Talk:False community

Why?

Is it a theory? Then it should explain that it is a theory. Perhaps it would be linked to "definitions" or other descriptions of "community". Since this is not a wikipedia article but rather a potentially usable debate term, it is well and fine to just assert that some may claim that risks have to be physical, to the body, but in order to connect the term to an ongoing discussion, it would perhaps be well to elaborate (speculations allowed) on possible consequences on claiming the necessity of physical risk to claim it a community. If a physical risk is necessary (then disclaiming social shame), does it properly dismiss the presence of a community? Is risk a critical mechanism for upholding a society, really? rursus 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The editors of this page, indeed this group of "Wikimedian philosophies" pages, could perhaps be used as an example of the most benign kind of "false community". From the emphasis placed on the fundamental importance of the Wikipedia Community in all the Project's crucial vision, mission, policy and guideline documents, one would expect a "community" of significant numbers of Wikimedians to be vitally interested in "Wikimedian philosophies". However, the facts of so few edits or even discussions on these pages is evidence that no such community actually exists - it is an illusion. (Or they are all exopedians!)

In terms of risk here then, the situation here is the risk of disappointment, literally disillusion, and its resulting de-motivation to contribute. There is no feeling of shared energy here, no readership, so I'm wasting my time here, and I'll go back to the more active community on WP.

Perhaps the original editor could explain what they mean by "shared risks"? I'm assuming they mean the risks of failure of the community, hence the reference to reputations. But it's hard to understand the connection from that to falseness, because even the failure of a "true" community carries that risk. And I certainly don't understand the reference to false consciousness. Please expand.

In more general terms, the non-physical risks of more actively harmful kinds of "false community" have been discussed many times in regards to virtual "communities" such as Wikipedia in terms of editors being alienated from the project when they perceive they are for some reason treated as NOT being part of the community. They are labelled (possibly as "trolls"), treated arbitrarily or not dealt with fairly by due process, not respected by "in-groups" such as admins, sysops or other self-appointed elites, or excluded in other ways, for example by old hands using in-house jargon and acronyms which imply superior knowledge of the community and its systems. In these ways the "falseness" of the community is not in its absence, but in its misleading image. The picture of inclusion, acceptance, co-operation and democracy is found to be an illusion. Such a perception may be highly subjective, the reasons for such treatment may be justified, and the resulting hurt may be self-inflicted, but if the community is truly inclusive it will protect and nurture all its members regardless of the causes of injury. -- Bricaniwi 06:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)