Followers of this discussion might be interested in a remarkably parallel discussion which has been an on-going theme of the Community Informatics e-list <communityinformatics@vcn.bc.ca> archived at http://www.vcn.bc.ca/lists/communityinformatics This list is mostly from within the worlds of (geo)Community Information Systems practitioners and Information Systems academics. (Community Informatics is the term that is coming to be applied from within the Information Systems profession to the application of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT's) to enabling community processes and achieving "community" objectives.) A few unconnected observations linking this discussion to that on the CI list: * to date in the discussion here there has been no reference to either "Community Networks", "Community Technology Centres" or related practical developments such as Telecentres, Community Communications Centres, Telecottages and others. Omitting reference to these removes from the <Air> discussion a very considerable set of practical examples of interaction between "community" and technology which could usefully inform the on-going discussion. The results to date from these quite large scale developments (tens of thousands of community telecentres, thousands of community networks, perhaps hundreds of thousands of community technology centres), has been decidedly mixed but if nothing else, it is clear that policy makers concerned with development have quite enthusiastically adopted the notion of "community" and linked it with Information Technology. * there appear to be quite different issues concerning "community" in urban as compared to rural areas or small cities. In non-urban areas ICT's appear to fit quite comfortably into pre-existing institutional/organizational/leadership structures, with the boundaries of the technology enabled community being relatively seamless in overlapping with physical/political/cultural boundaries. What this has meant is that "community" oriented technology installations appear to have had broader grass roots success in non-urban areas than in urban ones. In urban areas, these efforts have had less visibility and overall have been more closely linked with formal institutions such as schools or libraries. The significance of multiple and overlapping networked linkages in non-urban communities as compared to the more limited linkages in urban communities is perhaps of some explanatory significance in understanding different types virtual communities as well. * a central issue affecting (geo) Community Networks is their on-going economic/institutional "sustainability"--how will they survive once the initial source of funding or volunteer participation is exhausted. The issue of "sustainability" of course, raises issues of the range of benefits which the technology provides to community members and the on-going long term value of these benefits. In the physical environment this has come to mean the financial benefits which accrue to participants which can be seen as more or less directly paralleling the non-financial/psychological benefits accruing to virtual community members. * many of the (geo) community technology efforts have been linked more or less consciously with community empowerment, i.e. providing community members with tools and techniques to accomplish objectives which may have been impossible without these. The issue of community technology and community power is of great significance in a variety of local physical contexts. The possible role of virtual communities as alternative sources of organizational power is perhaps worthy of parallel examination. * overall, these questions are not of purely academic interest. Very considerable public (and private philanthropic as well as commercial) resources are being directed toward responding to the perceived Digital Divide as well as using ICT's as a platform for enabling economic and social development in Less Developed Countries. How these resources should be channelled, as for example through "community" institutions, voluntary groups, or to individuals (e.g. as entrepreneurs) to a degree depends on whether "communities" are seen as having sufficient substance to support these objectives. In this sense then, the notion of "community" is one which is worthy of the attention being addressed to it on this and the Community Informatics lists. A number of these issues are discussed at more length in: L. Keeble & B, Loader (Eds.) Community Informatics : Shaping Computer-Mediated Social Networks, Routledge, 2001; and M. Gurstein (Ed.) Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communications Technologies, Idea Group, 2000. All the best for the season, Mike Gurstein Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. (Visiting) Professor: School of Management New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ -----Original Message----- From: air-l-admin@aoir.org [mailto:air-l-admin@aoir.org]On Behalf Of Wendy Robinson Sent: December 26, 2001 1:33 AM To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: [Air-l] Community and Commerce Do we not shop in our real-world communities? Are we not appealed to with advertisements? Where is the disconnect with online communities? Are virtual communities different today (this may have been partially what David was initially inquiring about)? Can they still be theorized as utopian, even other worldly? If so, does that take us back to 1992, rather than helping us develop theory for post-dot-com 2002? I'm really asking, partially from a pedagogical standpoint. My experience is that undergraduates today rarely are aware of a pre-commercial Internet; they can hardly get their heads around the concept that seems to strike them as quaint, not part of their experience hence interest. It's history, and all that that implies. The world that we're preparing them for is a world in which the Net has been mainstreamed. As has been often discussed with AoIR and the digital divide and legal issues, the Net isn't removed from real-world complexities. Money isn't far behind, if it is behind, race, gender, sexuality and identity in instigating such complexities. I'm unconvinced that the skills that students need to make sense of offline/online today can be understood without taking into account commercialization (hopefully with equanimity, although it can be difficult) or doesn't make use of other media theory by inference that also has had to come to terms with real-world financial concerns (e.g., newspapers, radio, television, the pamphleteering of nonprofit organizations). In 2002, what might an online community without commerce have to offer? What are representative examples? What would such a community feel like from a participating member's standpoint? How would the community be economically sustained? Does no commerce or company affiliation mean no marketing messages? Would such a community necessarily be marginalized or otherwise insular (e.g., an "Amish" community of the online world)? What could be learned from such a community? Wendy Robinson wgrobin@duke.edu _______________________________________________ Air-l mailing list Air-l@aoir.org http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l