Creating Virtual Community: Mentoring Kids With Disabilities on the Internet

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca C. Cory ◽  
Sheryl Burgstahler
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet

scholarly journals KOMUNIKASI KOMUNITAS VIRTUAL DAN GAYA HIDUP GLOBAL KAUM REMAJA GAY DI MEDIA SOSIAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-52
Author(s):  
Fita Fathurokhmah
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Social Effects ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Gay Community

AbstractThis study will examine how the virtual community communication is carried out by gay teenagers on Grindr social media. Why is the youth gay community using the Grindr app as a communication tool? What social effects arise from the Grindr application's virtual community communication? This article used Lori Kendall's theory of community and the Internet, that discuss the emergence of social relationships that are mediated by communication via the internet. The findings of this study explain that the characteristics of virtual community communication rise a community that is speech, discourse and practice in nature. These three forms of gay virtual community communication among adolescents cannot be separated because each form has characteristics and is a stage in forming a community.  AbstrakPenelitian ini akan mencermati bagaimana komunikasi komunitas virtual dilakukan kaum gay remaja di media sosial Grindr. Mengapa komunitas gay remaja menggunakan aplikasi Grindr sebagai alat komunikasi? Efek sosial seperti apa yang muncul dari komunikasi komunitas virtual aplikasi Grindr? Artikel ini menggunakan teori community dan internet dari Lori Kendall, yang membahas mengenai munculnya hubungan sosial yang dimediasi oleh komunikasi melalui internet. Temuan kajian ini menjelaskan bahwa karakteristik komunikasi komunitas virtual tersebut memunculkan suatu komunitas yang sifatnya speech, discourse dan practice. Ketiga bentuk komunikasi komunitas virtual Gay di kalangan remaja ini tidak dapat dipisahkan satu sama lain karena masing-masing mempunyai karakteristik dan merupakan tahapan dalam membentuk komunitas.  

scholarly journals Pendekatan Feminist Communication Theory pada Cybercommunity “Cerdas Nonton Televisi”

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Ellys Lestari Pambayun
Keyword(s):  
Communication Theory ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Male Voice ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Smart Watch ◽  
The Status ◽  
Communication Approach ◽  
Sense Of Justice ◽  
The Voice

Penelitian tentang Pendekatan Feminist Communication Theory pada Cybercommunity “Wacana Cerdas Menonton Televisi” di internet berasal dari pengamatan tentang fenomena aktivitas percakapan para perempuan di e-forum Cerdas Nonton Televisi di internet yang memuat kondisi pertelevisian Indonesia di mana di tuang ini ditemukan masalah bahwa internet dengan facebook nya telah membangun suatu hubungan dan wacana para anggotanya secara terbuka, lugas, dan kritis, tanpa melihat status, gender, ekonomi, sosial, agama, dan gaya hidup tentang krisis televisi tanah air yang masih memiliki banyak masalah, baik pada penyiar, produser maupun berita atau program-programnya. Teori yang digunakan adalah paradigma kritis dengan salah satu variannya yaitu feminist communication theory yang bertujuan untuk melihat representasi perempuan di ruang publik yang menyuarakan atau mengkomunikasikan semua aspirasi, rasa keadilan, dan keberadaan mereka. Tujuan penelitian adalah untuk menganalisis cybercommunity perempuan di e-forum ”Cerdas Nonton Televisi” yang menyuarakan atau mewacanakan permasalahan pertelevisian Indonesia. Secara metodologis, penelitian ini menggunakan metode netnografi untuk melihat aktivitas budaya komunitas maya perempuan dalam bentuk percakapan di internet. Hasil pengamatan ini memberikan deskripsi bahwa para perempuan dalam e-forum Cerdas Nonton Televisi (CNT) ini telah berupaya mengoptimalisasikan ruang CNT untuk berkomunikasi atau bersuara kritis bagi terciptanya reformasi pertelevisian untuk lebih prokhalayak dan mencerdaskan bangsa. Namun, suara kritis perempuan masih lebih sedikit dibanding suara laki-laki dalam berwacana dalam ruang CNT ini. Selain, itu suara perempuan yang muncul lebih banyak pada hanya mengikuti status laki-laki, dibanding membuat status sendiri. Pada sisi substansi kritisisme perempuan pun cenderung menyiratkan keprihatinan secara emosioanal dibanding pada pengupayaan ke arah tranformasi secara nyata. Research on Feminist Theory Communication Approach on Cybercommunity “Cerdas Nonton Televisi”(CNT) on the Internet comes from the observation of the phenomenon of conversations activity of women in the e-forum CNT which contains conditions on Indonesian TV in the room where it was found that the problem with the internet (facebook) it has built up a relationship and discourse of its members openly, straightforwardly, and critical, regardless of status, gender, economic, social, religious, and lifestyle on television crisis that the country still has many problems, both on the broadcaster, producer and news or programs. The theory used is critical paradigm with one of its variants, namely feminist communication theory which aims to look at the representation of women in public spaces are voiced or communicate all the aspirations, sense of justice, and their whereabouts. The research objective was to analyze cybercommunity women in e-forum “Smart Watch Television” are voiced or mewacanakan issues on Indonesian TV. Methodologically, this study using netnografi to see the virtual community cultural activity of women in the form of a conversation on the internet. These observations provide a description that the women of the e-forum Smart Watch Television (CNT) has sought to optimize this space to communicate or speak CNT critical for the creation of television for more prokhalayak reform and educate the nation. However, critical voices are still fewer female than a male voice in the discourse in this CNT space. In addition, the voice of women who appear more on just follow the status of men, rather than making their own status. On the substance of the criticism of women also tend to imply concern is emosional than at the insistence towards real transformation.

Virtual Community of Learning Object Repository

2011 ◽  
pp. 1520-1528
Author(s):  
Gilliean Lee
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Community ◽  
Learning Object ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Community Of Learning ◽  
Learning Object Repository ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
Use Of The Internet

In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for innovative ways of delivering education, which led to a more personalized, flexible, and portable learning (Zhang et al., 2004). The use of the Internet to support the needs for learning is commonly referred to as “elearning.”

Defining "Virtual Community"

2008 ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Come

The rise of the Internet has spawned the prolific use of the adjective “virtual.” Both the popular press and scholarly researchers have written about virtual work, virtual teams, virtual organizations, and virtual groups. But perhaps one of the most interesting phenomena to come to the forefront has been that of virtual communities. Many definitions of this term have been proposed and the term has been used in many different ways. This article will examine some of the most popular definitions and guidelines to understand what truly constitutes a virtual community. To define a virtual community, one needs to first examine the two words separately, particularly the sociological definition of “community.” The German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, in his 1887 book, made the distinction between two basic types of social groups: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). The former was often exemplified by the family or neighborhood (Tonnies, 1957). Sociology literature also often refers to the definition given by George Hillery, who reviewed 94 different definitions in academic studies. Three elements were common to the definitions, namely that community (1) was based on geographic areas, (2) included social interaction among people, and (3) had common ties such as social life, norms, means, or ends (Hillery, 1955). Thus the term community typically connotes a group of people within some geographic boundary, such as a neighborhood, or perhaps smaller subsection of a larger city. Further specification might have defined a community as a group of people within the geographic boundary with a common interest, such as the Jewish community of Brooklyn or the physician community of London. Therefore, members of the community were drawn together by both local proximity and common interest, even if the interest was in the geographic area itself. The term virtual, precipitated by the advent of information technology, and specifically, the Internet, means without a physical place as a home (Handy, 1995), or that which is electronic or enabled by technology (Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003). Information technology therefore has expanded the means by which the social interaction in communities can be accomplished. While for most of human existence interaction was strictly limited to the face-to-face medium, social interaction can now be accomplished virtually, thus eliminating the necessity of being physically close enough to communicate. This type of communication is called computer-mediated communication (CMC). Combining the two terms together, thus, would mean eliminating the geographic requirements and allowing that the social interaction would occur virtually, that is, via information technology, among people with common ties. In fact, people have been coming together in virtual communities on the Internet for over 25 years. Usenet newsgroups, started in 1979, are widely regarded as the first virtual communities on the Internet (M. A. Smith, 1999), and The Well (www.well.com), started in 1985, is often referred to as an early exemplar of virtual community (Rheingold, 1993). Virtual communities may be part of a long-term shift away from geographic ties to common interest ties (Wellman & Gulia, 1999b). Formal definitions and understandings of the term virtual community still remain problematic, however (Lee et al., 2003). Perhaps the most cited definition is that of Howard Rheingold, a prominent author, consultant, and member of The Well: Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Rheingold, 1993, p. 5) Common to many of the definitions is the presence of shared interests or goals (Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan, 1998; Figallo, 1998; Kilsheimer, 1997). With the advent of information technology, locating/contacting others outside the local community has become relatively easy, especially when one seeks others who have a unique or uncommon interest. It may be that technology makes it easier for communities to form. For example, it may be difficult for someone interested in traditional bowhunting to locate others with the same inclinations by popping into the local tavern or socializing at a church function. However, a simple search in Google reveals a vibrant community centered around such an interest (www.bowsite.com/). There are virtual communities for nearly every interest that comes to mind, from medical afflictions (e.g., breast cancer, Parkinson’s, Down’s syndrome) to hobbies (e.g., coin collecting, wine, saltwater aquariums) to professions (e.g., nursing, law, finance). Implicit with the notion of community is some permanence among members and frequency of visits by members (A. D. Smith, 1999). Virtual communities must have a sense of long-term interaction (Erickson, 1997), not a place where people go only occasionally or where there are always different people. It is not uncommon for people to develop strong attachments to virtual communities, visiting them often enough to be described as “addicted” (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). The members often feel part of a larger social whole within a web of relationships with others (Figallo, 1998). Indeed, many researchers have considered virtual communities as social networks (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Wellman, 1996; Wellman & Gulia, 1999a). Ridings et al. (2002) offer a comprehensive definition that incorporates the afore-mentioned concepts: Groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism. (p. 273)

Virtual Community and Online Game Players

2011 ◽  
pp. 1757-1763
Author(s):  
Jengchung V. Chen ◽  
Yu-Hsiang Wang
Keyword(s):  
Information And Communication Technology ◽  
Communication Technology ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Online Games ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Game ◽  
Internet Users ◽  
Information And Communication ◽  
Game Players

Since the Internet and other IT technologies have become more popular than ever before, the amount of time people spend with computers and IT products, such as Internet and online games, has increased tremendously. The continuing boom of information and communication technology is causing the Internet to become a part of everyone’s life. People use the Internet not only as a tool for their jobs, but also to participate in virtual communities. Even if the rate of Internet uptake slows considerably (Weisenbacher, 2002), the trend still remains growing. There were 275.5 million people using the Internet in February 2000. That number had changed to 605.60 million in September 2002 (Nua Ltd., 2002). According to Horrigan’s study (2001), 84 percent of Internet users in America have participated in a virtual community. Moreover, apart from the number of people using Internet, the average time spent doing any activity online is increasing.

Virtual Communities for Development

2011 ◽  
pp. 500-505
Author(s):  
Deidra Fryer ◽  
Eric Turner
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Internet Usage ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mass Communications ◽  
Network Television ◽  
Communications Media ◽  
Late Night ◽  
Cable Networks

Americans, and to some extension, the greater world, appear to have an obsession with celebrity. We often find ourselves defined not by our deeds but by our relationship, either real or imagined, with famous people. Celebrity lives appear more appealing or real to us because we can see their lives up close and in ways we cannot see our own. Peter Howe (2005), in his book Paparazzi: And Our Obsession With Celebrity, examines the origins, ethics and our insatiable appetite for celebrity that keeps the paparazzi in such demand. With so many things competing for our attention, we often pursue the path of least resistance. We go to bed and wake up to the celebration of celebrity through mass communications media. The major network television morning news and late-night shows tend to focus only the first 10 minutes of broadcast, if any, on national and local affairs of society, and then quickly retreat to celebrity promotions or gossip. For dinnertime or early evening entertainment, the major networks are filled with such shows as Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood and Celebrity Justice. Cable networks and radio also serve as additional mass-media vehicles to further celebrate and promote celebrity. The Internet has become the newest vehicle to help feed this frenzy of celebrity pursuit. Thousands of virtual communities of interests have developed to help foster a sense of relationships to celebrities, feed these obsessions and escape from reality. Does Internet usage favor the development of new communities, virtual communities; or instead, is it inducing personal isolation, severing people’s ties with society and ultimately the real world? This article examines virtual communities from the perspective of the American obsession with celebrity, using as an example a Yahoo celebrity virtual community that has evolved over a period of four years.

MOOS as Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 329-333
Author(s):  
Shannon Roper ◽  
Sharmila Pixy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Worlds ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Social Constructs ◽  
Book Series ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Defined Culture

Many researchers have observed that the Internet has changed the concept of virtual communities (Barnes, 2001, 2003; Jones, 1995, 1998; Rheingold, 1993). A unique example of virtual communities is a MOO—a specialized interactive online community that is usually based on a work of fiction such as book series, theater or television (Bartle, 1990). MOOs share many of the features of multi-user dimensions (MUDs) in that both allow participants to create their own virtual worlds, but some researchers consider MOOs to be “more sophisticated” (Barnes, 2001, p. 94). In a MOO community, the participants or “players” create their own virtual communities—fantasy communities complete with world structures, interpersonal norms and social constructs. Individual participants create characters complete with environment, history and personality constructs. The characters interact and influence each other and their environments, just as do the members of real-world communities. The MOO discussed in this case study is based on acclaimed fantasy author Anne McCaffery’s book series set on the fictional world of “Pern.” The players on DragonWings1 MOO create and develop characters over long periods, often many years, leading to the establishment and creation of a strong MOO. In this article we provide a case study of the DragonWings MOO as a unique virtual community. Because the concept of virtual communities is evolving with the Internet, and no definitive understanding of virtual community or virtual culture yet exists, we have chosen to structure our analysis of DragonWings MOO around the classical anthropological definition of culture and community. A seminal definition of culture, first articulated by Tylor (1871), provides the springboard for a number of anthropological definitions widely used today. Building on Tylor, White (1959), a prominent cultural scholar, defined culture as “within human organisms, i.e., concepts, beliefs, emotions, attitudes; within processes of social interaction among human beings; and within natural objects” (p. 237). He also identified symbols as a primary defining characteristic of culture. White’s simple yet comprehensive definition yields clear criteria that lend themselves to our analysis of MOOs. At the broadest level, an application of the criteria provides support for the acceptance of the Internet as a distinct and unique culture. At a more particular level, they provide a convenient tool for the analysis of a MOO as a virtual community. In the remainder of this article, we will utilize the definition outlined above to demonstrate the features that make DragonWings MOO a unique example of a virtual community.

Information Navigation and Knowledge Discovery in Virtual Communities

2011 ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Wenyuan Li ◽  
Kok-Leong Ong
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Discovery ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Online Community ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Media Technology ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Information Navigation

Over the past decade, advances in the Internet and media technology have literally brought people closer than ever before. It is interesting to note that traditional sociological definitions of a community have been outmoded, for community has extended far beyond the geographical boundaries that were held by traditional definitions (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Virtual or online community was defined in such a context to describe various forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Although virtual communities do not necessarily arise from the Internet, the overwhelming popularity of the Internet is one of the main reasons that virtual communities receive so much attention (Rheingold, 1999). The beginning of virtual communities is attributed to scientists who exchanged information and cooperatively conduct research during the 1970s. There are four needs of participants in a virtual community: member interest, social interaction, imagination, and transaction (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). The first two focus more on the information exchange and knowledge discovery; the imagination is for entertainment; and the transaction is for commerce strategy. In this article, we investigate the function of information exchange and knowledge discovery in virtual communities. There are two important inherent properties embedded in virtual communities (Wellman, 2001):

Defining "Virtual Community"

2011 ◽  
pp. 116-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Ridings
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Social Interaction ◽  
Virtual Communities ◽  
Virtual Community ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Come

The rise of the Internet has spawned the prolific use of the adjective “virtual.” Both the popular press and scholarly researchers have written about virtual work, virtual teams, virtual organizations, and virtual groups. But perhaps one of the most interesting phenomena to come to the forefront has been that of virtual communities. Many definitions of this term have been proposed and the term has been used in many different ways. This article will examine some of the most popular definitions and guidelines to understand what truly constitutes a virtual community. To define a virtual community, one needs to first examine the two words separately, particularly the sociological definition of “community.” The German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies, in his 1887 book, made the distinction between two basic types of social groups: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). The former was often exemplified by the family or neighborhood (Tonnies, 1957). Sociology literature also often refers to the definition given by George Hillery, who reviewed 94 different definitions in academic studies. Three elements were common to the definitions, namely that community (1) was based on geographic areas, (2) included social interaction among people, and (3) had common ties such as social life, norms, means, or ends (Hillery, 1955). Thus the term community typically connotes a group of people within some geographic boundary, such as a neighborhood, or perhaps smaller subsection of a larger city. Further specification might have defined a community as a group of people within the geographic boundary with a common interest, such as the Jewish community of Brooklyn or the physician community of London. Therefore, members of the community were drawn together by both local proximity and common interest, even if the interest was in the geographic area itself. The term virtual, precipitated by the advent of information technology, and specifically, the Internet, means without a physical place as a home (Handy, 1995), or that which is electronic or enabled by technology (Lee, Vogel, & Limayem, 2003). Information technology therefore has expanded the means by which the social interaction in communities can be accomplished. While for most of human existence interaction was strictly limited to the face-to-face medium, social interaction can now be accomplished virtually, thus eliminating the necessity of being physically close enough to communicate. This type of communication is called computer-mediated communication (CMC). Combining the two terms together, thus, would mean eliminating the geographic requirements and allowing that the social interaction would occur virtually, that is, via information technology, among people with common ties. In fact, people have been coming together in virtual communities on the Internet for over 25 years. Usenet newsgroups, started in 1979, are widely regarded as the first virtual communities on the Internet (M. A. Smith, 1999), and The Well (www.well.com), started in 1985, is often referred to as an early exemplar of virtual community (Rheingold, 1993). Virtual communities may be part of a long-term shift away from geographic ties to common interest ties (Wellman & Gulia, 1999b). Formal definitions and understandings of the term virtual community still remain problematic, however (Lee et al., 2003). Perhaps the most cited definition is that of Howard Rheingold, a prominent author, consultant, and member of The Well: Social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace. (Rheingold, 1993, p. 5) Common to many of the definitions is the presence of shared interests or goals (Dennis, Pootheri, & Natarajan, 1998; Figallo, 1998; Kilsheimer, 1997). With the advent of information technology, locating/contacting others outside the local community has become relatively easy, especially when one seeks others who have a unique or uncommon interest. It may be that technology makes it easier for communities to form. For example, it may be difficult for someone interested in traditional bowhunting to locate others with the same inclinations by popping into the local tavern or socializing at a church function. However, a simple search in Google reveals a vibrant community centered around such an interest (www.bowsite.com/). There are virtual communities for nearly every interest that comes to mind, from medical afflictions (e.g., breast cancer, Parkinson’s, Down’s syndrome) to hobbies (e.g., coin collecting, wine, saltwater aquariums) to professions (e.g., nursing, law, finance). Implicit with the notion of community is some permanence among members and frequency of visits by members (A. D. Smith, 1999). Virtual communities must have a sense of long-term interaction (Erickson, 1997), not a place where people go only occasionally or where there are always different people. It is not uncommon for people to develop strong attachments to virtual communities, visiting them often enough to be described as “addicted” (Hiltz, 1984; Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). The members often feel part of a larger social whole within a web of relationships with others (Figallo, 1998). Indeed, many researchers have considered virtual communities as social networks (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997; Wellman, 1996; Wellman & Gulia, 1999a). Ridings et al. (2002) offer a comprehensive definition that incorporates the afore-mentioned concepts: Groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly and for some duration in an organized way over the Internet through a common location or mechanism. (p. 273)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document