Systems of Community Contents

In pursuing "community", or whatever a community is thought to be good for, a question I have to sort through is roughly as follows: do we need a values-based community, as I have envisioned? Or does the patchwork of modern society simply need more patches? Or both?
Turns out, there's more than one dimension to look at, and mixing them up was confusing people:
* Community of Everything VS Patchwork of Specialization
* Community of Many Overlaps VS Community of Few Overlaps
* Similarity Matching VS Difference Matching
I'll try to sort through, and explore, the (perceived) pros and cons of each approach. Each probably has its place, certain situations where it is best used. I also wonder if some possible syntheses will become apparent.
Also keep in mind that specific real-world examples probably have their own unique blend and features, so some of my pros and cons might not apply!
== Community of Everything VS Patchwork of Specialization ==
A "Community of Everything" has a scope containing all goals of all members. A "Patchwork of Specialization" has many parts, each focusing on more narrow goals.
Some things I might need to add here:
* The patchwork of specialization is often emergent, not planned "top-down", I'm thinking of the emergence of stuff like businesses and non-profits that each focus on their own thing and fill their own role. I think this also will relate to "ownership", and coordination.
* Some places, where "everything" is allowed, suffer from "context collapse".
For variables that could be combined into a community, or done in a patchwork, see may pages What a Community Should Do and List of Social Activities for at least a decent sampling.
 	Community of Everything	Patchwork of Specialization
Pros	
* will tend to have a built-in social network
* compounding effect if each piece or endeavor benefits from the presence of the others
* everyone can more easily experience a mix of giving and receiving
* can be simpler for members, complexity is (or can be) offloaded onto others	
* division means there is no "one point of failure" for the patchwork, makes it robust
* the group is a simpler thing
* more choice can be good
Cons	
* risks of tragedy of the commons and anti-commons, free riders
* the community is a complex thing	
* duplication of labor (everything from researching what exists for choosing pieces, to needing to introduce yourself and single-handedly integrate into the network from scratch everywhere you go, to the overhead administration that runs each group)
* more choice can be overwhelming, complexity is offloaded onto individuals
* people, and issues, fall through the cracks
== Community of Many Overlaps VS Community of Few Overlaps ==
The distinction here is between the amount of "similarity matching" inside of the group. Are most members similar in a lot of ways? Or only a few ways?
 	Group with Many Overlaps	Group with Few Overlaps
Pros	
* easier to form trust, deeper relationships, valuable social capital	
* allows easy matching and alignment between people who aren't perfect matches, more people fit in
Cons	
* fewer people fit in
* group 'bubble' effects, group-think, ignorance of and maybe dislike for outsiders	
* kind of undesirable to be with people who don't match on many other issues, less trust
* duplication of labor (everything from researching what exists for choosing pieces, to needing to introduce yourself and single-handedly integrate into the network from scratch everywhere you go, to the overhead administration that runs each group)
== Similarity Matching VS Difference Matching ==
See Matching and Alignment.
== Exploring the Possibility Space ==
Any individual group, or system of groups, will combine the above three dimensions/axes into one thing.
It's common enough for groups to exhibit both similarity matching and difference matching, so that's another possibility. And the spectrum from "many" to "few" is hazy, and so is the degree of "specialization".
=== Thinking through mixed systems ===
If I recall, the inner workings of Amazon are made so that parts of it can be used by outsiders who are not part of the whole. See the description here.
== See also ==
* Nice Put-Togethers