A real-world community is a group of people who deal with one another in order to share protection from bodily harm and cultivate a nurturing environment.
Bodily harm might not apply to online groups, but LW is definitely a community in the sense that it is nurturing people in the process of developing and refining ideas, many of which can’t be brought up in discussion with the users’ everyday circles of acquaintances and friends. The site has a shared vocabulary which makes it easier to discuss rationality-related concepts, and the fact that anyone can comment means that people spend quite a lot of time encouraging and giving feedback to other members. If this isn’t ‘nurturing’, then I don’t know what is.
LW is definitely a community in the sense that it is nurturing people in the process of developing and refining ideas …
So call it a community of practice. But again, a genuine CoP (in the cognitive anthropological sense) is not quite the same as a social club which just refers to itself as a “community” as an excuse for engaging in groupthink and petty politics. If you want to be understood by established researchers in this and related areas (such as epistemic community), it is very important to use correct terminology. Many of them would not advocate the term “community” without some clear qualifiers attached.
But again, a genuine CoP (in the cognitive anthropological sense) is not quite the same as a social club which just refers to itself as a “community” as an excuse for engaging in groupthink and petty politics.
Ah, I see you are familiar with the Connotation Game! For the sake of clarity, though, I’d recommend you phrase your entries like this:
OK. So the source of this argument is...you’re taking the “cognitive anthropological meaning” of community. I’ve never studied cognitive anthropology, so I guess I’m using the “folk” definition of community. Which is all fair and good–according to cognitive anthropologists, I’m wrong–except that (I strongly suspect) almost everyone else on this site is also using the folk definition, not the specialists’ one.
Bodily harm might not apply to online groups, but LW is definitely a community in the sense that it is nurturing people in the process of developing and refining ideas, many of which can’t be brought up in discussion with the users’ everyday circles of acquaintances and friends. The site has a shared vocabulary which makes it easier to discuss rationality-related concepts, and the fact that anyone can comment means that people spend quite a lot of time encouraging and giving feedback to other members. If this isn’t ‘nurturing’, then I don’t know what is.
So call it a community of practice. But again, a genuine CoP (in the cognitive anthropological sense) is not quite the same as a social club which just refers to itself as a “community” as an excuse for engaging in groupthink and petty politics. If you want to be understood by established researchers in this and related areas (such as epistemic community), it is very important to use correct terminology. Many of them would not advocate the term “community” without some clear qualifiers attached.
Ah, I see you are familiar with the Connotation Game! For the sake of clarity, though, I’d recommend you phrase your entries like this:
We are a community.
You guys are a social club.
They are a clique.
OK. So the source of this argument is...you’re taking the “cognitive anthropological meaning” of community. I’ve never studied cognitive anthropology, so I guess I’m using the “folk” definition of community. Which is all fair and good–according to cognitive anthropologists, I’m wrong–except that (I strongly suspect) almost everyone else on this site is also using the folk definition, not the specialists’ one.