To begin, I would like to address the concept of face-to-face groups. Certainly, groups have generally, in the past, tended to be such. But the world has changed, and continues to change exponentially. People's perceptions of many things must change with the times. For example, groups. With electronic communications growing every day, more and more people getting connected to each other via e-mail and the Internet, meeting face to face is becoming less important (1), and in fact, less convenient. Almost any sort of business or personal communications can be done with telephone, computer, fax; you don't need to be near people, you can be separated by thousands of miles. In fact, the idea of community is changing. (2) Many people today know and are friends with more people they've never met in the real world than they are with their neighbors. Cyber-communities are springing up across computer networks, all over the world. People can find websites where others who have common interests and beliefs go. Of course, face to face relationships can never, and should never, be entirely replaced. But electronic relationships must come to be commonly recognized as being as important and as real as face to face relationships. (3)

I, for example, go as often as possible to the Dominion (http://www.scifi.com), my favorite website. There I am a member of a number of groups. There are those people who discuss science fiction TV shows and movies. Those who write collective science fiction and fantasy stories. Those who discuss various serious and entertaining subjects. Those who just hang out and act crazy. Of course, many of these groups contain some of the same people. And some are less organized than others. Anyone with Internet access can come to the Dominion. Anyone who comes and who has an e-mail address can register a handle, to use in posting on the bulletin board (which has many different sections). There really is no limit to the number of people who can post in any given section of the board. As long as no one is a total jerk, we're all perfectly happy to meet and post with anyone who comes there.

Our groups don't have leadership, everyone is equal. It is difficult to describe these groups, based on traditional group classifications. (4) As has been noted, electronic groups are still fairly new, and new definitions will have to be made for them. They really can be used in any number of ways. Problem solving, decision making, idea generation, personal growth, information sharing, just plain friendship, and fun. Anything. The format of the Dominion... people can just post whatever they have to say. And others can respond to this. It's basically just extended coversations, in most cases. You could say it has aspects of the round table, the panel, the symposium, the forum. The conversations may take longer, but anyone in the world, more or less, can get involved. And they have time to read what has been said, and carefully consider their response before posting. (5)

In the real world, you will form groups based on who is around. If you're lucky, you'll find a few people with similar interests, similar beliefs. With electronic groups, you don't have to worry about this. If you find a place that is dedicated to your particular interests, obviously the other people who congregate there will share your interests. Consequently, you can very quickly develop close friendships with the people you meet online. You are not constrained by location. Location means nothing. This is a distinct advantage over real world groups. (6)

Of course, there are problems. You are constrained in who you meet by who has Internet access. And if someone temporarily loses access for some reason, such as weather causing the server to go down, or school closing for the summer (many Internet users are in college or high school, and get their connection from there), you can go some time without hearing from them. Perhaps you might be in the middle of a conversation with people, or in the middle of writing a joint story, and one of these people may lose their connection. You may have to wait for some time before continuing with the conversation, or story, or whatever it is, until that person manages to get back online. Well, maybe they could try to find another connection somewhere. At the library, or a friend's house, perhaps. Perhaps you could rely on snail mail (the postal service) for however long is necessary. Perhaps you could just decide to wait, find other things to do in the meantime.

But on the whole, we all find the Dominion (and I assume we are fairly typical of other online communities) to be a very extraordinary place. Many of us would consider ourselves addicts of the Dom. I know, I've asked. I did an English paper on it. (7) In fact, the Dom has provided me fodder for more than one paper. Several. There's one example of a good use for it. And that's just one of many. Really, it's Cheers over there. Everybody knows your... handle, at least. They're always glad you came. People know people are all the same (more or less). It's a damn good place to have fun, and to talk about serious issues. To listen to other people's opinions and share your own. Expand your perspectives. Learn new things, and new ways of looking at old things. There're some great people there, all with great things to say. And on the Internet, there are no silly division lines like race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. What we say is who we are. We are all words on a screen. And that's kind of a nice thing to be, sometimes. On the Dominion, and in other cyber-communities, we are all truly equal, and perhaps we shall lead the way to a truly equal world.

It all starts with our new definition of groups. Like-minded individuals who come together, sharing common interests, caring only who each other are, not where they are or what they look like. This is the future. And it looks pretty bright to me.

David Ward:

You raise some vital emerging issues and some provocative perspectives here. This is just what we need in the intellectual community: challenges, extensions, and variant interpretations of the old and new. I've placed circled numbers at various points in your essay that correspond to numbered ¶s that follow.

1. As "meeting face-to-face" becomes "less important," real benefits accruing from that mode of communication decease or become repressed.

Face-to-face interaction allows for many non-verbal cues to be displayed: facial expression, eye movement, gestures, posture/gait, and so on. Such non-verbal cues are useful in measuring/determining honesty, intensity, degree of change in emotion, measuring tolerance/patience, sincerity....

(To which I reply, it's not like there's no chance for similar cues online, such as emoticons. Also, many people in real life have a hard time reading non-verbal cues, and some people are just hard to read. There are very often drastic misinterpretations of such things. Certainly this can be the case for me: my expressions and such tend not to vary much, and anyway, often would seem to indicate to others something quite different from what I feel or intend. -Dave, 11/2/99)

Mechanically mediated groups of the sort you experience lack these cues. These groups, as you suggest, have benefits that traditional groups lack. Neither is definitionally superior or inferior; they are different.

(Exactly. Unfortunately, a great many people will believe one or the other to be superior, will hold this belief quite firmly.)

2. You are right: the emerging notions of groups make the term "community" expand. The literature in my field is slowly dealing with this change; however, it lags behind fast moving practice.

3. Because of limited [by many] access, its being so new, and obvious generational use/trust of the computer, "common recognition" will, I assume, come slow.

(As for "generational use/trust of the computer," I must say there seems, in my experience, to be a fair range of ages of users- though admitedly, the majority would still seem to be of younger generations.)

4. Some researchers in my field are not sure the collections of individuals who employ the web to interact are groups. Some of these communications scholars suggest that what has emerged is a third type of "collective" interaction along with groups and organizations. They posit that the "groups" you allude to are an amalgam of group/culture/organization. They have not named this new creature, but are open to definitional/operational hypotheses.

5. This is another characteristic of the experience you are having and the traditional group: spontaneous interaction of the deliberative kind. Yes, you can, over the Internet, individually [and mechanistically/sequentially] consider issues; however, the holistic characteristic of traditional groups is missing. We may discover benefits/options/shortcomings to this; but right now, it's unclear as to how crucial this difference really is.

6. This advantage may develop into a two edged sword.

7. I'd be interested in reading that paper if you still have it and are willing to share it with me. Let me know.

(I don't remember if I ever showed it to him, or if I even still had it at the time; I know I don't have it now.)

8. This is a far better essay than the one you submitted earlier. Had this been the initial essay, it would have received an 'A' grade. Since this is your follow up effort, it will be recorded as a 'B.'

(I'm sorry to say I don't have that original paper now, either.)

9. There are several communication journals I subscribe to that contain articles related to the topic of your paper. Let me know if you are interested in perusing them; you're welcome to if you want.

(I don't remember if I ever did peruse any.)