In response to 'Why do online communities organise themselves?'
I appreciated this blog for its conciseness, briefness and directness. A very thorough, clear explanation of how and why online communities develop and grow. However, I would have liked to see more of YOUR perspective here - a bit more exploration and analysis, rather than straight explanation perhaps.
In the lecture Axel outlined both the advantages and benefits of online communities. Your post seems to solely discuss communities in their IDEAL form. In my opinion, your post would be strengthened if you outlined some of the negative aspects and possible tendencies of online communities, for example, their potential to be insular, or 'echo chambers' (Axel, 2008). I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the negative aspects of online communities.
When does information become scholarly? You said 'an answer can expand and grow into a term that could be used scholarly.' Do you think evolving information circulating within and through a community is always reliable? How are we to judge the validity of information? Your post could have moved in this direction, going on to explore how communities evaluate quality, which I feel would have been a natural and interesting progression.
References
Week Six lecture notes
No comments:
Post a Comment