Revisiting the Distinction Between Social Networks and Online Communities

This is one of the clearer definitions I’ve seen of the difference between social networks and online communities (emphasis added).

We’ve talk a lot about the difference between social networks and online communities, about how the former are ‘me’ places where I talk to my friends about things that interest me; and about how the latter are ‘we’ places where I work with people towards a common goal or end point.

[From Why Facebook Really Can't Be Your Online Research Community - Marketing & Strategy Innovation Blog]

This got me thinking – is the distinction really still that clear, or are we moving towards blurring the lines on all levels. For a much deeper description of the distinction, see Lee Lever’s Common Craft post from way back in 2004, which, despite its age (that’s about 856 in Internet Years) largely holds true today. The Cliff Notes version of Lee’s excellent post basically boils down to Identity vs. Collaboration (emphasis added):

In traditional online communities, discussion is the center of the interaction and identity building. Members create relationships (and their own community identities) based on information they post in online discussions…

In contrast, social networking enables the creation of identity in the community without participation in discussion.

Does this hold true today? At the end of Lee’s post he noted:

I do see opportunity for traditional online communities to take a new look at member profiles and how they can be used build identity. Participation in discussions should not be the only way to have an identity in an online community.

Lee’s comment really focuses on a one-way movement, online community tools over time adapting social networking functionality. What I think is happening is a growing convergence of both models of online social interaction, with an allowance for the pure model at either extreme.

For example, forum or discussion-based online communities (NOTE: I’m really referring to the tools here, not the overarching idea of a community online. See Update 2 below) are often adding increasingly sophisticated personal profiles, friending, and other norms of the social networking model. That said, we could all probably point to 100 classic forums, discussion groups, or even listservs that continue to thrive with functionality that is essentially unchanged over the past 6-8 years, and there is likely to be a solid demand for these tools for years to come – people just get, and like using, forums.

Coming from the other direction social networks are enhancing topical group functionality constantly, though clearly the social interaction continues to take precedence over constructive discussions. Facebook’s groups proliferate like bunnies, yet mostly serve as signals shouting to your friends “hey look what I’m interested in!” while providing some shiny bits to adorn your profile. The discussion boards and walls, in many cases, too often resemble ghost towns. LinkedIn also rolled out membership groups for professional affiliations, alumni networks, and so on yet those also mostly shout out what you’re interested in, rather than hosting ongoing conversations you participate in.

Another example of this blurring between online community and social network is the constant drumbeat of Content Management System (CMS) vendors who are rolling social networking features into their offerings. Microsoft had a “Knowledge Network” component to SharePoint in the works (no clue if it still is), though outside organizations like Telligent with Community Server are successfully layering social networking on top of SharePoint’s content management. Drupal is seeing more and more social modules being developed, and so on.

At WebJunction we’re attempting something similar, as we’re a content-centered site (based on the Liferay portal) for the library community, and we’re trying to foster discussion directly around that content and associated topics as a means to increase its value. Yet a big part of the value discussions bring to the content is in identifying peers from across the professional community who share common interests, signaled by their participating in the content-based discussions, and connecting with them via more traditional social networking tools. So we’ve recently rolled out friending, my updates/activities lists, social bookmarking, and so on. Lots of work to do, definitely, but we’re working to straddle that line between social network and online community in a way that I think is representative of where many platforms are going in the long run.

Wrap Up

There are two deliberate trends blurring the distinction between online community tools and social networking sites – on the one side the social networks slowly adding in groups and topical discussion capabilities, on the other CMS vendors and open source solutions adding friending, buddy lists, and other classic social network tools. The race in both cases is to capture more and more of the conversation AND interaction people have, be it on a public community or inside the enterprise firewall.

I see this as inevitable for social networks to compete and grow over time – why force their members to jump offsite to have discussions they could be having within the walls of the network?

However outside of CMS solutions, I think there is less of a need for traditional online communities to make the shift. The seems to be an indefinite want for traditional online community tools – forums, boards, listservs. They meet a very specific need, simply, and on the cheap (free, mostly). In places like product support, gaming, development, and elsewhere traditional online communities are likely to hang on for some time.

UPDATE: In the comments to Lee’s post, there is this great point about anonymity from Eric Eggertson, which is another compelling argument for why traditional forums and such will likely have a long lifespan:

I think anonymity has its time and place. There are lots of people who for various reasons need to be anonymous when posting things online. Their comments could threaten their livelihood; they could be hiding from a violent ex-spouse; etc., etc.

I’ve been part of a discussion forum for the past 8 months that uses no names. There are occasional problems and people don’t always behave themselves, but generally people are treated civilly. Sometimes, anonymity works.

UPDATE 2: Ironically, my teammate from WebJunction commented just a couple months ago on Lee’s post, which I hadn’t noticed until now. Chrystie raises a great point about the limited definition of the word “community” implicit in Lee’s post (and mine as well, since I riffed off what he said). Communities can form online based on almost anything, such as a static page with a great idea that resonates with a group of people. Online communities, by Chrystie’s argument, are defined by the human connections and interaction and are merely facilitated by the kinds of tools (forums, boards, etc) Lee and I talked about when referring to “online communities”. It’s an excellent point, and really gets to the heart of what community is both online and off. So to clarify, when I say “online communities” in my post, I’m limiting the definition to the tools themselves, but Chrystie paints the bigger context very effectively.