The Dialogue of Online Communities

In this weeks readings both Howard and Shirky note that technology is only part of the process in creating an online community. Howards reminds us that, “all too often, people confuse the technology that is used to enable a community with the community itself” (Howard 23). Shirky states: “mere tools aren’t enough. The tools are simply a way of channeling existing motivation” (Shirky 17). This motivation can be seen in Howard’s example of the “Impeach Mark Sanford adhocracy” (Howard 25). Although this example falls under Howard’s category of an adhocracy (does not count as an online community because it is temporary) it does show how online groups can be motivated to do something other then guess the ending of a Survivor series, as seen in Jenkins’, Convergence Culture (Jenkins 25-58).  

Also differing from Jenkins is Shirky’s awareness of the negative aspects of institutionalized communication, where most of the time, “our strong talents and desires for group effort have been filtered through relatively rigid institutional structures because of the complexity of managing groups” (Shirky 21). It is difficult to argue against this, especially in light of Shirky’s Flickr example, where a “loosely affiliated group can accomplish something more effectively than the institution can” (Shirky 46). For more on rigid institutional structures thwarting progress see Tim Wu’s The Master Switch, which traces the history of the information industry.  

While I can see the limitations to some versions of online communities (especially those communities only motivated to guess the endings of TV shows) I am as hopeful as Shirky that we have stumbled upon a way out of this mess: “social tools provide a third alternative: action by loosely structured groups, operating without managerial direction and outside the profit motive” (Shirky 47). For me, “outside the profit motive” is a key distinction that leaves open the ability for Kolko’s sense of “humanity” to be placed within the process (Kolko 12).  

Likewise, these readings also filled a gap in Kolko’s work as well. This can be seen in Howard’s depictions of online communities that establish real relationships and ongoing dialogues. Are these communities a means to obtaining the dialogue Kolko and Laurel see necessary in the design and interface world? Howard makes the point that, more then mere advertising, with an online community, “you have an opportunity to provide a relationship with your user” (Howard 35). So this appears as an actual way to start the dialogue that Kolko and Laurel suggest, in contrast to what usually happens: “normally, a company has to expend a tremendous amount of money on conducting research studies that enable them to discover what their consumers’ needs are” (Howard 38).