Is the ‘virtual settlement’ a useful concept? Why?
Yes! I think it is a useful concept! I find it helpful in understanding and describing what basically is a group of people getting together discussing subjects of choice but with the slight difference of it being online! "Jones defines virtual settlements as the virtual place in which people interact'" (
blanchard) therefore a pretty basic meaning has been attached to the term, however i think that the term 'virtual settlement' gives a better and deeper meaning. It draws in the users and their many differing ideas and opinions and allows them to express them in a particular place.
What do you think about the issue of whether or not all CMC (computer-mediated-communication) groups deserve the status of communities? What characteristics would you stress as important?I think CMC groups do deserve the status of the communities, as who 's to define in this day and age what a community really is.
Wikipedia defines community as
"a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment."
Therefore this is exactly what people are doing even if it is online! Another relevant point it makes is that "In human communities,intent, belief, resources,
preferences, needs, risks and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness." This is both true and an essential aspect of CMC's.
This question also brings in
McMillan and Chavis argument of SOC
(sense of community) i think that in both real-life communities and the virtual there is a need and a want of membership and sense of belonging. There is certainly feelings of influence present in both real- life and within these CMC groups, perhaps more so online. The whole point in communities is that they integate and support and work together, often similar actions of support can be found on CMC groups. And finally a community is a community because their is a sense of shared emotional connection between the inhabits within it, this is definitely present in many forums i have read, where i have read how people read, write and comment on each others hobbies, beliefs or even trouble they might have had.
‘
Lurkers’ – who needs them? Should they be booted out or should we embrace people’s differences (some people are readers more than producer/writers?). Can’t there be different roles for the members of a community?This is a tough question as i think the term given to them, LURKERS, already has a negative tone to it!! Unfortunately these people may actually be just 'different' or interested or even intrigued but simply shy. Especially in today's world, people are edgy and suspicious of others, in particular the internet has caused quite a stir in relation to the unknown factor and the worry of identity!
And due to this my my initial response is, well Yes they shouldn't be in
MOO's if their not going to participate. Depending on the chosen subject, if its something simple and not particularly controversial, for example a conversation on how best to put on eye makeup, then fine!! But if its a contestable debate showing strong personal views and even some personal information then i don't think people should be allowed to watch and read all and take it all in.
Am not sure about the idea of different roles, everyone is equal when it comes to online discussion, no one in particular can or should take charge. However it is pretty much up to yourself how interactive and how much of a participant you want to be within these.