Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Politics of Piracy (Max Klein and Patrick Berger)/Schedule/5

I think Rheingold and Turner did an excellent job in foreseeing the future of discourse over the internet. Many of Turner's predictions are apparent in current message boards and forums. I am a member of a number of online forums which pertain to my interests (ie: automotive, photography, DJing) and I've observed the "gift economy" in all if not most forums. In Turner's 'gift economy', “people do things for one another out of a spirit of building something between them, rather than a spreadsheet-calculated quid pro quo. When that spirit exists,everybody gets a little extra something, a little sparkle, from their more practical transactions; different kinds of things become possible when this mindset pervades." Many members on the forums I am a part of are always willing to lend a helping hand to new members. At the same time, the collaborative efforts of the community as a whole can help members achieve higher standards for their interests and the forum itself. The community mindset of forums also builds relationships in real life. I met with a local forum member in person to purchase a camera lens, and he ended up being a photography teacher in real life and also gave me serial access to a student edition of Adobe Lightroom for free. Most of these forums are 'free' as Turner predicted, and add great benefit to society because they bring together like-minded individuals who can set common goals (wiki is a great example). Dlchu1230 (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Featured Comment PatBerger (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This article does a great job in explaining how technology has helped build communities instead of hurting them. This is a subject that is often overlooked. Many people see a growing use of technology as taking away from the sense of community in the world. In reality, it is changing the community from a local to a global level. In the case of the Catalog, a community was created that otherwise would not have been able to exist. It connected people all over the world. It allowed people who did not feel connected to their local communities, such as people living in small, rural towns, a sense of belonging. I think many times people can be rude and immature on the internet, but this article shows how that is not always the case. When connected by ideas such as knowing that there is more to live than just monetary value, people can reach out and help each other out. Christopher998 (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I especially liked the part of the article that said branded the purpose of the Whole Earth Catalog with the language of "We are as gods [... with the] power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested." I find that one of the most endearing aspects of creating online communities and creating relationships through them is that their content can be made of exactly what anyone wants, from all the far reaching parts of the internet that you can create a hyperlink to, to even falsities that individuals may not be actually experiencing but have the ability to shape as if it were so online. Gods of our own lives, gods of even falsehoods, the internet's creation of virtual realities still depended on trusting your fellow resident of the e-Olympus, and to that end the connections are always marked (at least to me personally) with an honest glance of skepticism, of detachment, and genuine distrust from time to time. The online communities may be a nifty part of our epoch, but I still believe they serve only to legitimately reaffirm the interpersonal communities one creates in person. Shakeandstir (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Today's virtual communities are most manifested as social networks, namely Facebook, Myspace, and twitter internationally, and Renren in China. Howard Rheingold, a participant in the WELL community but not one of a commune, praised the revival of the “cooperative spirit” of virtual community that had been lost. Furthermore, virtual communities provided an anonimity that let people live and act independent of society's constructs. “And they can do so in the comforting sense that they have not betrayed their youthful ambitions for alternative community”. (page 27) These communities have an incentive system, which at the core are driven by something more than monetary gain, but rather described as a “ gift economy [that] depended not only on the expectation of ultimate reward but also on an intangible feeling of working to construct a new sort of community” (page 26). However, today's social networks, though convenient, offer limited expression of “cooperative spirit” Everything on a user's page is a predefined template, that seems to be more focused on the individual than the community as if a world revolved around a user. Although, this type of social cult.ure puts more emphasis on the individual, the network can cause a more awareness if not unity such as in the recent Egypt protests. I think there is a “cooperative spirit” exits, but users need a toolkit or need to master of skills to navigate and construct virtual objects and customize their own projects, which can enhance the internet community.Dtslife (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The early virtual community of the WELL has many parallels, but also stands in stark contrasts to the cornucopia of today’s online communities. The WELL, representing the first online forum in which “information exchange, community building, and economic activity took place simultaneously” (Turner, 491) can easily be compared to the Craigslist of today, which integrates information exchange, social networking, and an online market place into one convenient location. I believe the online market place (examples include Craigslist, even Ebay and Amazon, where users must create accounts, and are encouraged to rate and review products and sellers) owes its popularity in part to its ability to serve a base need for creating a sort of tribal community, in which individuals can be trusted and held accountable. The direct contact to the seller gets lost too often in the mainstream and corporate method of business transactions, while online market places make the transaction more personal and transparent.

In addition to serving as a market place, the WELL was a platform where “geographically dispersed individuals could build a sense of nonhierarchical, collaborative community around their interactions” (Turner, 491) just as the Facebook, Youtube and Twitter users of today bridge geographical and language barriers to create a group identity based on their interests - again a form of tribal identity. However, when it comes to the differences between early virtual communities and online communities of today, a question that arises is at what point an online community can no longer be considered a single entity, but rather a transformation into something less personal: a pure platform for exchange. The social networks of today are barely communities, but rather platforms for exchange. In contrast to early print communities, such as the Whole Earth Catalogue, the virtual communities of today, are not meant to restore a cooperative spirit, or build a new world order. I agree with the comment above, in that today's virtual communities revolve around the user, not the community as a whole. They have become so large and sophisticated that they serve to cater user-specific content to individual members. The community fades out of sight. (Kolibrical (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)). Featured Comment PatBerger (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the virtual community that Rheingold and Turner describe served the same purpose that online communities serve today. It was a place to network and build/foster interests. As far as I know, that is what modern online communities are used for as well. I only use Facebook and leech off of movie/television download sites, but they all serve the purpose of creating a space to collect and organize similar interests and/or work towards a common goal. The world is so sparse and large that it is nearly impossible to create an effective gathering of similar interests without the help of the internet. So that's where these virtual communities come in. Kionajp (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that today's virtual communities offer something that is not quite present in older models, and is often overlooked: a type of home-base. Of course the essential part of any community is the interaction between its members, but another important aspect is the feeling of "home." And, pretty much, home is the place where you put your shit. Modern cyber communities like youtube and facebook allow users to carve out their own space, their own designated area where they can put their shit and share it with their friends (and the public). Primarily, link sharing provides an outlet for the dissemination of media and a forum for commentary; functionally, it's also a way to save things for later, like a low-clutter temporary bookmark. Facebook in particular allows for the type of space where users can 'hang out' while they wait for something interesting to show up on their feed. These communities do more than facilitate relationships; they also make the internet a kind of digital home. Bromanski (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fittingly enough for this class, I think one of the more evident iterations of the WELL is seen today in the wares communities, largely made possible by the open-source phpbb bulletin board system. Over the years, one in particular has almost become a second home to me and has almost exclusively been my access to media. I think the slogan that appears at the top of the home page says it best, "Come as guests, stay as family." This just goes to shoe the kind of philosophy that some of these communities on the internet approach their users. And in whatever capacity you want, you can contribute to the community, whether you want to actively contribute your own material or just support those who do by downloading one of their links as a free user. There is this kind of giving mentality (like saying thanks to keep the thread bumped) that is ingrained on both users and contributers that fosters a healthy community. These places also kind of provide a safer environment against files that may contain malicious viruses (that you might get from some sketchy torrent tracker or p2p client) since you get to know who is a reputable contributer on the forums, also contributing to a more familial experience. Raimi.michael (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several websites on the internet that allow geographically dispersed individuals to form collaborative communities. The most obvious of these are Facebook and Wikipedia, two networks that rely primarily on the contributions of their users for their ongoing existence. On Wikipedia, there is no hierarchical structure; all users are free to contribute as they feel necessary. On Facebook, users are able to “write to one another, create a textual record of their interactions, and so begin to build a sense of shared consciousness…” These websites are brining people together and establishing virtual communities. Surprisingly, torrent websites are also serving this same function. In the past decade, a new genre of music emerged out of the electronic music scene. This new form of music, called Dubstep, is absent of any commercialization or corporatization. It is created by independent artists around the world and distributed either through underground networks or the internet. The website BTJunkie, a torrent sharing community, allows fan from around to the world to have access to hundreds of gigabytes of this type of music. Because the creators of this music are not signed to record labels, they rely purely on their fan base for their distribution. In this regard, BTJunkie creates a collaborative community of individuals, spread out throughout the world, who contribute to the functioning of the system purely out of a desire to share music with their fellow peers. JKordi (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people today criticize the growing technology, especially the prominence of the internet, for being a cause that leads to isolationism and individualism that just pull people far away from each other both physically and intellectually in the modern society. However, just as Rheingold and Turner have described which is also what the reality actually turns out to manifest, technology helps people to reconstruct and expand their communities that were once confined and limited but now are part of a virtual and global community, the members of which were once dispersed, individual members of their own respective community. There are great externalities associated with the existence of the virtual community. The favors that one person receives from another no longer need to be returned to the person who helped directly but instead could be returned to other members in the larger virtual community. For example, if I ask a question on a BBS and eventually receive a satisfactory response from another person online, I do not have to be restricted to answer the questions of the person who answered my question in order to get rid of the feeling of owing to that person. The key point about a gift economy in the virtual community is that eventually, people do not just receive gifts but instead, after receiving a "gift", they feel entitled to give things in return. And it does not actually matter who is receiving that gift as long as someone receives it. Zx4611869 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Featured Comment PatBerger (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several parallels in the goals of the WELL developers had to the format and structure of social networks now. There are several self-governing community based networks that exist but many of them survive because there is a hierarchy based on seniority and personal contributions. When users can be trusted and becomes personally invested, they are willing to maintain and expand the community for free ad moderators and organizers. The people who join topic specific communities of today, who become intimately involved with the community may get more enjoyment from participating if they feel that their status can be elevated above their peers. Rsryan (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The similarities between the Whole Earth Catalog and social networks such as Facebook are numerous. If you set aside minor differences such as the intent, both networks offer pretty much the same networking opportunities for people who are disconnected from the mainstream. One of the WEC's purpose was in fact to sell products to subscribers but that was an underlying aspect. Rather, the main purpose of the WEC was to bring to its subscribers product reviews and suggestions to which they can make informed choices from. The Facebook of today does a similar thing. Users constantly post links to youtube, check in to places they have been, and discuss events that they plan on attending. Gorozco1 (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the WELL seems very similar to the online social networks at are in place today, at least the concept of a space where people of common interest try to achieve a common goal. I only use a small amount of forum boards, once for a pair of sneakers, and shortly realized how people within these niche' virtual communities the gift economy actually works. The "home" feel of some of these online communities is very similar to the feel of a real home. You have the agency to taylor different websites to express yourself and send out the message to others of your interest, breaking all barriers that might have limited someone to join a community before (e.g. geographically), and possibly bonding you with someone else that shares the same. Rheingold and Turner were very much on point with their predictions with the internet and how people interact and express themselves through online outlets. Hectorromero (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)