Wellman

Wellman’s point here is that social networks are more permeable, loosely connected, and topically dynamic than groups. Further, social networks are less hierarchical than groups, focusing more on a flat and broad connection between people instead of one based on seniority. It is a subtle disctinction, but I think I can see it. Groups are a private affair, while social networks are public and inclusive and (hopefully) welcoming. This made more sense after I read Oldenberg and started to think about the romantic notion of the neighborhood watering hole in which business man and postal worker come together to chat and drink and argue.

Wellman focuses significantly on how social networks affect people’s actions and exposure to ideas. Online social networks can either bring people closer together that share the same beliefs (thus limiting their exposure to new ideas) or can help people come in contact with more disperse views. Some people become depressed or secluded from heavy involvement in online community, while others become more involved in real-time community. The author agrees with Preece that online communities tie together the past and present by allowing us to maintain ties with our past connections as well as build new connections. The example of Netville is given as possibly a way to qualify Preece’s claim that online community should enhance social values—Netville members used the online space to collaborate on social issues in their physical neighborhood.

Further, online communication may displace other communication methods like telephone, but may also just supplement. My opinion is that online communication is just one of many options available, and that as people become more familiar with it, they begin to realize that it is better at some communication situations than other methods. For instance, if I want my mom to pass along the Schlotzhauer family secret bread recipe, I’d rather email and as for it than call and have to write down every detail in real-time. It doesn’t mean that I have stopped using the phone altogether, just that my communication methods have matured.

The author discusses advancement in information sharing through online communities, something that could not happen through merely online groups. By understanding “who knows what” and who the friends of your friends are, you can gain access to information previously unavailable. How do people find this out? The author mentions research in ways this is being understood through more classic groupware studies that harness technology to show who is in a room or to visualize conversations between groups. A modern problem is how to keep track of who knows what and who knows who; this is too much information for individuals to monitor, and difficult to find out simply by asking everyone. Again, technology can serve as an intermediary by keeping track of this network of people and information.

Critique and Connection
Wellman seems to draw a bit further upon Preece’s notion of online community as a valuable force in real-life community, using the example of Netville residents teaming together to mobilize against real estate development and to socialize in person. This helped me understand what Preece meant about online communities being able to influence their real worlds, but still left me feeling a bit concerned about the practicality and feasibility.

In my humble view, such activities would only happen within a neighborhood of social activists regardless of the presence of an online community; in other words, I don’t necessarily think that the online community of Netville did anything that the physical neighborhood wouldn’t have accomplished on its own, because the residents were probably already socially-minded enough to care about such issues prior to the introduction of the online community. My concern, therefore, is whether Wellman’s claim is going to hurt the future of ecommunity research by pushing people to believe that people can be changed, motivated, and empowered by online social networks more than is really possible.