Community

As of November 24, 2004, Google’s online community Early Modern Social History boasted “about 123,000 threads” covering topics ranging from “Stupid Battles of History” to the “Definition of Humanism” to “The First Secular Humanist State was not Revolutionary France.” While the topics and discussions can go from the interesting to the bazaar, nestled within them is some interesting insight into who participates in these communities and posts on them and what they post. From these exchanges, the value of online discussions becomes evident, as well as the validity of online communities being “real” communities.

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project’s definitions of online communities, the Early Modern Social History group is one that could be classified as “a group for people who share a hobby or interest.” The topics and discussions, for the most part, center on modern history, including US, European and World history. Some of the discussions can be very relevant to social history, while others can be way off mark. Consider, for instance, the discussion on “FDR, Japan and the Pearl Harbor Attack” as compared to “Adolf Hitler Was Jack the Ripper.” One is very relevant to history, while the validity of the other is questionable. In examining the various discussions, the more relevant to history and the more credible a topic is, the more responses (or “threads”) it generated. The discussion on FDR and Pearl Harbor generated 255 threads, while the discussion on Hitler as Jack the Ripper only 1 (the original poster). Surprisingly, there were few, discussions that related to issues of the day. For instance, there were no discussions related to John Kerry, George Bush and the 2004 election, or the presidency in general during the weeks leading up to the election.

It appears that much of what is being discussed is as Barry Wellman and Milena Gulia contend: "anecdote" rather than "evidence." While there were some postings that showed historical knowledge of a topic, few conversations offered concrete, scholarly evidence to support or refute the question at hand; rather many times shallow responses were given, the origins of which might have come from the History Channel or book by a popular historian, as opposed to some scholarly journal. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however. It shows an interest in the subject and desire to gain knowledge and understanding of an issue.

So, then, who are the members of the discussion community? Scholars? Students? Educated? Uneducated? Hobbyists? Armature historians? Young? Old? Male? Female? While it is difficult to truly ascertain who exactly the members of the Early Modern Social History community are (after all, posting in an online community is rather anonymous), it is clear from the questions being asked, the language being used, and the stories and replies being posted that there is a mix of all of these groups. For instance, a student posted saying he needed help with answering how the “early 19th-century fur trappers traveled *upriver* on the Columbia River in Washington.” If names of the individuals are any indication as to the gender of the people posting, then on the Early Modern Social History group, males would be the predominant posters. Numerous discussions had the same people exchanging posts over a period of time, therefore showing a desire to engage in an ongoing discussion. For instance, the discussion on Smallpox had an original post date on October 14, 2004; the last posting was two days later, on October 16, 2004. During this two day period, eleven people engaged in a discussion on the effects of smallpox on the colonization of North America. In short, there was a healthy, yet brief, exchange on this subject.

In reviewing this community, it is apparent that online communities and discussions are unique in many ways, having advantages over other forms of media, such as newspapers, magazines, books and television in facilitating the exchange and dissemination of ideas and information. For example, these communities offer students a resource for getting information that they wouldn’t normally find through other outlets, such as the aforementioned student who was writing a short story on the “early 19th-century fur trappers.” Online discussions allow people to vet their ideas and get responses and ask questions about issues they can’t find answers to through other sources. Since the discussion board is open and not monitored, and since postings are anonymous, the boards lend themselves to a free exchange of ideas. The discussion community is the 21st century manifestation of the “soap box,” allowing individuals to express themselves, unmolested and unintimidated by a crowd or the authorities.

While these communities exist in cyber space, they appear to be “real” as opposed to just virtual communities. As with any community, people choose to join it based on shared ideas, values or circumstances. Second, a community is something people can identify with and, in turn, become possessive and defensive of. In reviewing the postings on Early Social Modern History, there appears to be many individuals who frequently post over time, thus indicating that they visit often and draw an association with this community. One person, desperate for help answering a World War Two question but couldn’t find a community that addressed the subject, posted the question on the modern history forum. The individual received a response with a closing note saying, “And you've got the wrong newsgroup,” thus showing a possessiveness and defensives of the group. Third, as with any community, members turn to it for help in solving problems. Consider again, the student that visited for help in answering a school question.

Whether on subject or off, online communities such as Google’s Early Social Modern History site add value in the increasingly tangled web of the internet by facilitating discussion and providing an outlet for debate that might not normally ensue through normal media outlets.