Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Virtual community
View on WikipediaThis article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (March 2011) |

A virtual community is a social network of individuals who connect through specific social media, potentially crossing geographical and political boundaries in order to pursue mutual interests or goals. Some of the most pervasive virtual communities are online communities operating under social networking services.
Howard Rheingold discussed virtual communities in his book, The Virtual Community, published in 1993. The book's discussion ranges from Rheingold's adventures on The WELL, computer-mediated communication, social groups and information science. Technologies cited include Usenet, MUDs (Multi-User Dungeon) and their derivatives MUSHes and MOOs, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), chat rooms and electronic mailing lists. Rheingold also points out the potential benefits for personal psychological well-being, as well as for society at large, of belonging to a virtual community. At the same time, it showed that job engagement positively influences virtual communities of practice engagement.[1]
Virtual communities all encourage interaction, sometimes focusing around a particular interest or just to communicate. Some virtual communities do both. Community members are allowed to interact over a shared passion through various means: message boards, chat rooms, social networking World Wide Web sites, or virtual worlds.[2] Members usually become attached to the community world, logging in and out on sites all day every day, which can certainly become an addiction.[3]
Introduction
[edit]
The traditional definition of a community is of geographically circumscribed entity (neighborhoods, villages, etc.). Virtual communities are usually dispersed geographically, and therefore are not communities under the original definition. Some online communities are linked geographically, and are known as community websites. However, if one considers communities to simply possess boundaries of some sort between their members and non-members, then a virtual community is certainly a community.[4] Virtual communities resemble real life communities in the sense that they both provide support, information, friendship and acceptance between strangers.[5] While in a virtual community space, users may be expected to feel a sense of belonging and a mutual attachment among the members that are in the space.
One of the most influential part about virtual communities is the opportunity to communicate through several media platforms or networks. Now that virtual communities exists, this had leveraged out the things we once did prior to virtual communities, such as postal services, fax machines, and even speaking on the telephone. Early research into the existence of media-based communities was concerned with the nature of reality, whether communities actually could exist through the media, which could place virtual community research into the social sciences definition of ontology. In the seventeenth century, scholars associated with the Royal Society of London formed a community through the exchange of letters.[4] "Community without propinquity", coined by urban planner Melvin Webber in 1963 and "community liberated", analyzed by Barry Wellman in 1979 began the modern era of thinking about non-local community.[6] As well, Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities in 1983, described how different technologies, such as national newspapers, contributed to the development of national and regional consciousness among early nation-states.[7] Some authors that built their theories on Anderson's imagined communities have been critical of the concept, claiming that all communities are based on communication and that virtual/real dichotomy is disintegrating, making use of the word "virtual" problematic or even obsolete.[8]
Purpose
[edit]
Virtual communities are used for a variety of social and professional groups; interaction between community members vary from personal to purely formal. Communication tools like email lists can serve both personal and professional functions within virtual communities.
User experience testing to determine social codes
[edit]User experience is the ultimate goal for the program or software used by an internet community, because user experience will determine the software's success.[9] The software for social media pages or virtual communities is structured around the users' experience and designed specifically for online use. User experience testing is utilized to reveal something about the personal experience of the human being using a product or system.[10] When it comes to testing user experience in a software interface, three main characteristics are needed: a user who is engaged, a user who is interacting with a product or interface, and defining the users' experience in ways that are and observable or measurable.[10] User experience metrics are based on a reliability and repeatability, using a consistent set of measurements to result in comparable outcomes. User experience metrics are based on user retention, using a consistent set of measurements to collect data on user experience. The widespread use of the Internet and virtual communities by millions of diverse users for socializing is a phenomenon that raises new issues for researchers and developers. The vast number and diversity of individuals participating in virtual communities worldwide makes it a challenge to test usability across platforms to ensure the best overall user experience. Some well-established measures applied to the usability framework for online communities are speed of learning, productivity, user satisfaction, how much people remember using the software, and how many errors they make.[11] The human computer interactions that are measured during a usability experience test focus on the individuals rather than their social interactions in the online community. The success of online communities depend on the integration of usability and social semiotics. Usability testing metrics can be used to determine social codes by evaluating a user's habits when interacting with a program. Social codes are established and reinforced by the regular repetition of behavioral patterns.[12] People communicate their social identities or culture code through the work they do, the way they talk, the clothes they wear, their eating habits, domestic environments and possessions, and use of leisure time. Usability testing metrics can be used to determine social codes by evaluating a user's habits when interacting with a program. The information provided during a usability test can determine demographic factors and help define the semiotic social code. Dialogue and social interactions, support information design, navigation support, and accessibility are integral components specific to online communities. As virtual communities grow, so do the diversity of their users. However, the technologies are not made to be any more or less intuitive. Usability tests can ensure users are communicating effectively using social and semiotic codes while maintaining their social identities.[11] Efficient communication requires a common set of signs in the minds of those seeking to communicate.[12] As technologies evolve and mature, they tend to be used by an increasingly diverse set of users. This kind of increasing complexity and evolution of technology does no necessarily mean that the technologies are becoming easier to use.[10] Usability testing in virtual communities can ensure users are communicating effectively through social and semiotic codes and maintenance of social realities and identities.[12]
Effects
[edit]On health
[edit]
Recent studies have looked into development of health related communities and their impact on those already suffering health issues. These forms of social networks allow for open conversation between individuals who are going through similar experiences, whether themselves or in their family.[13] Such sites have so grown in popularity that now many health care providers form groups for their patients by providing web areas where one may direct questions to doctors. These sites prove especially useful when related to rare medical conditions. People with rare or debilitating disorders may not be able to access support groups in their physical community, thus online communities act as primary means for such support. Online health communities can serve as supportive outlets as they facilitate connecting with others who truly understand the disease, as well as offer more practical support, such as receiving help in adjusting to life with the disease.[14] Each patient on online health communities are on there for different reasons, as some may need quick answers to questions they have, or someone to talk to.Involvement in social communities of similar health interests has created a means for patients to develop a better understanding and behavior towards treatment and health practices.[15][16] Some of these users could have very serious life-threatening issues which these personal contexts could become very helpful to these users, as the issues are very complex.[17] Patients increasingly use such outlets, as this is providing personalized and emotional support and information, that will help them and have a better experience.[17] The extent to which these practices have effects on health are still being studied.
Studies on health networks have mostly been conducted on groups which typically suffer the most from extreme forms of diseases, for example cancer patients, HIV patients, or patients with other life-threatening diseases. It is general knowledge that one participates in online communities to interact with society and develop relationships.[18] Individuals who suffer from rare or severe illnesses are unable to meet physically because of distance or because it could be a risk to their health to leave a secure environment. Thus, they have turned to the internet.
Some studies have indicated that virtual communities can provide valuable benefits to their users. Online health-focused communities were shown to offer a unique form of emotional support that differed from event-based realities and informational support networks. Growing amounts of presented material show how online communities affect the health of their users. Apparently the creation of health communities has a positive impact on those who are ill or in need of medical information.[19]
On civic participation
[edit]
It was found that young individuals are more bored with politics and history topics, and instead are more interested in celebrity dramas and topics. Young individuals claim that "voicing what you feel" does not mean "being heard", so they feel the need to not participate in these engagements, as they believe they are not being listened to anyway.[20] Over the years, things have changed, as new forms of civic engagement and citizenship have emerged from the rise of social networking sites. Networking sites act as a medium for expression and discourse about issues in specific user communities. Online content-sharing sites have made it easy for youth as well as others to not only express themselves and their ideas through digital media, but also connect with large networked communities. Within these spaces, young people are pushing the boundaries of traditional forms of engagement such as voting and joining political organizations and creating their own ways to discuss, connect, and act in their communities.[21]
Civic engagement through online volunteering has shown to have positive effects on personal satisfaction and development. Some 84 percent of online volunteers found that their online volunteering experience had contributed to their personal development and learning.[22]
On communication
[edit]In his book The Wealth of Networks from 2006, Yochai Benkler suggests that virtual communities would "come to represent a new form of human communal existence, providing new scope for building a shared experience of human interaction".[23] Although Benkler's prediction has not become entirely true, clearly communications and social relations are extremely complex within a virtual community. The two main effects that can be seen according to Benkler are a "thickening of preexisting relations with friends, family and neighbours" and the beginnings of the "emergence of greater scope for limited-purpose, loose relationships".[23] Despite being acknowledged as "loose" relationships, Benkler argues that they remain meaningful.
Previous concerns about the effects of Internet use on community and family fell into two categories: 1) sustained, intimate human relations "are critical to well-functioning human beings as a matter of psychological need" and 2) people with "social capital" are better off than those who lack it. It leads to better results in terms of political participation.[23] However, Benkler argues that unless Internet connections actually displace direct, unmediated, human contact, there is no basis to think that using the Internet will lead to a decline in those nourishing connections we need psychologically, or in the useful connections we make socially. Benkler continues to suggest that the nature of an individual changes over time, based on social practices and expectations. There is a shift from individuals who depend upon locally embedded, unmediated and stable social relationships to networked individuals who are more dependent upon their own combination of strong and weak ties across boundaries and weave their own fluid relationships. Manuel Castells calls this the "networked society".[23]
On identity
[edit]In 1997, MCI Communications released the "Anthem" advertisement, heralding the internet as a utopia without age, race, or gender. Lisa Nakamura argues in chapter 16 of her 2002 book After/image of identity: Gender, Technology, and Identity Politics, that technology gives us iterations of our age, race and gender in virtual spaces, as opposed to them being fully extinguished. Nakamura uses a metaphor of "after-images" to describe the cultural phenomenon of expressing identity on the internet. The idea is that any performance of identity on the internet is simultaneously present and past-tense, "posthuman and projectionary", due to its immortality.[24]
Sherry Turkle, professor of Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT, believes the internet is a place where actions of discrimination are less likely to occur. In her 1995 book Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, she argues that discrimination is easier in reality as it is easier to identify as face value, what is contrary to one's norm. The internet allows for a more fluid expression of identity and thus people become more accepting of inconsistent personae within themselves and others. For these reasons, Turkle argues users existing in online spaces are less compelled to judge or compare themselves to their peers, allowing people in virtual settings an opportunity to gain a greater capacity for acknowledging diversity.[25]
Nakamura argues against this view, coining the term identity tourism in her 1999 article "Race In/For Cyberspace: Identity Tourism and Racial Passing on the Internet". Identity tourism, in the context of cyberspace, is a term used to the describe the phenomenon of users donning and doffing other-race and other-gender personae. Nakamura finds that performed behavior from these identity tourists often perpetuate stereotypes.[26]
In the 1998 book Communities in Cyberspace, authors Marc A. Smith and Peter Kollock, perceives the interactions with strangers are based upon with whom we are speaking or interacting with. People use everything from clothes, voice, body language, gestures, and power to identify others, which plays a role with how they will speak or interact with them. Smith and Kollock believes that online interactions breaks away of all of the face-to-face gestures and signs that people tend to show in front of one another. Although this is difficult to do online, it also provides space to play with one's identity.[27]
Gender
[edit]The gaming community is extremely vast and accessible to a wide variety of people, However, there are negative effects on the relationships "gamers" have with the medium when expressing identity of gender. Adrienne Shaw notes in her 2012 article "Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity", that gender, perhaps subconsciously, plays a large role in identifying oneself as a "gamer".[28] According to Lisa Nakamura, representation in video games has become a problem, as the minority of players from different backgrounds who are not just the stereotyped white teen male gamer are not represented.[29]
Types
[edit]Internet-based
[edit]The explosive diffusion[30] of the Internet since the mid-1990s fostered the proliferation of virtual communities in the form of social networking services and online communities. Virtual communities may synthesize Web 2.0 technologies with the community, and therefore have been described as Community 2.0, although strong community bonds have been forged online since the early 1970s on timeshare systems like PLATO and later on Usenet. Online communities depend upon social interaction and exchange between users online. This interaction emphasizes the reciprocity element of the unwritten social contract between community members.
Internet message boards
[edit]
An online message board is a forum where people can discuss thoughts or ideas on various topics or simply express an idea. Users may choose which thread, or board of discussion, they would like to read or contribute to. A user will start a discussion by making a post.[31] Other users who choose to respond can follow the discussion by adding their own posts to that thread at any time. Unlike in spoken conversations, message boards do not usually have instantaneous responses; users actively go to the website to check for responses.
Anyone can register to participate in an online message board. People can choose to participate in the virtual community, even if or when they choose not to contribute their thoughts and ideas. Unlike chat rooms, at least in practice, message boards can accommodate an almost infinite number of users.
Internet users' urges to talk to and reach out to strangers online is unlike those in real-life encounters where people are hesitant and often unwilling to step in to help strangers. Studies have shown that people are more likely to intervene when they are the only one in a situation. With Internet message boards, users at their computers are alone, which might contribute to their willingness to reach out. Another possible explanation is that people can withdraw from a situation much more easily online than off. They can simply click exit or log off, whereas they would have to find a physical exit and deal with the repercussions of trying to leave a situation in real life. The lack of status that is presented with an online identity also might encourage people, because, if one chooses to keep it private, there is no associated label of gender, age, ethnicity or lifestyle.[32]
Online chat rooms
[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. (January 2016) |
Shortly after the rise of interest in message boards and forums, people started to want a way of communicating with their "communities" in real time. The downside to message boards was that people would have to wait until another user replied to their posting, which, with people all around the world in different time frames, could take a while. The development of online chat rooms allowed people to talk to whoever was online at the same time they were. This way, messages were sent and online users could immediately respond.
The original development by CompuServe CB hosted forty channels in which users could talk to one another in real time. The idea of forty different channels led to the idea of chat rooms that were specific to different topics. Users could choose to join an already existent chat room they found interesting, or start a new "room" if they found nothing to their liking. Real-time chatting was also brought into virtual games, where people could play against one another and also talk to one another through text. Now, chat rooms can be found on all sorts of topics, so that people can talk with others who share similar interests. Chat rooms are now provided by Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and other individual websites such as Yahoo, MSN, and AOL.
Chat room users communicate through text-based messaging. Most chat room providers are similar and include an input box, a message window, and a participant list. The input box is where users can type their text-based message to be sent to the providing server. The server will then transmit the message to the computers of anyone in the chat room so that it can be displayed in the message window. The message window allows the conversation to be tracked and usually places a time stamp once the message is posted. There is usually a list of the users who are currently in the room, so that people can see who is in their virtual community.
Users can communicate as if they are speaking to one another in real life. This "simulated reality" attribute makes it easy for users to form a virtual community, because chat rooms allow users to get to know one another as if they were meeting in real life. The individual "room" feature also makes it more likely that the people within a chat room share a similar interest; an interest that allows them to bond with one another and be willing to form a friendship.[33][34]
Virtual worlds
[edit]
Virtual worlds are the most interactive of all virtual community forms. In this type of virtual community, people are connected by living as an avatar in a computer-based world. Users create their own avatar character (from choosing the avatar's outfits to designing the avatar's house) and control their character's life and interactions with other characters in the 3D virtual world. It is similar to a computer game; however, there is no objective for the players. A virtual world simply gives users the opportunity to build and operate a fantasy life in the virtual realm. Characters within the world can talk to one another and have almost the same interactions people would have in reality. For example, characters can socialize with one another and hold intimate relationships online.
This type of virtual community allows for people to not only hold conversations with others in real time, but also to engage and interact with others. The avatars that users create are like humans. Users can choose to make avatars like themselves, or take on an entirely different personality than them. When characters interact with other characters, they can get to know one another through text-based talking and virtual experience (such as having avatars go on a date in the virtual world). A virtual community chat room may give real-time conversations, but people can only talk to one another. In a virtual world, characters can do activities together, just like friends could do in reality. Communities in virtual worlds are most similar to real-life communities because the characters are physically in the same place, even if the users who are operating the characters are not.[35] Second Life is one of the most popular virtual worlds on the Internet. Whyville offers an alternative for younger audiences where safety and privacy are a concern. In Whyville, players use the virtual world's simulation aspect to experiment and learn about various phenomena.
Another use for virtual worlds has been in business communications. Benefits from virtual world technology such as photo realistic avatars and positional sound create an atmosphere for participants that provides a less fatiguing sense of presence. Enterprise controls that allow the meeting host to dictate the permissions of the attendees such as who can speak, or who can move about allow the host to control the meeting environment. Zoom, is a popular platform that has grown over the COVID-19 pandemic. Where those who host meetings on this platform, can dictate who can or cannot speak, by muting or unmuting them, along with who is able to join. Several companies are creating business based virtual worlds including Second Life. These business based worlds have stricter controls and allow functionality such as muting individual participants, desktop sharing, or access lists to provide a highly interactive and controlled virtual world to a specific business or group. Business based virtual worlds also may provide various enterprise features such as Single Sign on with third party providers, or Content Encryption.[citation needed]
Social network services
[edit]Social networking services are the most prominent type of virtual community. They are either a website or software platform that focuses on creating and maintaining relationships. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are all virtual communities. With these sites, one often creates a profile or account, and adds friends or follow friends. This allows people to connect and look for support using the social networking service as a gathering place. These websites often allow for people to keep up to date with their friends and acquaintances' activities without making much of an effort.[36] On several of these sites you may be able to video chat, with several people at once, making the connections feel more like you are together. On Facebook, for example, one can upload photos and videos, chat, make friends, reconnect with old ones, and join groups or causes.[37]
Specialized information communities
[edit]Participatory culture plays a large role in online and virtual communities. In participatory culture, users feel that their contributions are important and that by contributing, they are forming meaningful connections with other users. The differences between being a producer of content on the website and being a consumer on the website become blurred and overlap. According to Henry Jenkins, "Members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another "(Jenkins, et al. 2005). The exchange and consumption of information requires a degree of "digital literacy", such that users are able to "archive, annotate, appropriate, transform and recirculate media content" (Jenkins). Specialized information communities centralizes a specific group of users who are all interested in the same topic. For example, TasteofHome.com, the website of the magazine Taste of Home, is a specialized information community that focuses on baking and cooking. The users contribute consumer information relating to their hobby and additionally participate in further specialized groups and forums. Specialized Information Communities are a place where people with similar interests can discuss and share their experiences and interests.
Howard Rheingold's study
[edit]Howard Rheingold's Virtual Community could be compared with Mark Granovetter's ground-breaking "strength of weak ties" article published twenty years earlier in the American Journal of Sociology. Rheingold translated, practiced and published Granovetter's conjectures about strong and weak ties in the online world. His comment on the first page even illustrates the social networks in the virtual society: "My seven year old daughter knows that her father congregates with a family of invisible friends who seem to gather in his computer. Sometimes he talks to them, even if nobody else can see them. And she knows that these invisible friends sometimes show up in the flesh, materializing from the next block or the other side of the world" (page 1). Indeed, in his revised version of Virtual Community, Rheingold goes so far to say that had he read Barry Wellman's work earlier, he would have called his book "online social networks".
Rheingold's definition contains the terms "social aggregation and personal relationships" (page 3). Lipnack and Stamps (1997)[38] and Mowshowitz (1997) point out how virtual communities can work across space, time and organizational boundaries; Lipnack and Stamps (1997)[38] mention a common purpose; and Lee, Eom, Jung and Kim (2004) introduce "desocialization" which means that there is less frequent interaction with humans in traditional settings, e.g. an increase in virtual socialization. Calhoun (1991) presents a dystopia argument, asserting the impersonality of virtual networks. He argues that IT has a negative influence on offline interaction between individuals because virtual life takes over our lives. He believes that it also creates different personalities in people which can cause frictions in offline and online communities and groups and in personal contacts. (Wellman & Haythornthwaite, 2002). Recently, Mitch Parsell (2008) has suggested that virtual communities, particularly those that leverage Web 2.0 resources, can be pernicious by leading to attitude polarization, increased prejudices and enabling sick individuals to deliberately indulge in their diseases.[39]
Advantages of Internet communities
[edit]Internet communities offer the advantage of instant information exchange that is not possible in a real-life community. This interaction allows people to engage in many activities from their home, such as: shopping, paying bills, and searching for specific information. Users of online communities also have access to thousands of specific discussion groups where they can form specialized relationships and access information in such categories as: politics, technical assistance, social activities, health (see above) and recreational pleasures. Virtual communities provide an ideal medium for these types of relationships because information can easily be posted and response times can be very fast. Another benefit is that these types of communities can give users a feeling of membership and belonging. Users can give and receive support, and it is simple and cheap to use.[40]
Economically, virtual communities can be commercially successful, making money through membership fees, subscriptions, usage fees, and advertising commission. Consumers generally feel very comfortable making transactions online provided that the seller has a good reputation throughout the community. Virtual communities also provide the advantage of disintermediation in commercial transactions, which eliminates vendors and connects buyers directly to suppliers. Disintermediation eliminates pricey mark-ups and allows for a more direct line of contact between the consumer and the manufacturer.[41]
Disadvantages of Internet communities
[edit]While instant communication means fast access, it also means that information is posted without being reviewed for correctness. It is difficult to choose reliable sources because there is no editor who reviews each post and makes sure it is up to a certain degree of quality.[42]
In theory, online identities can be kept anonymous which enables people to use the virtual community for fantasy role playing as in the case of Second Life's use of avatars. Some professionals urge caution with users who use online communities because predators also frequent these communities looking for victims who are vulnerable to online identity theft or online predators.[43]
There are also issues surrounding bullying on internet communities. With users not having to show their face, people may use threatening and discriminating acts towards other people because they feel that they would not face any consequences.[44]
There are standing issues with gender and race on the online community as well, where only the majority is represented on the screen, and those of different background and genders are underrepresented.[29]
See also
[edit]- Battleboarding
- Clan (video games)
- Commons-based peer production
- Community of practice
- Comparison of online dating services
- Cybersectarianism
- Dating search engine
- Digital altruism
- Dunbar's number
- Global village
- Human-based genetic algorithm
- Immersion (virtual reality)
- Internet activism
- Internet influences on communities
- Internet think tanks
- Learner-generated context
- List of social networking services
- List of virtual communities
- Mass collaboration
- Motivations of Wikipedia contributors
- Music community
- Network of practice
- Online community
- Online community manager
- Online deliberation
- Online ethnography
- Online research community
- Personal network
- Professional network service
- Social media
- Social web
- Support groups
- The Virtual Community
- Tribe (internet)
- Video game culture
- Virtual airline (hobby)
- Virtual community of practice
- Virtual volunteering
- Virtual world
- Web of trust
Notes and references
[edit]- ^ Haas, Aurore; Abonneau, David; Borzillo, Stefano; Guillaume, Louis-Pierre (3 April 2021). "Afraid of engagement? Towards an understanding of engagement in virtual communities of practice". Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 19 (2): 169–180. doi:10.1080/14778238.2020.1745704. ISSN 1477-8238. S2CID 216178181. Archived from the original on 13 August 2022. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
- ^ Hof, R. D.; Browder, S.; Elstrom, P. (5 May 1997). "hacking Communities". Business Week.
- ^ Ridings, Catherine M.; Gefen, David (23 June 2006). "Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10 (1): 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x. ISSN 1083-6101. S2CID 21854835. Archived from the original on 17 January 2023. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
- ^ a b Pears, Iain (1998). An Instance of the Fingerpost. London: Jonathan Cape.
- ^ Wellman, B (1999). Networks in the global village: life in contemporary communities. Avalon. ISBN 9780813368214. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 4 November 2020.
- ^ Webber, Melvin (1963). "Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity". In J. Lowdon Wingo (ed.). Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. pp. 23–54. Wellman, Barry (March 1979). "The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers". American Journal of Sociology. 84 (5): 1201–31. JSTOR 2778222.
- ^ Anderson, Benedict (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
- ^ Prodnik, Jernej (2012). "Post-Fordist Communities and Cyberspace". In H. Breslow; A. Mousoutzanis (eds.). Cybercultures: Mediations of Community, Culture, Politics. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. pp. 75–100. Archived from the original on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 17 September 2017.
- ^ Sieckenius de Souza, Clarisse; Preece, Jenny (June 2004). "A framework for analyzing and understanding online communities". Interacting with Computers. 19 (3): 579–610.
- ^ a b c Tullis, Thomas; Albert, William (2016). Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 978-0-12-415781-1.
- ^ a b Preece, Jenny (2001). "Socialility and Usability in Online Communities: Determining and Measuring Success". Behaviour & Information Technology. 20 (5): 347–356. doi:10.1080/01449290110084683. S2CID 14120302.
- ^ a b c Chandler, Daniel (2007). Semiotics: The Basics (3 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
- ^ Eysenbach, G (2008). "The Impact of the Internet on Cancer Outcomes". CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 53 (6): 356–371. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.526.4309. doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356. PMID 15224975. S2CID 10192148.
- ^ "Web Communities Help Patients With Rare Diseases". NPR.org. NPR. Archived from the original on 18 October 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
- ^ Neal, L.; Lindgagarrd, G.; Oakley, K.; Hansen, D.; Kogan, S.; Leimeister, J.M.; Selker, T. (2006). "Online Health Communities" (PDF). CHI: 444–447. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
- ^ Cocciolo, A.; Mineo, C.; Meier, E. "Using Online Social Networks to Build Healthy Communities: A Design-based Research Investigation" (PDF). pp. 1–10. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 October 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
- ^ a b Huh, Jina; Kwon, Bum Chul; Kim, Sung-Hee; Lee, Sukwon; Choo, Jaegul; Kim, Jihoon; Choi, Min-Je; Yi, Ji Soo (1 October 2016). "Personas in online health communities". Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 63: 212–225. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.08.019. ISSN 1532-0464. PMC 5268468. PMID 27568913.
- ^ Cocciolo, A.; Mineo, C.; Meier, E. "Using Online Social Networks to Build Healthy Communities: A Design-based Research Investigation" (PDF). pp. 1–10. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 October 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
- ^ Welbourne, Jennifer L.; Blanchard, Anita L.; Boughton, Marla D. (2009). "Supportive communication, sense of virtual community and health outcomes in online infertility groups". Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies. C&T '09. New York: ACM. pp. 31–40. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.589.9656. doi:10.1145/1556460.1556466. ISBN 9781605587134. S2CID 8243700.
- ^ Rheingold, Howard (2008). ""Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement." Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth" (PDF). The John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
- ^ Carvin, A. (1 December 2006). "Understanding the impact of online communities on civic engagement". PBS. Archived from the original on 2 January 2015. Retrieved 17 September 2017.
- ^ "UNV Annual Report 2014, Innovation and Knowledge". Archived from the original on 24 June 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2015.
- ^ a b c d Benkler, Yochai (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 September 2019. Retrieved 26 November 2013.
- ^ Nakamura, Lisa (2002). After/Images of Identity: Gender, Technology, and Identity Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 121–131.
- ^ Turkle, Sherry (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- ^ Nakamura, Lisa (1999). "Race In/For Cyberspace: Identity Tourism and Racial Passing on the Internet". Works and Days: Essays in the Socio-Historical Dimensions of Literature & the Arts. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
- ^ Kollock, Peter; Smith, Marc, eds. (2002). Communities in Cyberspace. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203194959. ISBN 9780203194959. S2CID 154281450. Archived from the original on 27 October 2022. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
- ^ Shaw, Adrienne (2012). "Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity". New Media & Society. 14 (1): 28–44. doi:10.1177/1461444811410394. S2CID 206727217.
- ^ a b Nakamura, Lisa (13 September 2013). Cybertypes. doi:10.4324/9780203699188. ISBN 9780203699188.
- ^ Porter, Constance Elise (1 November 2004). "A Typology of Virtual Communities: a Multi-Disciplinary Foundation for Future Research". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 10 (1): 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00228.x. Archived from the original on 27 December 2019. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- ^ Marone, Vittorio (2015). ""Keep in mind that I will be improving": The opening post as a request for absolution". Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 5 (1): 136–158. doi:10.29333/ojcmt/2499.
- ^ Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village: life in contemporary communities. Avalon. ISBN 9780813368214. Archived from the original on 12 May 2023. Retrieved 4 November 2020.
- ^ Phelps, Alan (11 July 2010). "How Chat Rooms Work" (PDF). Smartcomputing.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 February 2012. Retrieved 11 July 2010.
- ^ Roos, Dave (11 July 2010). "HowStuffWorks: How Chat Rooms Work". Archived from the original on 15 August 2010. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
- ^ Turkle, Sherry (11 July 2010). "Virtuality and Its Discontents". The American Prospect. Archived from the original on 26 July 2010.
- ^ Quan-Hasse, A.; Young, A. L. (2010). "Uses and Gratifications of Social Media: A Comparison of Facebook and Instant Messaging". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 30 (5): 350–361. doi:10.1177/0270467610380009.
- ^ Waisanen, D. (2010). Facebook, Diasporic-Virtual Publics, and Networked Argumentation. Alta Conference on Argumentation. Conference Proceedings – National Communication Association/American Forensic Association. pp. 550–557.
- ^ a b Lipnack, Jessica (1997). Stamps, Jeffrey (ed.). Virtual teams: reaching across space, time, and organizations with technology. New York: Wiley. ISBN 978-0471165538. OCLC 36138326.
- ^ Parsell, M. (2008). "Pernicious virtual communities: Identity, polarisation and the Web 2.0". Ethics and Information Technology. 10 (1): 41–56. doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9153-y. S2CID 33207414.
- ^ Blanchard, A.L.; Markus, M.L. (2002). Sense of virtual community—maintaining the experience of belonging. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.11.9800.
- ^ Rothaermel, F.T.; Sugiyama, S. (2001). "Virtual internet communities and commercial success: individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of timezone.com". Journal of Management. 27 (3): 297–312. doi:10.1177/014920630102700305. S2CID 220594818.
- ^ Smith, M.A.; Kollock, P. (1999). Communities in cyberspace. New York, New York: Routledge.
- ^ Foster, D. (18 December 2000). "Community and identity in the electronic village". Archived from the original on 17 January 2011. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
- ^ Humphreys, Lee (August 2011). "Who's Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance". Journal of Communication. 61 (4): 575–595. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01570.x. ISSN 0021-9916. Archived from the original on 17 January 2023. Retrieved 18 November 2022.
Bibliography
[edit]- Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. (1983). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. ISBN 978-0-86091-546-1. OCLC 239999655.
- Barzilai, G. (2003). Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
- Else, Liz; Turkle, Sherry (20 September 2006). "Living online: I'll have to ask my friends". New Scientist. No. 2569. (interview)
- Ebner, W.; Leimeister, J. M.; Krcmar, H. (2009). "Community Engineering for Innovations – The Ideas Competition as a method to nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations" (PDF). R&D Management. 39 (4): 342–356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00564.x. S2CID 16316321. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 September 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2020.
- Farmer, F. R. (1993). "Social Dimensions of Habitat's Citizenry". In C. Loeffler (ed.). Virtual Realities: An Anthology of Industry and Culture. Tokyo, Japan: Gijutsu Hyoron Sha.
- Gouvêa, Mario de Paula Leite (18–21 July 2000). The Challenges of Building an International Virtual Community Using Internet Technologies. Internet Society INET 2000 conference proceedings.
- Hafner, K. (2001). The WELL: A Story of Love, Death and Real Life in the Seminal Online Community. Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 0-7867-0846-8.
- Hagel, J.; Armstrong, A. (1997). Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN 0-87584-759-5.)
- Jones, G. Ravid; Rafaeli, S. (2004). "Information Overload and the Message Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Exploration". Information Systems Research. 15 (2): 194–210. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.127.6976. doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0023. S2CID 207227328.
- Kim, A.J. (2000). Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. London: Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-87484-9.
- Kim, A. J. (24 January 2004). "Emergent Purpose". Musings of a Social Architect. Retrieved 4 April 2006.
- Kollock, Peter (1999). "The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace". In Marc Smith; Peter Kollock (eds.). Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.
- The author has made available an "Online working draft".
- Kosorukoff, A.; Goldberg, D. E. (2002). Genetic algorithm as a form of organization. Proceedings of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO-2002. pp. 965–972.
- Leimeister, J. M.; Ebner, W.; Krcmar, H. (2005). "Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Trust-supporting Components in Virtual Communities for Patients". Journal of Management Information Systems. 21 (4): 101–136. Archived from the original on 23 June 2011. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
- Leimeister, J. M.; Sidiras, P.; Krcmar, H. (2006). "Exploring Success Factors of Virtual Communities: The Perspectives of Members and Operators". Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce (JoCEC). 16 (3&4): 277–298.
- Morningstar, C.; F. R. Farmer (1990). The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat. The First International Conference on Cyberspace. Austin, TX, US.
- Naone, Erica (July–August 2008). "Who Owns Your Friends?: Social-networking sites are fighting over control of users' personal information". MIT Technology Review.
- Neus, A. (2001). Managing Information Quality in Virtual Communities of Practice; Lessons learned from a decade's experience with exploding internet communication (PDF). IQ 2001: The 6th International Conference on Information Quality at MIT. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2010. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
- Parsell, Mitch (2008). "Pernicious virtual communities: Identity, polarisation and the Web 2.0". Ethics and Information Technology. 10: 41–56. doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9153-y. S2CID 33207414.
- Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Supporting Sociability, Designing Usability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ISBN 0-471-80599-8.
- Prodnik, Jernej (2012). "Post-Fordist Communities and Cyberspace, A Critical Approach". In H. Breslow; A. Mousoutzanis (eds.). Cybercultures: Mediations of Community, Culture, Politics. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. pp. 75–100. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- Rheingold, H. (2000). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. London: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-68121-8.
- The author has made available an online copy
- Rosenkranz, C.; Feddersen, C. (2010). "Managing viable virtual communities: an exploratory case study and explanatory model". International Journal of Web Based Communities. 6 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1504/IJWBC.2010.030014. Archived from the original on 3 January 2013.
- Seabrook, J. (1997). Deeper: My Two-Year Odyssey in Cyberspace. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80175-2.
- Smith, M. "Voices from the WELL: The Logic of the Virtual Commons". UCLA Department of Sociology. Archived from the original on 3 September 2006.
- Sudweeks, F.; McLaughlin, M.L.; Rafaeli, S. (1998). Network and Netplay Virtual Groups on the Internet. MIT Press.
- Portions available online as: Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 2
- Van der Crabben, Jan. "Performed Intimacy in Virtual Worlds". Archived from the original on 31 May 2009.
- Barry Wellman (1997). "An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network". In Sara Kiesler (ed.). Culture of the Internet. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 179–205. Translated into German as Udo Thiedeke, ed. (2000). "Die elektronische Gruppe als soziales Netzwerk". Virtuelle Gruppen. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. pp. 134–67. Archived from the original on 3 December 1998.
- Trier, M. (2007). Virtual Knowledge Communities – IT-supported Visualization and Analysis. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. ISBN 978-3-8364-1540-8.
- Urstadt, Bryant (July–August 2008). "Social Networking Is Not a Business: Web 2.0—the dream of the user-built, user-centered, user-run Internet—has delivered on just about every promise except profit. Will its most prominent example, social networking, ever make any money?". MIT Technology Review.
Virtual community
View on GrokipediaHistory
Early Precursors (1960s-1980s)
The PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) system, developed at the University of Illinois starting in 1960, represented an initial precursor to virtual communities through its integration of multi-user computing features for educational purposes. By the 1970s, PLATO supported thousands of users across graphics terminals connected to central mainframes, incorporating early forms of asynchronous communication such as discussion forums, message boards, and email, alongside synchronous tools like chat rooms and instant messaging.[10][11] These capabilities enabled persistent group interactions among students and educators, predating widespread internet access and influencing subsequent online social tools.[12] The ARPANET, launched in 1969 by the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, facilitated the first packet-switched network connecting research institutions, with email capabilities emerging by 1971 under Ray Tomlinson's implementation of the "@" symbol for addressing. This infrastructure supported nascent researcher exchanges, though structured communities were limited until the mid-1970s, when tools like resource-sharing protocols began enabling broader file and message dissemination among academic and military users.[13] In 1978, the Computerized Bulletin Board System (CBBS), created by Ward Christensen and Randy Suess in Chicago, marked the advent of dial-up public access points for community interaction. Inspired by a blizzard-induced need for remote communication, CBBS allowed users to post and read messages via modems on a single S-100 bus computer, logging over 253,000 connections before its retirement and spawning thousands of similar systems by the early 1980s.[14][15] Usenet, originating in 1979 from Duke University graduate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis, extended these precursors through a distributed network of "newsgroups" using Unix-to-Unix Copy Protocol (UUCP) for asynchronous news propagation across Unix systems. By 1980, it connected multiple sites for threaded discussions on diverse topics, growing to over 500 hosts by 1983 and establishing decentralized moderation models that prioritized open participation over centralized control.[16][17] These systems collectively demonstrated the feasibility of mediated, interest-based gatherings unbound by physical proximity, reliant on emerging telephony and computing hardware.Expansion and Popularization (1990s-2000s)
The 1990s marked a pivotal expansion of virtual communities as the internet transitioned from academic and hobbyist networks to commercial accessibility, with dial-up services like America Online (AOL) and CompuServe enabling mass participation in chat rooms and forums. AOL, which peaked at over 30 million subscribers by 2001, offered structured discussion groups and instant messaging precursors, drawing diverse users into topic-specific interactions that mimicked neighborhood gatherings but operated asynchronously or in real time.[3] Internet Relay Chat (IRC), originating in 1988 but surging in popularity during the decade, supported thousands of channels for live text-based conversations, often centered on technical, gaming, or hobbyist interests.[18] USENET, evolving from its 1980s roots, saw web gateways like Deja News (launched 1995) index millions of posts, broadening access beyond command-line interfaces to graphical browsers following Netscape's 1994 release.[19] Global internet users grew from about 2.6 million in the early 1990s to 45 million by 1996 and 150 million by 1999, fueling this proliferation as affordable personal computers and modems democratized entry.[20] [21] GeoCities, established in 1994, pioneered "virtual neighborhoods" by hosting user-built web pages in themed districts, amassing over 19 million accounts by 1999 and exemplifying early community curation through shared digital spaces.[22] Instant messaging tools like ICQ (1996) and AIM (1997) further popularized persistent personal networks, with ICQ reaching 100 million users by 2001 via peer-to-peer connections that emphasized one-on-one and group chats over broadcast forums.[3] ![Party in Hyrule, Second Life][float-right] The 2000s accelerated popularization through Web 2.0 paradigms, emphasizing user-generated content, interactivity, and multimedia integration, which shifted virtual communities toward scalable social graphs. MySpace, launched in 2003, achieved one million monthly active users by 2004, enabling profile customization, friend connections, and embedded media that fostered music fanbases and subcultural hubs.[23] Facebook, debuting in 2004 for Harvard students before expanding globally, reached 1 million users by late 2004 and 500 million by 2010, prioritizing real-name identities and algorithmic feeds to sustain daily engagement in groups and walls.[23] These sites supplanted many standalone forums, with platforms like phpBB (2000) powering independent web-based discussions but yielding to integrated networks as broadband adoption—rising to over 400 million global internet users by the decade's mid-point—supported richer interactions.[20] [24] Immersive environments gained traction, as seen with Second Life (2003), where users inhabited customizable avatars in a persistent 3D world, engaging in virtual economies and events that blurred lines between simulation and social reality, peaking at over 1 million residents by 2007.[24] Blogging platforms like Blogger (1999, acquired by Google 2003) and WordPress (2003) democratized long-form community discourse, with millions of sites forming niche publics around politics, technology, and personal narratives.[25] By the late 2000s, these developments had embedded virtual communities in everyday life, evidenced by YouTube's 2005 launch enabling video-sharing collectives and Twitter's 2006 microblogging format supporting real-time global conversations, collectively expanding participation to hundreds of millions while introducing scalability challenges like moderation and echo chambers.[23]Contemporary Evolution (2010s-2025)
The 2010s marked a period of exponential expansion for virtual communities, fueled by the proliferation of mobile-accessible social networking platforms. By 2010, Facebook had approximately 500 million monthly active users, growing to over 2.9 billion by 2025, enabling persistent interest-based groups ranging from hobbyist forums to professional networks.[26] Platforms like Instagram, launched in 2010, amassed 1 billion users by 2018, fostering visual and ephemeral communities centered on lifestyle sharing and influencer-led interactions.[27] Concurrently, Twitter (rebranded X in 2023) and Reddit sustained text-based discourse hubs, with Reddit's subreddits expanding to over 100,000 active communities by 2020, hosting niche discussions from science to politics.[28] This era shifted virtual communities toward real-time, multimedia engagement, with average daily usage reaching 2 hours and 20 minutes per smartphone user by 2025.[29]  communities emerging in platforms like VRChat and [Horizon Worlds](/page/Horizon Worlds). Facebook's rebranding to Meta in October 2021 underscored ambitions for interconnected metaverses, projecting VR market growth from $43.58 billion in 2024 to $382.87 billion by 2033, driven by persistent virtual worlds for social and economic activity.[32] However, adoption remained niche, with metaverse users estimated at under 1 billion in 2025, contrasting hype with technical barriers like hardware costs. Parallel to this, Web3 innovations birthed decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as governance models for virtual communities, originating with Ethereum-based experiments in 2016 but proliferating post-2020 crypto cycles, enabling token-voting collectives for funding and decision-making in projects like decentralized finance groups.[33] By 2025, DAOs represented a subset of virtual communities emphasizing blockchain-enforced transparency, though vulnerabilities to exploits persisted, as seen in early hacks exceeding $100 million in losses.[34] Overall, virtual communities evolved toward hybridized, scalable ecosystems, with 5.24 billion global participants by 2025, integrating AI moderation and cross-platform interoperability amid ongoing debates over centralization risks.[26]Definition and Core Characteristics
Defining Elements
A virtual community consists of individuals who interact primarily through digital networks, forming social aggregations around shared interests or purposes without requiring physical proximity.[1] This interaction occurs via computer-mediated communication, enabling exchanges of information, ideas, and emotional support that can persist over time and foster personal relationships.[35] Foundational work by Howard Rheingold describes these as emerging when sufficient public discussions generate "webs of personal relationships in cyberspace," emphasizing the role of sustained human engagement in digital spaces.[1] Key defining elements include technological mediation, where platforms such as forums, chat systems, or social networks facilitate connectivity unbound by geography or real-time constraints.[4] Members typically share a common interest that drives participation, leading to the development of norms, identities, and a sense of belonging—often termed "sense of virtual community."[36] Unlike transient online interactions, virtual communities exhibit persistence, with ongoing dialogues that build trust and reciprocity among participants.[37] These elements distinguish virtual communities from mere information repositories or casual encounters, as they require active member involvement to cultivate social bonds and collective efficacy. Empirical studies highlight that successful instances involve not only informational exchange but also socio-emotional elements, such as mutual support, which reinforce group cohesion.[38] The absence of physical cues can enhance focus on content and ideas but also introduces challenges like anonymity-driven disinhibition, shaping interaction dynamics.[39]Key Distinctions from Physical Communities
Virtual communities operate through digital platforms, enabling interactions unbound by geographical constraints that define physical communities, where proximity and shared locale foster routine face-to-face encounters.[40] This mediation introduces filtered communication channels—text, voice, or video—that omit or diminish nonverbal cues such as body language and tone inflection, which physical settings provide abundantly and which empirical analyses show enhance emotional conveyance and participant identification.[41] Consequently, virtual exchanges can yield shallower affective bonds compared to the richer sensory feedback in physical groups, though they lower barriers like travel expenses, allowing broader participation across distances exceeding hundreds of miles via tools like video conferencing.[40][41] Pseudonymity or full anonymity prevails more readily in virtual environments, diverging from the inherent traceability of physical ones where identities tie to observable presence and reputations accrue locally.[42] This facilitates disinhibited expression and identity experimentation but erodes accountability, as members face fewer immediate repercussions for norm violations, unlike the direct social pressures in physical settings that enforce conformity through exclusion or reputation damage.[41] Studies of computer-mediated communication highlight how such anonymity alters group dynamics, often amplifying individualism or deception risks while enabling scale to millions—far beyond physical gatherings limited by venue capacity and logistics.[43][42] Temporal flexibility marks another divide: virtual interactions frequently support asynchrony, with persistent digital archives of discussions enabling searchable review and extended deliberation, in opposition to the ephemerality of most physical dialogues that dissipate without records.[44] This persistence aids knowledge accumulation but can intensify conflicts through revisitable disputes. Social capital in virtual communities tends toward instrumental ties—diverse networks leveraged for practical gains—contrasting the more homogeneous, embedding bonds of physical groups, as surveyed in a 2016 Spanish study of over 2,000 respondents revealing online ties' greater utility yet inequality-amplifying effects favoring digitally adept demographics.[45] Membership fluidity is heightened virtually due to negligible switching costs, permitting easy entry and exit without spatial commitments, which sustains larger but potentially less cohesive structures than the enduring loyalties shaped by physical interdependence.[45]Types
Text-Based Forums and Bulletin Boards
Text-based forums and bulletin board systems (BBS) represent foundational platforms for virtual communities, enabling asynchronous discussions through typed messages organized into threads or topics. Bulletin board systems emerged as dial-up services accessed via modems over telephone lines, typically supporting one or few simultaneous users on non-multitasking hardware like IBM PCs running DOS or CP/M.[46] The first BBS, known as CBBS (Computerized Bulletin Board System), was developed by Ward Christensen and Randy Suess during a Chicago blizzard and launched on February 20, 1978, allowing users to post messages, share files, and exchange software.[47] These systems fostered early virtual communities centered on hobbies, computing, and local interests, with operators (sysops) managing access and content.[48] By the mid-1980s, networking protocols like FidoNet, introduced in 1984, connected disparate BBSes, enabling message propagation across systems and expanding communities beyond local dial-up limits.[49] Usenet, another key text-based system, originated in 1979 as an experiment by Duke University students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis, becoming operational in 1980 via UUCP links between Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[50] Usenet's distributed newsgroups supported hierarchical topic-based discussions, growing to millions of posts annually by the 1990s and serving as a decentralized forum for academic, technical, and recreational exchanges.[51] Unlike centralized BBSes, Usenet's peer-to-peer propagation emphasized resilience and broad reach, influencing virtual community norms like threaded replies and moderation by volunteers.[52] The advent of the World Wide Web shifted text-based communities toward browser-accessible forums, with early examples dating to 1994 through projects like the W3 Consortium's WIT.[3] Software such as phpBB, released in 2000, powered persistent, searchable discussion boards with user registration, avatars, and subforums, facilitating niche communities on shared hosting.[53] These platforms differed from real-time chat by archiving messages for asynchronous participation, promoting deeper analysis over immediacy.[54] Empirical analyses of online forums indicate they enhance user engagement and critical thinking through structured interactions, though they can amplify group polarization without diverse moderation.[55] In virtual community formation, text-based systems prioritized shared interests over demographics, enabling global connections via text alone, as evidenced by BBS users forming lasting social ties despite anonymity.[56] Key characteristics include topic segregation, reply threading, and sysop/admin oversight to curb spam or off-topic posts, which sustained community cohesion.[57] Studies on forum dynamics show that perceived support and interaction frequency drive value co-creation and retention, with users deriving utility from information exchange and belonging.[58] By the late 1990s, as internet access proliferated, BBSes declined due to high costs and limitations compared to always-on web forums, yet their legacy persists in modern threaded interfaces like Reddit or Stack Exchange.[59] These text-based mediums laid groundwork for virtual communities by demonstrating scalable, low-bandwidth social organization, with over 100,000 BBSes estimated worldwide at peak in the early 1990s.[60]Social Network Services and Multimedia Platforms
Social network services (SNS) and multimedia platforms constitute a dominant form of virtual communities, characterized by user-generated content, algorithmic curation, and scalable interactions among millions of participants worldwide. These platforms enable persistent social ties through features like personal profiles, follower networks, and real-time sharing of text, images, videos, and live streams, distinguishing them from earlier text-only forums by emphasizing visual and multimedia engagement.[61] Unlike physical communities bound by geography, SNS-based virtual communities form around shared interests, identities, or events, often transcending national borders and operating asynchronously or synchronously via mobile apps.[62] By 2025, global SNS usage reached approximately 5.42 billion individuals, reflecting exponential growth driven by smartphone penetration and broadband access.[27] Key platforms include Facebook, which supports dedicated groups for niche discussions—such as hobbyist networks or support circles—with over 1.8 billion monthly active users in groups as of 2023—and Instagram, focused on visual storytelling through feeds and stories, attracting 2 billion users by 2025, particularly among younger demographics for lifestyle and influencer-led communities.[28][63] Twitter (rebranded X in 2023) fosters topic-specific communities via hashtags and threaded conversations, enabling rapid mobilization around events like elections or crises, though its character-limited format prioritizes brevity over depth.[64] Multimedia elements, such as YouTube's video uploads and live broadcasts, cultivate creator-fan ecosystems where subscribers form parasocial bonds, with the platform boasting over 2.5 billion monthly users and serving as a hub for educational or entertainment-focused virtual gatherings.[65] TikTok, emphasizing short-form videos and algorithmic discovery, has grown to 1.5 billion users by 2025, spawning viral challenge-based communities that blend entertainment with collective participation.[63] These platforms' core enablers of virtual community formation include content-sharing tools that promote reciprocity—likes, shares, and reactions signaling affiliation—and moderation systems that define group norms, though algorithmic feeds can amplify engagement within ideological silos, as evidenced by studies on polarization in user interactions.[62] Empirical data from Pew Research indicates that 20-30% of U.S. adults rely on platforms like Facebook and Instagram for news and social ties, underscoring their role in sustaining daily discourse among dispersed members.[28] In health and recovery contexts, professionals have leveraged SNS for peer-support networks, such as closed Facebook groups for sharing evidence-based advice, demonstrating causal links between platform features and sustained member retention.[66] However, source analyses reveal potential biases in platform-reported metrics, with independent audits often adjusting engagement figures downward due to bot activity and inactive accounts.[67] The scalability of SNS distinguishes them from smaller-scale virtual communities, allowing micro-interactions to evolve into mass movements; for instance, hashtag campaigns on Twitter have coordinated global activism, as seen in environmental or rights-based efforts with participation spikes exceeding 100 million impressions in single events.[65] Multimedia integration further enhances communal identity through shared media artifacts, like collaborative playlists on Instagram or live Q&A sessions on YouTube, which foster a sense of co-presence despite physical separation.[61] Growth from 2020 to 2025 saw a 14% rise in daily usage time, averaging 2.5 hours per user, correlating with deepened community immersion amid remote work trends post-COVID-19.[68] Despite these affordances, empirical reviews highlight risks of superficial ties, where high connectivity masks low emotional depth compared to in-person equivalents.[69]Immersive Virtual Worlds and Metaverses
Immersive virtual worlds provide three-dimensional, persistent environments where users embody customizable avatars to engage in real-time social, economic, and creative activities, fostering communities that mimic physical interactions through spatial presence and embodiment.[70] These platforms differ from text-based or 2D communities by emphasizing nonverbal cues, spatial proximity, and shared virtual spaces, which research indicates enhance feelings of social connectedness comparable to face-to-face encounters.[71] Metaverses extend this concept by integrating interoperability across platforms, blockchain-based ownership of digital assets, and decentralized governance, enabling cross-world economies and persistent identities.[72] Second Life, launched in 2003 by Linden Lab, exemplifies early immersive virtual worlds with user-generated content, virtual real estate, and a resident-driven economy using Linden Dollars, supporting diverse communities in role-playing, education, and commerce.[73] Over 45 million accounts have been created historically, though concurrent users peaked at around 100,000 in the late 2000s and sustain active niche groups today.[74] Social interactions in such environments transfer physical-world norms, with users responding to avatars as they would to real people, facilitating emergent community behaviors like collaborative building and events.[75] VRChat, released in 2017, emphasizes social VR with thousands of user-created "worlds" for spontaneous gatherings, performances, and avatar-based role-play, attracting a community focused on creative expression and real-time embodiment through gestures and voice.[76] It reports high engagement, with users forming bonds via immersive presence that supports nonverbal communication, though moderation challenges arise in unfiltered interactions.[77] Scholarly studies confirm that immersive virtual environments like VRChat promote adaptive social connectedness through embodied gestures, reducing barriers to interaction seen in non-immersive media.[78] Metaverse platforms such as Decentraland, built on Ethereum blockchain since 2017, enable communities to own and govern virtual land parcels (LAND tokens), hosting events, art galleries, and markets that blend social networking with economic incentives.[79] Features like dedicated community hubs facilitate organized chats and events, emphasizing user sovereignty over centralized control.[80] In contrast, Meta's Horizon Worlds, introduced in 2021, aims for broad accessibility but has struggled with adoption, maintaining under 200,000 monthly active users as of 2023 despite integrations for creation and monetization.[81] Empirical data highlights that while immersive worlds enhance social presence—evidenced by improved well-being from interactions—adoption lags projections, with only select platforms achieving sustained communities amid technical and usability hurdles.[82][83]Specialized and Niche Communities
Specialized and niche virtual communities form around narrowly defined interests, professions, hobbies, or conditions that draw participants for targeted discussions unavailable in broader platforms. These groups typically feature higher member retention and interaction depth due to shared expertise and reduced noise from unrelated content. For instance, niche websites demonstrate a 35% higher average user engagement rate than general sites, attributed to content relevance that sustains participation.[84] Smaller niche platforms also preserve elevated engagement levels even with growth, contrasting with larger communities where interactions often shorten and dilute.[85] Examples abound in hobbyist domains, such as Reddit subreddits dedicated to obscure topics like Turkish coffee preparation (r/TurkishCoffee) or nootropic supplements (r/Nootropics), where users exchange specialized knowledge and experiences.[86] Professional niches include Slack-based learning communities like AltMBA, focused on collaborative skill development in business innovation.[87] In health contexts, online groups for specific conditions provide peer support, filling gaps in localized resources; approximately 31% of U.S. adults engage in such interest- or support-oriented online groups.[88][89] These communities originated in early internet forums and bulletin board systems (BBS) from the late 1970s, which catered to technical and minority-interest discussions before expanding in the 1990s with web-based platforms.[90][91] Modern iterations leverage tools like Discord servers or dedicated software (e.g., phpBB) for persistent, moderated exchanges, enhancing knowledge sharing in fields from biodiversity conservation to rare disease management. Benefits include fostered expertise, with members contributing detailed insights that build authority and trust within the group.[92] Challenges persist, including vulnerability to echo chambers from homogeneous viewpoints, though their scale limits broader societal ripple effects compared to mass platforms. Empirical data underscores their value: niche influencers and sites achieve 5-10% engagement rates versus 1-3% for general counterparts, reflecting committed audiences.[93] Overall, these communities exemplify virtual spaces' capacity for precise, high-fidelity social bonds grounded in common pursuits.Theoretical Frameworks
Howard Rheingold's Foundational Work
Howard Rheingold's 1993 book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier established the conceptual foundations for understanding online social groups as genuine communities, drawing from his experiences in early digital networks.[95] Published by Addison-Wesley, the work examined asynchronous conferencing systems like Usenet and highlighted the potential for text-based interactions to foster social bonds, mutual support, and emergent norms among geographically dispersed participants.[1] Rheingold, who joined The WELL—a pioneering computer-mediated communication system launched in 1985 in Sausalito, California—used it as a primary case study, describing how users formed "webs of personal relationships" through sustained discussions on topics ranging from health support to cultural critique.[96] Central to Rheingold's thesis was the idea that virtual communities arise when "enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace," emphasizing reciprocity, trust, and collective intelligence over mere information exchange.[97] He argued that these groups mirrored physical communities in their capacity for cooperation and conflict, as evidenced by WELL participants organizing real-world meetups and providing emotional aid during personal crises, such as his daughter's medical emergencies where online strangers offered practical assistance.[98] This perspective challenged prevailing views of computers as isolating tools, positing instead that low-cost digital connectivity could empower ordinary individuals with "enormous leverage" for civic engagement and knowledge sharing.[96] Rheingold's analysis extended to governance dynamics, noting how self-moderation and reputation systems in spaces like The WELL prevented anarchy despite anonymity, fostering a "rich culture" among "fiercely independent enthusiasts."[99] He warned of risks, including commercial co-optation and privacy erosion, but remained optimistic about the technology's democratizing potential, influencing subsequent scholarship on digital social capital and participatory culture.[100] Later editions, such as the 2000 update, revisited these ideas amid the dot-com boom, advocating metrics for civil society's health without commodifying relationships.[100] His framework, grounded in ethnographic observation rather than abstract theory, prioritized empirical patterns of human interaction over technological determinism.[101]Social Identity and Deindividuation Theories
Social identity theory, developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from membership in social groups, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group differentiation.[102] In virtual communities, this theory explains how shared online spaces amplify group identification, as participants often join based on common interests or ideologies, fostering cohesion through repeated interactions devoid of physical cues.[103] Empirical studies, such as those on online support groups, demonstrate that passive observers can vicariously strengthen their social identity by aligning with group narratives, enhancing feelings of belonging without active participation.[104] However, this heightened identification can exacerbate polarization, as virtual environments minimize exposure to counterviews, reinforcing echo chambers where in-group norms dominate.[105] Deindividuation theory, originally proposed by Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone, and Theodore Newcomb in 1952 and expanded by Philip Zimbardo, suggests that anonymity in groups reduces self-awareness and accountability, prompting impulsive or antisocial behavior.[102] Applied to virtual communities, this manifests as the online disinhibition effect, where factors like textual anonymity and invisibility lower inhibitions, enabling phenomena such as cyberbullying or trolling.[106] John Suler's 2004 framework identifies six contributing elements—dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative imagination, and minimal authority—interacting to produce both benign (e.g., candid self-disclosure) and toxic (e.g., flaming) outcomes in forums and social media.[106] Research on anonymous platforms links deindividuation to increased norm-violating acts, such as hate speech in unmoderated groups, where perceived lack of sanctions correlates with willingness to express extreme views.[107] The social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE), advanced by Tom Postmes, Russell Spears, and Martin Lea in the late 1990s, reconciles these theories by arguing that anonymity in virtual settings does not erode identity but shifts focus from personal to social identity, intensifying conformity to salient group norms.[108] Unlike classic deindividuation's emphasis on irrationality, SIDE posits causal realism in online behavior: identifiability with the group enhances prosocial actions within supportive communities (e.g., collective problem-solving in open-source forums) while enabling antisocial ones against out-groups (e.g., coordinated harassment campaigns).[102] Experimental evidence from text-based simulations shows that anonymous participants exhibit stronger group loyalty and norm adherence than identifiable ones, particularly when group identity is primed, challenging earlier predictions of uniform disinhibition.[109] This model underscores how virtual communities' structural anonymity can stabilize rather than destabilize behavior, contingent on prevailing norms, with implications for both community building and conflict escalation.[108]Individual Impacts
Psychological and Health Effects
Participation in virtual communities can foster a sense of belonging that mitigates feelings of isolation, particularly for individuals with limited access to physical social networks. A 2022 study published in Frontiers in Psychology demonstrated that a stronger sense of virtual community enhances user engagement and contributes to psychological ownership, which in turn boosts satisfaction and loyalty to the community.[110] Similarly, research indicates that active involvement in online communities provides emotional connectivity, serving as a buffer against stress, loneliness, and depression by facilitating social support and shared experiences.[111] For those facing stigmatized conditions, such as rare diseases or mental health challenges, virtual communities offer peer validation and coping strategies that improve subjective well-being.[112] However, excessive engagement in virtual communities is associated with adverse psychological outcomes, including heightened anxiety, depression, and addictive behaviors. A systematic review of social networking sites linked their use to an elevated risk of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress, with correlational evidence suggesting displacement of face-to-face interactions as a causal factor.[113] Longitudinal data from youth studies reveal a double-edged effect, where passive consumption exacerbates mental health declines through social comparison and cyberbullying, while active outreach may yield neutral or positive results.[114] Social media addiction, often intertwined with virtual community participation, predicts compromised mental health, with users exhibiting twofold to threefold increased odds of depressive symptoms compared to non-addicted peers.[115] Health effects extend beyond psychology to include disrupted sleep patterns and sedentary lifestyles from prolonged online immersion, which compound risks for obesity and musculoskeletal issues.[116] Virtual communities centered on high-risk behaviors, such as addictions or hate groups, can reinforce maladaptive patterns, leading to real-world harms like increased substance use vulnerability or escalated isolation.[7] Despite these risks, interventions limiting exposure or promoting balanced use have shown potential to alleviate negative impacts, underscoring the importance of mindful participation.[117] Empirical evidence remains predominantly correlational, necessitating caution in inferring causality and further longitudinal research to disentangle effects specific to virtual communities from broader internet use.[118]Effects on Personal Identity and Behavior
Participation in virtual communities facilitates identity experimentation through features like anonymity, avatars, and profile customization, enabling users to construct and test alternative selves with minimal real-world repercussions. A 2005 survey of 9,069 Dutch adolescents aged 10-17 revealed that 9.3% frequently engaged in such online identity experiments, motivated primarily by fun (74% of experimenters) and social fitting-in (49%), with platforms allowing role-playing or deception to explore personal traits. This process can support self-discovery and recalibration of identity, as users integrate feedback from virtual interactions into their self-concept, particularly in supportive communities like professional networks where shared practices enhance occupational belonging. However, immersion in echo chambers or niche groups risks identity fragmentation or over-prioritization of online personas, evident in self-harm forums where participants exhibit reduced offline accountability and self-deceptive behaviors aligned with group norms.[119][44] The online disinhibition effect, described by psychologist John Suler in 2004, accounts for behavioral shifts in virtual communities, where reduced cues like visibility and authority lower inhibitions, fostering dissociative anonymity and imagination that detach users from their everyday selves. This manifests in benign forms, such as heightened self-disclosure and empathy in supportive groups, but more commonly in toxic variants like flaming, trolling, or harassment, amplified by asynchronicity and solipsistic introjection. Empirical analyses link this effect to cyberbullying via mechanisms of moral disengagement and low self-control, with studies of adolescent users showing online disinhibition mediating aggressive online actions that spill into offline conduct. In specialized communities, such as gaming or addiction forums, avatars and social reinforcement normalize risky behaviors, contributing to compulsive engagement and identity alignment with virtual norms over real-world ones.[120][121][44] Long-term exposure to virtual communities influences persistent behavioral patterns and self-perception, with causal pathways including social identity theory's emphasis on group cohesion driving both prosocial collaboration in work-oriented spaces and radicalization in hate groups through biased reinforcement. For instance, participation in far-right online forums has been empirically tied to heightened offline prejudice and violence, as algorithmic homophily entrenches valenced identities that distort threat perceptions. Conversely, health or experiential communities can mitigate isolation by bolstering agency in identity development, though risks like technostress or addiction persist when virtual bonds supplant offline relationships, as documented in reviews of gaming disorder prevalence linked to community immersion. These dynamics underscore a dual impact: empowerment through diverse self-expression alongside vulnerabilities to distorted realism and behavioral escalation absent physical accountability.[44][122]Societal Impacts
Communication and Social Dynamics
 where executives suppressed the New York Post's October 2020 story on Hunter Biden's laptop due to concerns over hacked materials policies, despite lacking evidence of illegitimacy, and applied "visibility filtering" or blacklists to accounts like Stanford's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for COVID-19 skepticism.[147] These documents, comprising emails and Slack messages, indicated coordination with government entities on content flags and a pattern of deprioritizing right-leaning narratives, such as the COVID-19 lab-leak hypothesis, while internal assessments acknowledged potential overreach but proceeded anyway.[146] Critics, including former employees testifying before Congress in February 2023, argued this reflected systemic bias in tech moderation, influenced by predominantly left-leaning staff demographics, though platform lawyers in June 2023 filings denied direct government coercion.[148] Such practices, per a 2024 University of Michigan study, amplify echo chambers by disproportionately moderating politically opposed comments, eroding trust in platform neutrality.[149] Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, X implemented policy shifts emphasizing "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach," reducing proactive misinformation labeling and staff by over 80%, which correlated with a reported tripling of hate speech exposure in user surveys by mid-2023 but also fewer restrictions on political discourse.[150] Changes included expanding child sexual exploitation policies while relaxing violent speech rules, prompting lawsuits like X's June 2025 challenge to New York's Stop Hiding Hate Act, which mandates reporting hidden hate content, on First Amendment grounds.[151] A 2024 analysis noted mixed outcomes: decreased censorship of election-related claims but increased algorithmic promotion of unverified content, raising causal concerns that lax moderation enables rapid harm spread without equivalently bolstering truth verification.[150] Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enacted in 1996, shields platforms from liability for third-party content while permitting "good faith" moderation, enabling virtual communities to curate without publisher risks but incentivizing over-moderation to avoid scrutiny.[152] This framework, as reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2020, balances innovation with accountability gaps, where empirical data shows moderation biases persisting across ideologies but disproportionately affecting conservative voices in peer-reviewed audits.[153][154] Reforms proposed in 2023-2025 congressional bills seek to condition immunity on viewpoint-neutral enforcement, yet evidence from algorithmic studies indicates inherent challenges in scaling unbiased human-AI hybrid systems, potentially entrenching elite-driven narratives over open discourse.[144]Real-World Harms and Addiction Risks
Participation in virtual communities has been linked to various real-world harms, including cyberbullying that escalates to self-harm and suicide. Cyberbullying victims report heightened risks of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, with studies identifying a direct association between online harassment in social networks and increased suicide attempts among adolescents. For instance, young targets of cyberbullying exhibit suicidal thoughts and behaviors at rates exceeding those of non-victimized peers, independent of general bullying exposure.[155][156] In extreme cases, sustained online torment has culminated in "cyberbullicide," as documented in multiple adolescent fatalities attributed to virtual community interactions.[157] Online radicalization within virtual communities contributes to offline violence, particularly through echo chambers that amplify extremist ideologies. Analysis of U.S. extremists from 2005 to 2016 revealed that social media played a role in radicalizing 50.15% of individuals affiliated with extremist groups or cliques, facilitating pathways to terrorist acts or related offenses.[158] Empirical reviews indicate that while not all online exposure leads to violence, platforms enable rapid dissemination of radical content, correlating with rises in domestic terrorism incidents fueled by internet-sourced ideologies.[159] Financial exploitation thrives in virtual communities via scams propagated through forums and social networks. In 2024, reported U.S. fraud losses reached $12.5 billion, with investment scams—the most lucrative category—totaling $5.7 billion, often initiated in online groups. Approximately 21% of financial scams originate on social media, contributing to a 21% year-over-year increase in community-based fraud, affecting one in three U.S. consumers with monetary losses.[160][161][162] Addiction risks from virtual communities manifest as compulsive engagement displacing real-world activities, akin to behavioral addictions. The World Health Organization recognizes gaming disorder, characterized by impaired control over gaming in online multiplayer environments, affecting a small but notable subset of participants—prevalence estimates range from 1% to 9% among youth, with a meta-analysis pooling 3.3% globally.[163][164] Social media addiction, involving excessive use in community interactions, impacts an estimated 210 million people worldwide, correlating with elevated depression, anxiety, and self-harm risks due to dopamine-driven reinforcement loops.[165][166] Peer-reviewed syntheses confirm that problematic social networking disrupts daily functioning and social well-being, with habitual overuse mediating negative mental health outcomes.[167]Recent Developments and Future Trends
Technological Advancements (AI, VR Integration)
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into virtual communities has primarily advanced through automated moderation, personalized engagement, and content generation tools. In platforms like Discord, AI-powered bots such as TidyCord and CommunityOne automate server management by detecting spam, enforcing rules, and fostering member interactions via real-time analytics and quests, with adoption accelerating since 2023.[168][169] A 2025 report from The Community Roundtable notes that organizations are increasingly researching and implementing AI in limited scopes for community technology, prioritizing efficiency gains while mitigating risks like over-reliance on automation.[170] Generative AI further transforms virtual communities by enabling dynamic, user-adaptive environments, particularly in metaverse settings. It powers intelligent non-player characters (NPCs), procedural world generation, and personalized narratives, enhancing immersion without constant human input. An IEEE survey published in June 2025 underscores generative AI's role in VR-integrated spaces, where it autonomously creates content across domains like social simulation and collaborative design, drawing on models trained post-2022 for scalability.[171] Similarly, analyses from the Communications of the ACM highlight AI's enhancement of VR via real-time natural language processing and gesture recognition, enabling fluid group interactions in virtual gatherings as of 2025.[172] Virtual reality (VR) advancements have deepened community immersion by supporting spatial, embodied interactions beyond flat screens. Social VR platforms like VRChat exemplify this, with concurrent users peaking at 66,824 on January 1, 2025— an all-time high driven by user-generated worlds and events—reflecting maturation in hands-free VR hardware availability.[173][174] Meta's Horizon Worlds has advanced VR community features through developer tools and incentives, including a $50 million content fund launched in February 2025 to expand user-generated social spaces and a GenAI-assisted world-building toolkit released in August 2025 for rapid prototyping of collaborative environments.[175][176] The convergence of AI and VR yields hybrid systems for richer community dynamics, such as AI-orchestrated events in persistent virtual worlds. In metaverses, this integration facilitates adaptive social simulations, where AI responds to collective user behaviors in real-time VR sessions, as evidenced by 2025 trends in enterprise and gaming applications.[177] Empirical data from platform metrics indicate sustained growth, though challenges like hardware accessibility limit broader adoption to niche demographics, primarily 18-24-year-olds in platforms like VRChat.[178]Empirical Shifts Post-2020
The COVID-19 pandemic, starting in early 2020, drove a marked empirical increase in virtual community participation worldwide due to lockdowns and social distancing mandates. Studies document a surge in online interactions, including voice calls, group video sessions, and messaging, which were associated with enhanced social connectedness and positive affect amid isolation. For instance, longitudinal data from 2020-2021 revealed that such virtual engagements mitigated short-term declines in well-being, with participants reporting higher emotional support from online groups compared to pre-pandemic baselines.[179] This shift extended to professional and educational domains, where remote collaboration tools saw adoption rates multiply; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show remote work prevalence rising from 5.7% in 2019 to 18.7% in 2021 across industries, fostering persistent virtual work communities.[180] Post-2021, as restrictions eased, virtual community engagement did not revert fully to pre-2020 levels, indicating a structural change toward hybrid models. Engagement metrics from online platforms highlight sustained activity, with 76% of internet users participating in dedicated communities like forums and member sites by 2022, up from earlier estimates, and active member involvement nearing 50%—contrasting sharply with 5% active rates on broader social media feeds. Market data further quantify this persistence, with the global community engagement software sector valued at $294.5 million in 2024 and projected to expand, driven by demand for tools supporting virtual interactions in work, education, and civic spheres.[181][182][183] However, empirical analyses reveal uneven distribution, as lower-income groups intensified online health information access to a lesser degree than higher-income peers during peak pandemic periods, underscoring a widened digital divide in virtual community benefits.[31] These shifts also manifested in well-being outcomes, with research from 2020-2022 indicating that while virtual communities buffered loneliness for some emerging adults, prolonged reliance correlated with mixed mental health effects, including heightened isolation risks absent in-person ties. Peer-reviewed reviews confirm that crisis-driven virtual surges, as seen in social media usage spikes during disasters, persisted into 2025 but prompted adaptations like AI-moderated forums to sustain quality interactions. Overall, post-2020 data portray virtual communities as more integral to daily social capital, with daily global social media time stabilizing at 143 minutes in 2024, reflecting normalized yet selective online engagement patterns.[184][185][27]References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/388317176_From_Niche_to_Mainstream_Community_Size_and_Engagement_in_Social_Media_Conversations
