...like k5 is a kind of community. Got this definition from "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
"2. A body of people having common rights, privileges, or interests, or living in the same place under the same laws and regulations; as, a community of monks. Hence a number of animals living in a common home or with some apparent association of interests."
The first part of this definition accurately describes k5, though there's no question that it is not a community in the traditional sense since "living in the same place" implies a physical space, and we do not live in a physical space when at k5. But I think many of us would regard the time we spend at k5 as the time we spend "living" at k5.
The nature of communities have changed in the past 100 years. As a citizen of the world, I exist in many communities, and choose which communities I identify with. With the advent of the Internet, communities have evolved (or devolved, as the case may be) to exist independantly of one physical space. I'm not one to refer to the Internet as a community (I used to hear stuff like the "online community), but rather a medium for communities.
Of course, the lack of physical contact means there is an entire dimension missing from these online communities, which is why some people can be insensitive to the plight of others. Would they be as insensitive if the community were in a physical realm?
I think the author's question is a good one, even if we aren't sure that k5 is a community. By asking the question, we can discuss the nature of online communities versus communities that exist in a physical space. I think that whether or not a community is physical or virtual, you still find conflict, disagreement, and insensitivity between members. People are still people, whether online or in the physical word
[ Parent ]