Virtual Community

“Shared consciousness and collectivity”

“Members of a single social network”

“Collaborative community”

“Community building”

“Virtual community as a way to restore a ‘cooperative spirit’”

These are a few of the ways Turner describes the virtual community of the WELL from the 1980s. Virtual communities are a valuable way to bring people together in spite of geographic boundaries to share ideas, information and collaborate.

A "Simple" Social Network

Certainly for the community of the WELL, these various descriptions came to fruition. However, it is important to point out that while online gathering places can create community and collaboration, they bring together like-minded individuals. For instance, the objective of the WELL was to bring together the readers and contributors of the Whole Earth Catalog and provide a venue for those seeking a commune way of life.

Today, one could say virtual communities create chasms in society through the creation of innumerable specialty communities. While these communities create a collective group of their members, they can alienate outsiders.

The World of Warcraft fans featured in the documentary “Digital Nation” were depicted as a tight-knit community. In fact, couples even met and later married thanks to the online World of Warcraft forums. However, outsiders of this group – such as the class of COM641 – viewed the devotion of the gamers to be laughable. 

Virtual communities have many benefits, but we must be careful not to get too lost in our online worlds. It’s important to live in a reality where interactions do not merely exist with individuals with our same passions and ideas. Turner briefly touches on disagreement occurring on the WELL when he quotes several members recounting heated debates.

Everyday, we are forced to interact with individuals with different opinions, experiences and hobbies. Becoming too involved in virtual community can lead us astray from offline communities and the ability to interact, collaborate and innovate with different perspectives.

Response to Squires and Netspeak

A collaborative piece by myself, Jake Regal and John Zimmerman

Speaking from two generations of experience, we have witnessed the use of slang and variations of language in our lifetimes. For instance, from the days of Arthur Fonzarelli to Justin Bieber different slang and language shortcuts have been prevalent. Language changes and evolves over time in relation to social trends and technology.

          

We believe that netspeak is not a new phenomenon and is not a threat to the  health of the English language. By looking at formal and informal communication and historical examples, it can be seen that education has an important role in maintaining the standards of proper English.

        

There are two distinct forms of communication, formal and informal. Netspeak would be classified as a means of informal communication because it happens in the context of interpersonal relationships. Whereas formal communication takes place in business applications, academia, and the legal world. Because these two forms of communication have different functions in society, there is little opportunity for netspeak to contaminate formal communication. For instance, a client proposal would not use nonstandard spelling replacements for “you” and “are.”

Teaching and protecting the English language is still vital.

Social groups have always had their own dialects. Even though they use their own lingo, slang, and language shortcuts, they have always relied on standard English. The standard English is a common ground of communication so we maintain this knowledge in order to communicate with different social, generational, and ethnic groups. Using social group slang as an example of a prominent language, we can say with certainty that netspeak will not be detrimental to standard English.

The creation and evolution of netspeak is not a new phenomenon. In her article “Enregistering Internet Language,” Lauren Squires admits, “many features named as belonging to Netspeak have long been prevalently used in other written contexts” (2010). As previously stated, different iterations of language have often evolved out of social trends and technology. Abbreviated languages can be dated back to the use of the telegraph. This medium provided the genesis of texting because there were space and character constraints on the message. The telegraph was introduced well before the internet and has not proven to be a detriment due to standard English.

Although netspeaking is becoming a common practice, there is still a need to practice and strengthen the use of standard English. Formal education has always had an important role in teaching proper language use despite informal social influences. Education needs to maintain that role today by rejecting the practices of netspeak in classroom settings. Teachers should eliminate netspeak from the classroom and demand the use of proper English in assignments.

Written and verbal communication skills are still highly valued in the professional world. It is imperative that the next generation is taught these skills so that they can be successful communicators. Netspeak may be the appropriate dialects on the streets, but in the professional world, formal communication is the standard practice.

Netspeak can be defined as a language of the new generation but as history has shown, the standard English reigns supreme.  

Internet Language

Acronyms, new words and specialized phrases are common in our society. Walk into any company, and it will take you time to learn the lingo. A video was created at my husband’s company that showed a room full of employees around a conference table speaking solely in acronyms. Needless to say, if you were not a part of their organization, they were speaking Greek to you.

Lauren Squires admits that many of the features belonging to the Internet language can be seen in other contexts. This fact can make us more comfortable with the new terms and acronyms we have created to communicate electronically. The Internet Language isn’t a new phenomena, it is merely a new iteration what societies have practiced for centuries.

The ability to communicate online in Internet Language is important,
 but it doesn't diminish the value of Standard English and grammar.

The creation and use of an Internet Language influences our online interactions, but it will not overtake our “Standard English” language. Look at any job description today, and strong written and verbal communication skills are included as a requirement.

In our mediated world, the ability to communicate clearly is more important than ever. We must understand and be able to use Internet Language so that we can communicate with various audiences and markets. However, this doesn’t mean that we value grammar, spelling and good writing any less.  After all, when it comes to learning a new language, having a solid understanding of your own helps the learning process.

Online Identity and Community

Han states that “the act of writing…establishes Being for a subject on the Internet.” But what if you do not contribute content to the Internet and instead only lurk? Or, a more interesting question, what if you misrepresent yourself?

We got on this topic in Tuesday’s class, and the first thing that came to mind was Brad Paisley’s song, “Online” in which an online user makes himself more attractive online by using different photo and making up facts about his interests and accomplishments.

Brad Paisley - Online (Official Music Video). Watch more top selected videos about: Brad Paisley, 5th Gear

The Internet has transformed the “traditional rules of membership in a community” according to Han, and I agree. Most online groups or communities allow easy entry. An individual simply shows interest in joining, clicks a couple of buttons and has access to the group’s content and members. Offline, we require presence, application and often a fee to join an organization or a group.

The new rules of community have both advantages and disadvantages. Organizations and communities are now able to connect with individuals regardless of space and time. My church views this as a benefit as they are able to share Sunday messages with individuals around the world.

Security is a concern of the new online communities. You can no longer know everyone who belongs to your community, and a stranger from across the country – or the globe - now has access to a piece of your personal information

Another glaring disadvantage is the quality of the community declines. Individuals do not have to be committed to the organization or contribute at all to be considered members of the online group. 

Unfortunately, this mentality is translating to offline organizations, too. Younger generations who have always belonged to online communities are not as dedicated to their offline counterparts. Young college graduates want to be a part of their alumni association, but don’t dare ask them to write a check or attend a meeting. They’ll contribute their thoughts online, thank you very much.

I have also observed this in my church. As a large church, you would assume the administration would have no difficulty signing up volunteers. Yet every year, they practically beg for more people to volunteer and get personally involved.

Our identities online are created by the content we post about ourselves and the communities we join. However, we must remain committed and active to our affiliations – both off and online – in order to create and maintain communities that are worth joining. 

Does Presence Matter?

Our class discussion of Adorno and Horkhiemer and their criticism of technology provoked a lot of comments in class and thinking outside of it. For my friends who read my blog and don’t get to grace the COM 641 classroom, these guys were concerned that technology was making high culture accessible to the masses.

Terrible, I know.

While I don’t agree with their criticism of technology – I’m glad I have access to high culture events that used to be reserved for the bourgeois – I do question if the use of technology to experience events alters our experience.

I’ve personally observed this at church. I attend a large church in the Grand Rapids area, and the church leaders decided to use technology to bring the message to the masses. Instead of cramming 1,000 people into a room, a single message is broadcast into 3 different “video venues.” Attendees enjoy the experience of a smaller gathering of people while enjoying the message of a gifted teacher.

I personally have chosen not to attend the video venues because I prefer the experience of watching the service “live.” Even though the only part broadcast is the message, I continue to cling to the physical presence of the experience to make it real to me. Because presence matters. Or does it?

During class this week, one of my classmates shared his experience of watching the Detroit Pistons win the NBA championship in 1990. In his opinion, he was at the game – even though he watched it at the Palace broadcast on TV while the actual game took place in Portland.

Nowadays, we often say we experienced or “saw” an event take place even though we only get the mediated version – whatever is broadcast over the TV or internet. Since our worlds are broadened to include every mediated event, does presence matter? Do we have to be somewhere for the experience?

Obviously, presence still matters. Otherwise, no one would purchase season sports tickets. After all, who wants to pay the outrageous prices to sit in varying weather? And if presence didn’t matter, we would all Skype with each other and save resources traveling to visit in person.

However, I think we often settle for second best. I’m not able to see my brother every week because he lives in Arlington, Virginia, so I settle for his phone calls, emails and Facebook posts. I would argue that it does alter the experience. Online interactions will never replace the value of face-to-face, and even though we have access to different experiences, it doesn’t necessarily mean we receive the same quality of experience.