Talk:Virtual community

message: I removed AlwaysOn Zaibatzu from the list of communities here. The site seemed extremely obscure (so much so that it has no Wikipedia article and an external link was supplied in the text.) Thus, it bore little relevance in an article of general interest. Online communities number in the tens of thousands and to point out each one would be folly. - Chardish 05:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AlwaysOn Zaibatzu 

message: What is the criteria for being included as a virtual community expert? Nancy White August 23, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16.254.22.58 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: I tucked the Habitat into the "other" category to remind myself to revisit this topic later (nevermind, I dropped the edit to link The Habitat (video game) because it currently isn't a good fit in the article).  It might be more instructive to have the listings broken down by technology type and also to differentiate between classic/landmark communities (such as the Habitat, WELL, and Wikipedia) and other exemplar sites.  Any thoughts? -- Dx 1227/21/11/05 — Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rethinking the online community listings 

message: Why not?  I read the other article and it really does not add much to the conversation.  If you take a couple of those links (that should be ported) summarize the commentary and drop the rest, that should be sufficient for a merge and redirect.  If Perfecto is not interested in doing all of the heavy lifting, I can take a shot at rehabbing the entry once the merge is completed (since I was planning on proposing a new information structure anyway).  -- Dx 1628/24/11/05 — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Merging [[Community_site|Community Site]] article into this one 

message: What are the criteria for inclusion in the Examples section? Does the scary warning "Do not add HTML links...speedy deletion" refer to Wiki articles about virtual communities? Flopzee 17:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: My suggestion would be to start a list on this page of "exemplar" sites and the purpose they serve.  Community/Medical Support Groups are heavily cited in the VC literature, and would be a legitimate group to receive mention.  Right now the article doesn't have a natural place for a discussion on different domains of use for VCs.  IMO, that should be considered.  -- Dx 19:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Example list

message: Not quite sure what to do with this.  It may be the first web-based chat room of some kind (can some third party verify this?), but being first doesn't necessarily make it landmark.  Noteworthy, yes.  Landmark, possibly.  Benchmark, no.  I didn't quibble with LiveJournal being put there because I wasn't interested in getting into the semantics of there being no real functional difference between it and Blogger--with Blogger being better known, backed by an industry giant, with a widely proliferated API that is viewed as a de facto standard.  LiveJournal at least has an interesting grassroots quality to it like a MySpace, but notice MySpace isn't up there either.  Blogger has all the requisite components of an online community, with at least as many as LJ if not more features.  If the question is asked if something like a Bianca belongs beside an eBay, Slashdot and Geocities in terms of impact/influence--we're talking about archetypes here, not just notoriety--most reasonable people with knowledge of the topic would say no.  And if the claim is only that it has the first web-based chat client, that really doesn't even qualify it as WWW entry nor is it anywhere near large enough to drop into the chat-based categories.  Thanks.  -- Dx 20:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Bianca.com (with a little LiveJournal thrown in) 

message: I've added a bounty on this page...$20USD to the Foundation if this article is improved to the point that it is a Featured Article before the due date. Please don't prove me wrong about the Wikipedia community :^) --Kickstart70·Talk 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantabulous. Lets get started on the to do list. SiDNEy 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested. We got the main Community article from a stubby disjointed mess up to GA status in a mere fortnight, with the help of the WP:1.0 crew. I'm willing to collaborate on an effort to redo this article, as it is high on the list at WP:CBTF. • CQ 20:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bounty has been placed on this page 

message: What are the objective criteria to decide whether or not an Art Community should be permitted to be listed? -- Epiphyte 17:50pm, 14 May 06
I own an art community website, PaperDemon.com and I was wondering if it could be added under Additional virtual community listings > Art communities. I don't want people thinking I'm spamming. There are 1100+ members. I hope I fit the criteria for being listed, whenever it is that you decide what the criteria are. BogusRed 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art Community Criterion 

message: Why is there no mention of the sociopolitical structure of virtual communities in this article?  Is it irrelevant to members or potential members of online communities regarding how much say they have in the development of their communities?  Just because the communities are not "real" does that mean  that totalitarian power structures are of no consequence?  How many democratic virtual communities are there? -- Epiphyte 17:50pm, 14 May 06
:I think you make a very interesting point. Many postal based virtual communities historically allowed people to overcome barriers to communication with like minded people on a variety of political and societal issues. The term virtual community includes not online Internet-based media, but also other mass media such as newspapers, where individuals often debate with each other through letters pages for instance --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Community Sociopolitical Structure 

message: # Put numbers on citations for what they reffer to.SiDNEy 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: The main Community article is being refactored and will likely have a section that deals with this topic and will link to here. • CQ 20:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main [[Community]] article 

message: The paragraph in the Overview section about Web 2.0 makes no sense.  I couldn't see when that got added in the history, but I think it ought to either be cleaned up severely or just removed.
--Ted Mielczarek 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web 2.0? 

message: This section seems to be the continual target of what appears to be vanity edits for or by Vanessa DiMauro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotoftruth (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr/Ms Klostermankl: What is the case for Mr Drayer's notability or pioneering nature. I see he founded "Careflash", but there are now thousands of virtual communities. My sense is that Wikipedia generally frowns on organizational self-promotion. Thanks for your interest. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm not self-promoting.  Although CareFlash isn't a very well-known community, mostly because it applies to a smaller percentage of the population.  I believe it is still notable.  That's fine though if you choose not to post it. I appreciate your response and effort in keeping some integrity of info that's on Wiki. Klostermankl (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Community Pioneers and Experts 

message: This very important article is ready for a overhaul in my not-so-humble opinion. I rewote the head and add the notes section for citing sources. I took out  for now and removed that something awful picture. Sorry. I just think there are some better pictures to use on this article. Lets work together on this thing and bring this puppy up to standards, as in featured article. Wouldn't that be nice? CQ 18:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: On the AFD page for this article, several people said that this article book report was a good start but needs more work. I suggest that if no substantive improvements have happened to this article book report in a few months, this article should go through AFD again, referencing the fact that it hasn't improved and is still just a book report. Nova SS 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I added a cleanup template to indicate this position. MaxVeers 14:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey folks, take another look, this is a valid article!  It has been added to considerably since the AfD.  It now lists several noted virtual communities and some key references.  it still needs work, but I think it has promise.  Sunray 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renominate for deletion in a few months unless ...

message: Someone put a proposed deletion tag on this article, citing "original research."  Perhaps we could clarify what constitutes original research. Here's the definition from the policy:
Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
Since the article has abundant citations from published sources, it is highly unlikely that it is original research.  To be so, it would have to provide analysis that goes beyond those sources.  Does it do this? Not as far as I can see.  It is a valid encyclopedia article pure and simple. Moreover, I would argue that it is an important article, given the increase in research in this field. I'm not saying that the article is perfect, or even great. There's lots of room for improvement. However, it is a valid article. 
There are some statements in the article that do not have citations. If folks have concerns about such statements, they have only to add the  tag which adds  to the sentence or paragraph in question. Can we agree on this? Sunray 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed deletion tag

message: http://www.ocreport.com/ appears to be a dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.5.186 (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: I'm puzzled by the long (and somewhat ungrammatical) quotation of Jones. It isn't research-based, it is highly speculative, and the data suggest that it is wrong. Bellagio99 12:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Jones?

message: Oppose Both Social Network Service and Virtual Community" are articles that need help -- especially protection from link spam -- but they are not identical. There are many more kinds of virtual communities than social network services, and SNS such as Facebook are evolving into more than virtual communities. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of [[Social Network Service]] with [[Virtual Community]]?

message: To my mind, VC Hunter, a new editor, overdid the deletions on Virtual Community by deleting large chunks of the article in favor of a "more contemporary feel". Moreover, his additions are filled with specialized post-modern talk. I suggest that a better approach to improve the article would be for VC Hunter (or other editors) basically keep what is there and add their own material, although in a language that is more comprehensible to general readers. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To my mind Bellagio99 you need to refer to WP:COI and WP:OWN as perhaps unknowingly  VC Hunter removed some of your edits where you cite yourself. MultimediaGuru (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Multimedia Guru, I reverted for substantive reasons. I believe we need a historical section. A number of people were cited there. Please refrain from personal attacks. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining rollback of recent edit

message: I have move the content related to motivation to participate to a new page: Online participation.
This will be useful to the understanding of the subject that is relatively elaborated, and deserves a page of its own. It will also be helpfull for facilitating the linking to other concepts such as social motivation, e-participation, etc. 
I hope this is all right for you --Nabeth (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of a separate page: Online participation 

message: I used to use the terms 'virtual community' and 'online community' synonymously as this article does. These days I define virtual community as 'A distributed community that exists to establish, exercise and evolve its members’ similar goals, plans, values, beliefs and interests'  and online community as 'A virtual community that is accessible via electronic means, where its participants establish a presence through taking part in membership rituals'. I also define 'web-based community' as 'An online community that is accessible via the World-wide-Web'
These encompass both the early works into whether communities can exist in non-geographically constrained contexts, such as that carried out by sociologists such as Barry Wellman. The online community definition brings in the work of HCI experts such Jenny Preece and Amy Jo Kim. The definition of web-based community is based on the technical work by Cliff Figallo.
I propose that we demerge the articles, so there is a more theoretical and sociological article on virtual communities and a separate article on online communities from a more HCI perspective with a subsection on web-based communities looking at web-based genres such as weblogs and wikis. This article is getting a bit overcrowded so I think now is the time to do it.
--Jonathan Bishop (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I transferred the online community content to Online community a couple of weeks ago and there seems to have been a few peaceful edits to it. I've now edited this article to remove duplicate content. I think User:Bellagio99 shouldn't be too displeased at this, as the new article asserts his distinction of social networking services being virtual communities that contain online communities. Also, the work of Barry Wellman and Howard Rheingold that he respects so much is prominent in the article. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating out 'virtual community' from 'online community' 

message: I believe the article is missing a section on IM groups on Skype that would go between boards/forums and chat rooms. Other than public chat rooms, Skype groups are trusted communities of people, such as a support group, who have been invited into the group from a website or organisation, such as Parkins(on)line (virtual support groups). With Skype becoming fast a standard in communication as common as email, people can connect easily, and at no extra cost. Groups are open 24/7, private and confidential, and can be created and maintained by a single administrator. Would the original author of Virtual communitiy want me to add a section? --GoneWalkabout (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant messaging groups 

message: Hello there, I am a Masters of Information Student at the University of Toronto and am proposing some editing for the page. As indicated, the page is not entirely written in an Encylopedic style. In addition to this, some citations need to be added or at least amended for purposes of clarity and in order to update any outdated material. Also, the health community section seems to be written as an opinion piece without much in the way of citation.Judedmstewart (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit for Virtual Community Page 

message: Is Wikipedia a virtual community?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Wikipedia is a community. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia a Virtual Community? 

message: The article makes a distinction between virtual and online communities. Virtual community#Introduction notes that virtual communities also include communities whose members interact with each other via letters, in addition to online communities. However, most of the article then deals with the subject as though online communities are the only virtual communities. I suggest moving most of the content that only applies to online communities to the article on that subject, and keeping at this article only information that is relevant to virtual communities in general, except in sections that address particular types of virtual community; for example, a section for online communities, and another for letter-based communities. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offline virtual communities 

message: Discussion at talkpage of Web community article. CN1 (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the two articles [[Virtual community]] & [[Web community]] into [[Online community]] 

message: I think that mostly everything posted was relevant to the cite. However, I did not understnd the inclusion of Howard Rheingold's study in the posting on virtual communities. I thought that bringing in a study on virtiual communities was irrelevant. Also, this postiting did not post any uncertainty about the study or any points that challenged the potential accuracy of the study. The explanation of the study shows that there are many dangers of social media/virtal communities. However, I wish that there was a study that demonstrated the postitive or beneficial effects of participating in a virtual community. Overall, I think that this page was put together--the links worked, references were accurate for the most part-- however, I think that there could have been more information regarding the positive effects of the virtual community. 
Daniella Wenger (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential issues with page 

message: How has the structure of chat rooms changed? Chat rooms still exist but are usually a part of websites with a larger community outside of chat rooms with specific interests in mind. Have these changes the way people communicate, the feeling of privacy and inhibition people often feel in chat rooms, are chat rooms becoming more like public forums? Stonecoil (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chat rooms 

message: — Assignment last updated by YW5634 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

message: — Assignment last updated by Lavin001 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Small Group Communication