After completing the previous post and taking some time to think a bit more about what “community” is , it occurred to me that there are some additional observations I want to include.

A community that is “online” presumes a certain level of technical sophistication. While some communities may encourage people to have some common knowledge or a shared interest, it is an online community that de facto requires both a shared interest and the ability to effectively communicate among other members who may be separated by time and distance. The potentially asynchronous nature of an online community encourages a greater attention to what was said rather then when it first appeared.

“Community” also involves different levels of interest and participation. This is a slightly different issue than good vs. bad behavior. Physical communities in the United States (and elsewhere, of course, but since I am from the US I prefer to comment on what I am more familiar with) have members who are then sub-grouped into leaders, supporters, particpating and non-participating invdividuals. The goal for a healthy community is to encourage leadership that builds the community’s value along with a stable or growing base of supporters who reinforce changes and decisions made by the leaders. The participating individuals in a community could be characterized as “commenters” (from the online model) and enjoy seeing change and will be involved in a peripheral manner. The non-participating individuals (or “lurkers”) may not cause harm to the community but they aren’t creating any value for the community either.

One theme that will be covered in the coming weeks of FOC is the chracteristics of Teacher vs. Moderator vs. Faciltator roles. I am interested in learning more about the perspectives people have on the roles of Moderator vs. Facilitator. Another title I have come across is “Community Manager.” It will be interesting to learn more about the appearance of the various titles in commercial vs. non-commerical communities.