It’s usually acceptable to have lurkers within a community – it’s never acceptable to have lurkers within a team.
(Retrieved from my notes on the Virtual Doctoral School back in 2007)
It’s usually acceptable to have lurkers within a community – it’s never acceptable to have lurkers within a team.
(Retrieved from my notes on the Virtual Doctoral School back in 2007)
Anesa’s thinking about where the borders of linear programming lie. I’m thinking about where the borders are on virtual communities.
A lot of people I read (I’m reading Gary Burnett on information exchange in virtual communites, at the moment) characterise a virtual community as what you see happening online. It’s the people posting and it’s what they post.
The community has a lot of subsets: newbies, who are just getting the hang of it; members, who have taken a recognised part in a sizeable and interesting thread, lurkers who are hidden away on the fringes.
However Katz (Luring the lurkers – archived on slashdot) argues that the online stuff is just the tip of the iceberg and that you don’t understand a virtual community at all if you only look at how it interacts in public.
For him, many lurkers are interested parties who are often willing and able to communicate on a one-to-one basis but are not happy with the risks and costraints of posting to the whole community. Katz’s piece may be grey literature but it’s a really useful view of lurking.
Katz also says that, while the public face of what happens in his blog is that there is an enormous amount of flaming in fact, hidden from the public gaze, is a huge amount of one-to-one supportive and helpful communication.
Ruth Brown (see below. (Must post more notes on her article.)) also looks at the extension of the community away from the public forum. For her, the top membership level of a virtual community are those people who are communicating away from the public forum – the ones who are emailing each other, ringing each other and meeting face to face.
I seem to read a lot about the positive aspects of communities, virtual comunities and learning communities. What are the negative aspects? Has anyone looked at them?
Real-world communities often define themselves in terms of the other, in terms of what they are not. Is that true of online communities? Do online communities do that but with a much smaller population? Of the people who have signed in, and are nominally members, some are the in-crowd, some are on the fringes and a lot (the majority?) are a silent, lurking group who can be construed in negative terms – too lazy to post, too stupid to post, taking but not giving, a threatening presence, a judging presence…
I guess we all lurk in some communities, however briefly, so lurking has benefits for those who do it. Jumping straight into a community and posting without a period of lurking would usually be a mistake, so growing communities do need lurkers.
Should a community have a system for pulling lurkers in towards the centre? For example, on FirstClass, lurking individuals could be addressed directly because their identitiy is available in the message history. This would probably happen in a successful real-world learning community – those who sit quietly on the fringes are usually invited to give an opinion or speak at some time.