information And Communication ◽

E Mail

Virtual community (VC), in its most general sense, is an increasingly popular and apparently omnipresent tool to communicate and interact on the Web. People from diverse backgrounds meet in VCs for likewise diverse purposes: social gatherings, information sharing, entertainment, social, and professional support. The phenomenon of virtual—or online—communities dates back to the late 1960s, when ARPANET, a network for U.S.-military research purposes was established (Licklider & Taylor, 1968). The initially provided e-mail service was later supplemented by a chat functionality. In 1979, virtual social interaction was enabled by USENET use-groups. Here, asynchronous communication is enabled by e-mail and bulletin boards. In the same year, multi user dungeons (MUDs), a new form of text-based virtual reality games were created. In 1985, The WELL was started. This mainly bulletin board-based VC received public attention at least by the publication of the community experiences of one of its most active members, Howard Rheingold. His book also marks the starting point of the virtual community literature (Rheingold, 1993). In the late 1990s, the focus on VCs as Web-based enablers of social interaction (e.g., Wellman, Salaff, Dimitrova, Garton, Gulia, & Haythornthwaite, 1996) shifted to the perception of its potential economic value (e.g., Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). The aim of this article is to depict applications of VCs in human resources (HR)-relevant processes. Applications range from company internal employee communities to company external applicant communities. HR-relevant VCs reflect the increasing utilization of modern information and communication technology (ICT) in human resource management (HRM). The application of VCs in HRM might be beneficial but also may cause negative effects if current trends, are not observed or if the technology is not incorporated strategically. In the following, a definition, a framework, and a categorization of HR-relevant VCs is given. Examples outline potential applications and implications for HRM.

Download Full-text

Antecedents of Trust in Online Communities

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition ◽

10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch028 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 160-163

Author(s):

Catherine M. Ridings ◽

David Gefen

Keyword(s):

Virtual Communities ◽

Work Group ◽

Computer Mediated Communication ◽

Virtual Community ◽

The Internet ◽

Bulletin Board ◽

Mediated Communication ◽

Common Location ◽

Bulletin Boards ◽

E Mail

Online virtual communities have existed on the Internet since the early 1980s as Usenet newsgroups. With the advent of the World Wide Web and emphasis on Web site interactivity, these communities and accompanying research have grown rapidly (Horrigan, Rainie, & Fox, 2001; Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003; Petersen, 1999). Virtual communities arise as a natural consequence of people coming together to discuss a common hobby, medical affliction, or other similar interest, such as coin collecting, a devotion to a rock group, or living with a disease such as lupus. Virtual communities can be defined as groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or site (Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze, 2002). The location is the “place” where the community meets, and it can be supported technologically by e-mail listservs, newsgroups, bulletin boards, or chat rooms, for example. The technology helps to organize the community’s conversation, which is the essence of the community. For example, messages in a community supported by a listserv are organized in e-mails, sometimes even grouping together several messages into an e-mail digest. In bulletin board communities, the conversation is organized into message threads consisting of questions or comments posted by members and associated replies to the messages. Virtual community members form personal relationships with strong norms and expectations (Sproull & Faraj, 1997; Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), sometimes developing deep attachments to the communities (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). These developments are interesting, because the members of virtual communities are typically strangers to one another and may never meet face to face. Additionally, the nature of computer-mediated communication is such that nonverbal cues that aid in the interpretation of communication, such as inflections in the voice, gestures, dress, tone, physical personal attributes, and posture, are missing (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991), making the communication open to multiple interpretations (Korenman & Wyatt, 1996). Yet, despite these limitations, many virtual communities flourish by exchanging messages and building their conversation base. A key ingredient in sustaining the conversation in the community is the existence of trust between the members. Trust has a downstream effect on the members’ intentions to give and get information through the virtual community (Ridings et al., 2002). This chapter examines emergent virtual communities, that is, those arising without direction or mandate from an organization, government, or other entity for an expressed economic or academic purpose. For example, a discussion board for a strategic partnership work group between two companies or a chat room for a class taking a college course would not be considered emergent virtual communities. However, an online forum established by the Breast Cancer Young Survivors Coalition so that women could discuss their battles with the disease would be considered an emergent virtual community.

Download Full-text

Communication in Internet message boards

English Today ◽

10.1017/s026607840200305x ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 29-37 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Beverly A. Lewin ◽

Yonatan Donner

Keyword(s):

Computer Mediated Communication ◽

Chat Rooms ◽

Mediated Communication ◽

Message Boards ◽

Face To Face ◽

Mailing Lists ◽

Computer Mediated ◽

Primary Means ◽

Definition Of ◽

E Mail

A quantitative analysis of usage in Computer-Mediated Conversation (CMC).While commentators as ‘early’ as 1984 were predicting that the “organizational, social, and personal effects of computers will be deeply felt”, they could only speculate on the strength of its impact. As this account was being written, at the end of 2001, the effects of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) were fast overtaking our poor ability to measure them. There are many ways to communicate through computers: Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, and message boards, which allow users to discuss specific topics with each other. (The term CMC allows for the possibility that some methods of communication, e.g., “chat rooms”, will not meet the definition of ‘mail’. The most popular method of CMC is e-mail. For those who have internet access, CMC is often their preferred choice of indirect (i.e., non face-to-face) communication, thanks to its speed, efficiency, and flexibility. Perhaps for these reasons, e-mail has already overtaken the telephone as the primary means of business communication.

Download Full-text

A Framework for Analyzing Online Communities

Technological Change and Societal Growth ◽

10.4018/978-1-4666-0200-7.ch009 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 129-143

Author(s):

M. Gordon Hunter ◽

Rosemary Stockdale

Keyword(s):

Online Communities ◽

Online Community ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Community Organizations ◽

Value Proposition ◽

Group Interactions ◽

Community Needs ◽

Important Stage ◽

Different Types ◽

Definition Of

This paper examines online communities and describes how they can be differentiated from other Internet supported group interactions. A definition of an online community is given and three generic types are identified. These types are defined by the community models based on the value proposition for the sponsors and members. The value proposition for members is strongly influenced by the model, as facilities and opportunities for interaction are structured by the site sponsors. Where online communities offer fulfillment of specific needs, people participate and become members. Additional benefits enhance the value of membership and encourage retention and greater interactivity. Significant benefits are gained from online communities for businesses, NGOs, other community organizations and individuals. Identifying the different types of communities and their characteristics is an important stage in developing greater understanding of how virtual communities can contribute to businesses, healthcare, community needs and a myriad of other contexts. Examples of the three generic types of online communities are included for further edification.

Download Full-text

Definition, Antecedents, and Outcomes of Successful Virtual Communities

Virtual Communities ◽

10.4018/978-1-60960-100-3.ch413 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 1298-1306

Author(s):

Anita L. Blanchard

Keyword(s):

Financial Support ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Virtual Community ◽

Bulletin Board ◽

Face To Face ◽

Virtual Groups ◽

Electronic Frontier

Howard Rheingold’s (1993) book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier was the first to bring virtual communities to the attention of researchers and practitioners. Although virtual groups have been examined previously, Rheingold’s descriptions of participating in the WELL, an Internet-based bulletin board, vividly portrayed the potential of online social groupings. Rheingold told stories of people who had never met face-to-face providing socio-emotional and even financial support to each other through times of crisis and celebration.

Download Full-text

Virtual Community Models in Relation to E-Business Models

Virtual Communities ◽

10.4018/978-1-60960-100-3.ch217 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 647-654

Author(s):

Lee Moh Shan ◽

Juliana Sutanto ◽

Atreyi Kankanhalli ◽

Bernard C.Y. Tan

Keyword(s):

Web Sites ◽

Web Site ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Business Models ◽

Virtual Community ◽

Digital Medium ◽

Social Phenomena ◽

Community Model ◽

Definition Of ◽

Online Web

Virtual communities were initially recognized as social phenomena. This is evident from the definition of virtual community as “a social aggregation that emerges from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 2000, p. 5). The idea of a virtual community as a profitable business model was subsequently raised by Hagel and Armstrong (1996, 1997) who claimed that the benefits of a virtual community would arise from two aspects: from the unique capabilities of the digital medium where the virtual community is located in and from the virtual community model itself. The latter aspect is what differentiates virtual communities from other online Web sites. Unlike other online Web sites, a virtual community is intended to create a “sense of community” that binds individuals to the Web site and serves as the “push” factor for repeat visits. Table 1 summarizes some of the proposed business benefits stemming from a virtual community (Bank & Daus, 2002; Hagel & Armstrong, 1996, 1997). Although the startup cost of a virtual community is comparatively low, the costs of maintaining it are significantly higher (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Kim, 2000). Therefore the decision of whether to create a virtual community in support of an e-commerce Web site is not to be taken lightly. Critics have also questioned the validity of the suggested benefits of a virtual community, particularly since there are no clear-cut measures to verify that these benefits can be attributed to the virtual community. Additionally, the fundamental premise which the virtual community relies on for its success, that is, its unique capacity for interaction amongst members and/or with the company (Balasubramanian & Mahajan, 2001; Lechner & Hummel, 2002; Mynatt, O’Day, Adler, & Ito, 1997), is subject to high risks of failure. This is because customers can always turn this capability to the company’s disadvantage by spreading adverse comments about the company’s products and services. Hence, a virtual community actually has the means to work both for as well as against the company sustaining it. This article seeks to explain how virtual communities can be made to work for the organization by proposing a fit between the virtual community model to be adopted and the company’s e-business goals.

Download Full-text

Trust in Virtual Communities

Virtual Communities ◽

10.4018/978-1-60960-100-3.ch115 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 203-212

Author(s):

Luis V. Casaló ◽

Carlos Flavián ◽

Miguel Guinalíu

Keyword(s):

World Wide Web ◽

World Wide ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Information Sources ◽

Social Groups ◽

Virtual Community ◽

Chat Rooms ◽

The World ◽

Community Concept ◽

E Mail

Individuals are increasingly turning to computermediated communication in order to get information on which to base their decisions. For instance, many consumers are using newsgroups, chat rooms, forums, e-mail list servers, and other online formats to share ideas, build communities and contact other consumers who are seen as more objective information sources (Kozinets, 2002). These social groups have been traditionally called virtual communities. The virtual community concept is almost as old as the concept of Internet. However, the exponential development of these structures occurred during the nineties (Flavián & Guinalíu, 2004) due to the appearance of the World Wide Web and the spreading of other Internet tools such as e-mail or chats. The justification of this expansion is found in the advantages generated by the virtual communities to both the members and the organizations that create them.

Download Full-text

Online Communities and Community Building

Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second Edition ◽

10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch462 ◽

2011 ◽

pp. 2893-2898

Author(s):

Martin C. Kindsmüller ◽

Sandro Leuchter ◽

Leon Urbas

Keyword(s):

Online Community ◽

Virtual Communities ◽

Virtual Community ◽

Community Members ◽

Face To Face ◽

Computer Mediated ◽

Bulletin Boards ◽

Real Community ◽

Definition Of ◽

Tacit Assumptions

“Online community” is one of today’s buzzwords. Even though superficially it is not hard to understand, the term has become somewhat vague while being extensively used within the e-commerce business. Within this article, we refer to online community as being a voluntary group of users who partake actively in a certain computer-mediated service. The term “online community” is preferred over the term “virtual community,” as it denotes the character of the community more accurately: community members are interacting online as opposed to face to face. Furthermore, the term “virtual community” seems too unspecific, because it includes other communities that only exist virtually, whereas an online community in our definition is always a real community in the sense that community members know that they are part of the community. Nevertheless, there are other reasonable definitions of online community. An early and most influencing characterization (which unfortunately utilizes the term “virtual community”) was coined by Howard Rheingold (1994), who wrote: “…virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people […] who exchanges words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (p. 57). A more elaborated and technical definition of online community was given by Jenny Preece (2000), which since then, has been a benchmark for developers. She stated that an online community consists of four basic constituents (Preece, 2000, p. 3): 1. Socially interacting people striving to satisfy their own needs. 2. A shared purpose, such as interest or need that provides a reason to cooperate. 3. Policies in the form of tacit assumptions, rituals, or rules that guide the community members’ behavior. 4. A technical system that works as a carrier that mediates social interaction. Not explicitly mentioned in this characterization but nevertheless crucial for our aforementioned definition (and not in opposition to Preece’s position) is voluntary engagement.

Download Full-text