Social and Structural Properties of Virtual Communities Examples
In order to learn more about what makes a good virtual community examples, let’s examine some examples. Social and structural properties of a community can include: Relationship orientation, Scale, and Real-time chat. In addition, we’ll cover some of the basic components of a virtual community, including:
Social and structural properties of virtual communities
Although the definition and classification of virtual communities are still up for debate, the proposed typology has some merits. Its focus on two first-level categories is member-initiated communities and organization-sponsored communities. In addition to being self-governing, sponsoring organizations typically have key stakeholders or beneficiaries. Using this approach, the typology can serve both researchers and practitioners. Here we describe the proposed typology and discuss its strengths and limitations.
One of the main benefits of virtual communities is that they can be as large or small as people would like. This flexibility is a key advantage over traditional communities, which have limited scope for growth. States and local governments struggle to control the flow of information across their boundaries, and some researchers have even speculated that virtual communities will one day replace entire countries. In any case, the Internet has helped people form communities defined by common interests, and at a very spontaneous pace.
Real-time chat
While some communities are strictly social, others may not be so open. One example is Geocities, which fosters subject-specific information exchange. In 1981, the PLATO V terminal displayed the RankTrek application. Today, virtual communities have been used by social and professional groups to engage in various types of communication. While these communities are primarily social, some use a more formal communication model like an email distribution list.
The advantages of real-time chat in virtual communities are obvious: a familiar environment, privacy, and instant messaging. Users enjoy the benefits of both, especially sports fans. Real-time chat also facilitates collaboration, partnerships, and improved search results. It can also improve the experience of community members. But why does this feature work so well? Read on to learn more about this emerging feature. You’ll be glad you added it to your community.
Relationship orientation
Researchers from different disciplines recognize the importance of relationship orientation in virtual communities. Although the’supporting technology’ factor is considered important, it primarily reflects information systems research. The proposed typology of virtual communities also considers relationship orientation. Relationship orientation is one of the two key categorization variables. Organization-sponsored communities focus on relationships among members, whereas member-initiated communities are more focused on social and professional relationships.
Across all virtual communities, there is an underlying concept of place. Place is associated with a geographical area that fosters a sense of belonging. In addition, the physical properties of the space determine the types of interactions between community members. The notion of place is problematic in virtual communities, because it imply a bounded location. This assumption is often counterproductive. Rather than using a spatial model of community, virtual communities are conceptualized in terms of a shared sense of place.
Scale of a community
While examining a virtual community, it is important to consider the scale in which the community operates. As a result, different members of the community will have varying senses of place. In a sense, the scale is not about size or density but about a community’s underlying values. The scale of connectedness reflects how closely members of a community work together, share values, and build trust with each other.
The psychometric properties of the CCS were assessed using Rovai’s Classroom Community Scale (CCS). The CCS contains 20 items ranging from 0 to 4, with odd-numbered items related to feelings of connectedness and even-numbered items relating to learning and participation. Each item was weighted, and the sum of the responses provided the overall scale. This measurement allows a community to understand how its members feel about the online community.
Speed of forming a community
Forming a virtual community requires time, intention, and a willingness to change. Creating a community is much easier than building a traditional one; the Internet provides the necessary tools to form an online community defined by shared interests. The first step to creating a resilient virtual community is empathy. This muscle needs to be developed, so to speak. Understanding the dynamics of forming a virtual community is critical to its success.
Unlike traditional communities, the speed of forming a virtual community is highly dependent on the communication infrastructure. Inadequate communication infrastructure is a common problem for any community, as it increases costs and limits the activities of members. The challenges that communities face are further complicated by differences in user skills and technologies. In this article, we outline the most common types of challenges for managing virtual communities and summarize some relevant theories. We will now discuss the benefits of a “many-to-many” communication model for developing virtual communities.
Discrimination against computer nerds in virtual communities
The emergence of online social networking sites and the rise of ‘geek culture’ has led to a gender gap in some of these communities. In contrast, the free culture of these communities tends to exclude people who don’t fit stereotypical gender roles. This minority may affect the community’s dynamic in disproportionate ways. Although many of these communities are open and accepting, the ideology of freedom can also suppress concerns and rationalize low female participation.
While the free culture community is increasingly welcoming of women, there has been a reactionary response to sexism. Average men and anti-feminists are quick to dismiss the significance of feminist issues in FOSS communities. Ubuntu contributor Matt Zimmerman has noted that the response to bringing up the issue often involves a backlash. Regardless of the response from the community, it is important to understand the impact of such attitudes on the overall health of the free culture community.
