Submitted by Pei Wei, Arjana, and Leah
Using the context of the Internet based upon the article “The Web is a Customer Service Medium” by Paul Ford, could the Internet be considered a community according to the writings of Wenger? Are there elements from Wenger’s Part 1 which speaks to this idea?
According to Wenger, community has three dimensions of practice: mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Do components of the Internet, or web as Ford calls it, have these three dimensions and could it be considered a community of practice?
Mutual engagement, simply stated on pg. 73, is people engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another. In the web example, it would be people actively engaged in a website in which together they are both engaged and negotiating meanings through online meetings. This interaction between users could occur in a variety of ways, eg. interacting synchronously or asynchronously, creating a shared and participating website of knowledge (Wikipedia), providing a website where questions on any topics are asked and answered or problems and solutions are posted, with the most popular answers compiled and even an area for people to upload music in which others can comment (Ask MetaFilter), or developing a website which members determine the “best of the web” by requesting members to not only post unique weblogs, but participate in discussion around them (MetaFilter). According to Ford, humans have a need to be consulted, as seen by these various sites such as Wikipedia, Yelp and many more. These web examples illustrate how many of the sites do create a platform in which mutual engagement, as described by Wenger, is occurring through members of the community participating and contributing to knowledge development.
Another element of community, according to Wenger, is the negotiation of a joint enterprise. A joint enterprise is the result of a collective process of negotiation that reflects mutual engagement and is defined by the participants in the very process of pursuing it (p. 77). This engagement creates behaviors of mutual accountability, that is communally negotiated, that become an integral part of the practice. A good example of this element is Ford’s description of Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange, a question and answer site for professional and enthusiast programmers. This site allows anyone to ask a question, anyone can answer, and the best answers are voted to the top. This is a good example of a joint enterprise, where the passionate users are negotiating the meaning of answers to programming questions. The goal of this web site is not in creating a chatting environment, but in encouraging people to build a library of detailed answers to every questions about programming. In this example, mutual accountability in answering these questions and getting best answers is a product of joint enterprise. Like most websites, this participation relies on voluntary contributions of the users in the community. Wenger states on p. 81 that mutual accountability is an important aspect of joint enterprise and is important in developing shared values and standards. Depending upon the website and community of users, we would argue that the community could self regulate and develop a mutual accountability through the ongoing process of practices.
The last community element Wenger describes is the development of a shared repertoire. This shared repertoire includes routines, words, tools, ways of doing things that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence and which has become part of its practice. As described in the previous examples, on the surface level it would appear the websites described have their own sense of what is acceptable and what elements are expected in regards to contributions. If this is true, then once again, these websites that generate products could be considered communities of practice.
In conclusion, while this example of the Internet as a community of learners is very different than the example of the claims department Wenger described, there are many similarities which can be found between the two. However, either the Internet or claims processing can only be identified as a community but not a community of practices if any one of the components is missing. Undoubtedly, not all Internet websites can be identified as community of practices, only if these three components are in play to create a context that engages users to negotiate meaning among it’s members.
Katie Bateman says
I think your synthesis of the two articles is interesting. I know our group was trying to identify what higher education may be if now brick and mortar or online, but we did not stop to analyze what online education may be if it is not higher education. Your information would further inform the graphics we (group 3) illustrated by extending that which is “online education” outside of that which is “higher education.” However, I think this then circles us back again to defining higher education.
Brandon says
So, the answer to your question seems to be that, no, the internet as a whole is not a community of learners, but yes, it can support communities of practice within specific websites. These communities don’t just happen any time a group of people get together, virtually or otherwise, and one wonders if, online, they aren’t the exception rather than the rule.
I think it helps to look at these online communities through the lens of learning and identity (I believe Wenger would have these inextricably linked). Does one need to learn to be a part of an online community? Does it change who one is to be a part? I’m not talking minor learning or changes, any new thing entails that. Is your participation in the site a major part of who you understand yourself to be? You may be looking at a community of practice.
Isaac Jason Bretz says
I think your advocacy for mutual accountability is going to be a hard sell in capitalist-meritocracies like the U.S. and England. The sense that you are entitled to give your opinion on something, e.g.., the ‘comments’ button,, is not the same as a sense that you are accountable to every member of a group for completing a project. Imagine you are a freshman or sophomore: Would your group work with more than 5 people? Would you be okay with one persistent slacker in your group? Would the members of your group take tuns coordinating steps in a project, or would one person take charge for the entire project?
Zach Lonsinger says
This was an interesting read. I liked how you intertwined Wegner and Ford. I agree that the internet can and is a community of learners, and I would also go as far as saying that I see the internet as a whole as a COP. There is so much peripheral learning involved within specific COPs that it would be difficult to say that the internet isn’t one large COP, or the largest and perhaps most diverse. When I find myself surfing the entertainment out of boredom or even searching for a specific piece of information for an assignment, I find myself jumping from one website to another – checking Wikipedia and following the cited source to wherever that may lead. So in that sense, am I jumping from one COP to another and another, or am I staying within one large COP (the internet) as well as brokering across smaller COPs?
Adam says
I think we need to take a step back and look at the Web for what it is. Tech enthusiasts tent do romanticize the Web without looking frankly at it. To the question is the Web a community, you said it yourself, “Undoubtedly, not all Internet websites can be identified as community of practices”. I could use Reddit and be a part of a community, I can go on CNN.com and just be a user, and I could leave a YouTube comment and be part of a community again. We might be able to expand our understand out from specific websites to look at the Web as a whole. If we do, we do see a community that uses abbreviations and truncations like tl;dr, and share memes that give our meaning context, history, make them dynamic, and unique.
Audrey Romano says
I, too, really like how you dissected Ford’s post and applied Wenger’s definitions to an example. And I would agree that some websites can be built to support communities of practice. But it depends largely on the design. I absolutely consider certain sites I use as one that functions as a community of practice on all aspects detailed here. In general, the internet doesn’t qualify, it’s just a medium that you can built a platform to support CoP upon. However, in the context of online education, certain measures need to be in place: how is one’s participation and learning assessed, how does it scale, etc.
Priscilla Taylor says
I agree with the connections your group made between Ford’s notion of the web and Wenger’s communities of practice. Zach, I agree with your view of the internet as a large COP. Although some deem the internet as a largely solitary experience, Wenger argues that even a person on the internet looking at pages by themselves is engaging in social interaction. It is more overt with social networking sites such as Twitter and Pinterest. Even when someone is “surfing the Web,” they are interacting with those that created the webpage they are viewing; they are still engaging with others. One’s engagement with the internet, like our engagement the physical world around us, is social.
Dean says
What is the Internet? Briefly…computers in locations around the world that are all inter-connected. Is this network a CoP? I would argue no (though I haven’t fully considered all aspects). I would argue that, as Audrey stated, the Internet is a medium. A medium to perform functions. Functions that could include creating a CoP. But the internet, itself, is not a CoP. Or is it? Here’s a question…If I write 100 computer programs to automatically post questions and comments to a blog about different cooking methods, and if the only posts and comments are from these functional computer programs, then is that cooking methods blog community a CoP? From the onlooker, it may possibly pass as a CoP.
What I am getting at here is that I think it takes humans to participate in and identify with a CoP to make something a CoP.
Koun says
I agree that Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange can be good examples of web-based CoP that built upon the interactive interfaces where people can mutually engage in and interact. However, I think it works well only if the participants have strong interests in the topic/area that the sites addresses. Like any other F2F communities, the motivation of participating a community should be the most important precondition. In particular, I am skeptical on whether people in the web-based community can feel mutual accountability, which I think is the biggest difference from F2F community.
Michael Sean Banales says
Like everyone else, I liked your synthesis of the two readings and find it interesting to consider. I guess as you put it, there are a number of uses online and the internet as a whole is not necessary community. I like the idea others comments have brought up of the internet being simply a “media” in which users are able to engage however they choose. Really, it seems like in person is not much different. If I’m in a public place with a bunch of individuals, I wouldn’t consider it a community either simply for the group, but depending on the intentions and skills of everyone there it could be. The internet seems like one more platform on which communities can form.