BC's thing on Meadowmont

Face-to-Face v. Wired: community life @Meadowmont and Meadowmont.org

± observations

key lenses:
Preece's usability & sociability: How does the site enable and how does it block sociability, and is the site relatively easy and intuitive to use and to navigate? Is the site consistent throughout, controlable, and predictable?

Governance: from Preece (95-96), issues here relate to Meadowmont's

joining and leaving requirements
by-laws
codes of practice for communication
rules for moderation
issues of privacy and trust
rules for copyright
democracy and free speech

and these topics relate both to physical space and to intranet membership and use

Meadowmont's by-laws follow Figallo's fundamental rules for online communities (Figallo, 1998):

words posted the responsibility of the poster
posting illegally obtained information also is illegal
posting information to which someone else owns the copyright not allowed
posting pornography or unlawful information not allowed
harassment not allowed

Consistent with Preece's advice to health-related communities, Meadowmont goes further. The intranet's terms of use includes:

guarantees of privacy
protection from exploitation and scams
protection from flaming
full contact information (board)

± Bird's-eye view: Meadowmont in physical space (F2F) v. virtual space
A look at how the physical geography/topography maps onto the virtual geography of the intranet, or the correlation between physical speech and patterns of communication; and an examination of how the two operationalizations of community correspond and how they differ

Preece (p. 182): Internet "may also help to integrate society and to foster social trust and social capital by making it easier for people to stay in contact and build new relationships. For example, the Internet is valuable for disseminating information to a group [or sub-group], to help members organize action and plan future activities." The weaknesses have to do with the (lack of) strength of online ties.

Summary:

Physical space	Virtual space
Socio-economically stratified	Blurring of socio-economic
Homeowners and renters distinct	Same: Renters only partial access (?)
Retirement community separate	Not yet relevant (Cedars not yet built)
Proximity: Homes close to each other and to sidewalks, streets	Coalescence around interests, social needs: Play groups and discussion
Commercial center	Commerce emphasized (but it's early)
Regulated and surveilled	Same
Commercial development: Harris Teeter, UNC	Classifieds
General manager as overseer	Neighborhood assn. director as overseer, an employee of development company
Facilitated interaction: pool parties, ice cream socials	None
Physical space characteristics: sidewalks, commercial center, architectural diversity, no church, no visible security (guards, checkpoints), UNC on site	Virtual space characteristics: classifieds section; calendars of events; slide shows (planned); newsletter; little spontaneous communication, chat, or true discussion (yet)

**Conflict most likely to result around home ownership and property value issues
Ability of community to resolve those conflicts is untested

go home