As information and communications technology becomes more and more advanced there is a strong possibility it could reshape our perspective of community in a city landscape. Not only could it help improve communication and ties between people living in a particular city, but also expand the city, bringing people together from all corners of the globe into distinct "virtual communities" - communities of people who communicate and associate over networks such as the Internet. Many doubt the validity of such entities - consider them consensual hallucinations or fantasy lands without any meaning. Can they really exist? And if so can we consider them true communities, communities that foster and encourage positive human relationships? It is my opinion that virtual communities most certainly exist, and that they can possess the same characteristics and qualities as traditional communities - if constructed properly.

To determine whether or not a virtual community is in fact a true community we must define the meaning of the term. The existence of dozens of possible meanings makes a single clear-cut definition almost impossible to assemble. In 1955 Hillery surveyed 94 definitions and concluded, "when all of the definitions are viewed, beyond the concept that people are involved in community, there is no complete agreement as to the nature of community" (Hillery, 1955, p.119). Excerpts from the Oxford English Dictionary provide some further insight: a) as a quality of state, b) the quality of appertaining to or being held all in common, c) life in association with others in society. A social state, d) A body of persons living together, and practicing, more or less, community of goods (Oxford English Dictionary, 1971). Today two broad definitions of the term are generally accepted. The first is the idea of understanding, trust, cohesiveness, group sharing, and conviviality between individuals who share a common interest. The second definition concerns the notion of physical space. It is generally accepted that most communities are spatial units, bound or limited in size by some geographical barrier, "most researchers agree that a community can be a place with boundaries that distinguish it from other places" (Stamm, 1985, p.18). Taking these definitions into account, is it possible to prove that a virtual community is in fact a true form community? Obviously physical space is not an issue - members of a virtual community communicate over large distances using high-speed communications and information technology - they could be oceans apart, "electronic media have had a tremendous impact on group identity by undermining the relationship between physical location and information access. Electronic media begin to override group identities based on "co-presence,'' and they create many new forms of access and "association'' that have little to do with physical location" (Meyrowitz, 1985). Meyrowitz mentions, however, the existence of an "association." If this association involves sufficient human feeling, trust, and understanding between people, virtual communities by nature must be a true form of community. Howard Rheingold, considered an expert in cyberspace and society, suggests this is the case, "virtual communities are social organizations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on...public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace" (Rheingold, 1993, p5).

It is my opinion both through what I've read and experienced first hand that such virtual communities can exist and do in fact involve the kinds of relationships Rheingold mentions above. As proof to this belief I present several examples of such virtual communities.

Ecto is a virtual community that formed around an Internet mailing list. This particular list was originally set up to discuss the career and music of American singer/songwriter Happy Rhodes, but has since evolved into its own distinct community. 'Ectophiles' as they're called share a close, almost family like relationship and frequently report important life events to fellow group members. This includes the birth of a child, job promotions, death of family member, etc. When a list member by the name of 'Revvie' passed away, friends and acquaintances worldwide assembled a series of touching online eulogies, despite the fact they had not known him in person. Face-to-face interaction is considered an important part of social cohesiveness and therefore members of this group often hold small gatherings, usually to attend concerts relevant to their discussion topics. Such meetings have occurred in various cities worldwide. Vancouver, Edinburgh, and Wuppertal, Germany are a few of the many.

Rheingold has written extensively about an online community that he has been involved with for many years. The WELL as it's called is an accumulation of many electronic discussion circles, each pertaining to a different topic. Rheingold was asked to submit a statement for a particular court hearing in which several organizations challenged the constitutionality of the so-called Communications Decency Act. It was felt that this particular Act would negatively effect free speech on the Internet and the Net's virtual communities in particular. The first half of his statement offers valuable insight into the workings of such communities, "In my life, the virtual community became my real community. The people I first got to know in open, group conversation online have become my friends in the real world where real things happen to people. I sat with two people when they were dying, spoke at two funerals, danced at two weddings, passed the hat quietly among other virtual members in dire circumstance. The community I know takes place among people who matter to me, and online communication is what enables thousands of geographically dispersed interest groups to build communities. For people who live in remote areas, who share certain special interests, from mathematics to politics to problems of being an Alzheimer's caregiver to the civic affairs of a small town or large city, to being a gay teenager in a rural area, virtual communities enable people to form associations that can enrich their lives and often carry over into face-to-face society" (Godwin, 1998, p.26).

Mike Godwin, author of Cyber Rights and member of the WELL, also discovered a sense of community online. While in the process of moving, he lost a majority of his belongings - particularly books from his personal library - in a fire. Countless people from the WELL community took it upon themselves to assist him, and sent him replacement volumes. Some of the books they sent were even worth more than the ones lost in the fire! This demonstrates that "many of them [people from virtual communities] feel more truly connected to one another than they do to their next-door neighbors" (Godwin, 1998, p.44).

Lastly I'd like to consider the sense of online community I've experienced first hand. Two years ago I founded a site called Outpost 10F, a conference forum or BBS (Bulletin Board System) based on the ideals of Star Trek. At first I took it more or less as a hobby and a process in which to learn the workings of various Internet programming languages. Since that time though it has grown into something of its own, far surpassing the limits of the programming code which comprise it. With over 3500 members it has become its own close-knit community in which people work together, without profit oriented agendas, for a greater good. The greater good in this case is the goal of making the site as interactive and creative as possible. Groups of people have formed teams in which members work together on specific projects and goals. Such projects include hosting trivia games, arranging interviews with various people, and constructing web pages relevant to the site material. Besides working together members of the community also share a sense of friendship and understanding. They reach out to others during difficult times, offering their support and advice. For example, recently a member was diagnosed with cancer. Members sent supportive emails and get-well cards, doing what they could to offer assistance. Similar to Ecto, many real life gatherings have also taken place - in Germany, Australia, Holland, and of course here in North America.

All three of these examples demonstrate that strong personal relationships between people can exist in at least some virtual communities. The relationships mentioned here do in fact follow the second definition of community and thus must be considered a true form of community.

After reading the examples above it may appear as if building a virtual community is both easy and immediately successful. This, however, is not the case. Virtual communities take much time to design and construct and even more time to evolve into a true form of community. In the case of virtual communities, construction would entail the assembly of online communications programs and supporting files. The task of assembling the required infrastructure is extremely important as "the participants in a virtual world are wholly dependent upon the tools supplied by the creators of the space to communicate. The choices made by the designer of a virtual environment thus greatly influence and constrain the means of communication and the ways in which a cultural vocabulary develops" (Donath, 1996). In addition to this, designers must also remember that it is the people who form a community. For this reason design strategies should be focused on the people, "architecture may not determine human behavior, but... bad design can numb the human spirit and good design can have powerful, positive influences on human being. Of the many values designers seek to build into their designs perhaps none is more important than fostering community and human interaction" (LeGates and Stout, 1996). A common set of beliefs and values, efficient communication pathways free of barriers, and reciprocity are three characteristics that can help foster a sense of community and interaction. Reciprocity in this case is the situation where individuals engage in seemingly altruistic behaviors for the purpose of achieving long-term goals. In other words, members make short-term sacrifices in order to receive the long-term benefits of membership in the community (Taylor, 1982). If the designers can assemble an infrastructure that promotes these three aspects, success will follow.

There are many ways of having infrastructure promote the three elements of success. Some recommendations include using software that promotes lively discussions, front-loading the system with talkative, diverse people, permitting the users to resolve their own disputes, promoting community by keeping old postings available, respecting children, and committing the system to maintaining public spaces for public events (Godwin, 1998, pp.38-40). In addition to these suggestions, focussing the community on a specific topic or theme, permitting members to voice their opinions so long as they follow the specified code of etiquette, and providing members with a method of making a difference in the community are also important. All of these suggestions will assist with solidifying a common set of beliefs and values, improving communications pathways between people, and providing a route for reciprocity.

Global networks such as the Internet are all about eliminating communication barriers and promoting free speech. They also allow individuals to easily find others with similar beliefs and values. Both of these characteristics are apparent in the examples of Ecto, The Well, and Outpost 10F. The notion of reciprocity is also inherently present. In the examples, short-term sacrifices such as organizing gatherings, attending funerals, or participating in work teams helped to secure a firm place for the individual within the community in the long run. Although many may be offended with the implication that such acts are done only to further the self-interests of the individual, I believe it is a fair assessment to make. It is only natural for one to want to feel needed and respected by one's peers - have a sense of belonging. Before this is possible though one must be given the chance to show the other members of the community that one is worthy of that placing. It is my opinion that the success of the virtual communities discussed has to do in part with their ability to promote a common set of beliefs and values, free speech, and reciprocity.

There are many advantages regarding discourse in an electronic interface. Since the face-to-face form of communication is non-existent, social status and hierarchy are easily eliminated from a conversation, thus leading to greater honesty and intimacy. Participants also have the advantage of anonymity, "anonymous on-line discussion spaces allow people to candidly discuss personal or controversial matters - one can, for example, seek information about a medical problem without making one's condition publicly known or discuss unpopular political beliefs without reprisal" (Froomkin, 1995). For these reasons it becomes easier to open up to others and discuss matters that may be difficult to talk about in person. It also becomes very easy for one to find others with common interests. All it would take is a keyword search to find a group of others with similar hobbies and opinions. All of these factors can lead to convivial cooperation, which would be difficult to achieve without the free flow of ideas electronic networks such as the Internet make possible.

Some may feel that sitting in front of the computer for long periods of time could be dangerous not only physically, but mentally as well. When approaching this issue we should consider the common television set. Almost every home in our society has a television, and family members spend much time on average in front of the tube. I raise the question - what is better? Sitting mesmerized in front of the screen all day, absorbing images, or engaging in interactive and creative online discussions with real people? Virtual communities encourage people to reciprocate and interact with others, thereby encouraging participation and learning.

Today's virtual communities do exhibit those qualities we look for in true community, offering members a home in the electronic/virtual world. Friendships between people are formed, learning takes place, and people discover pathways to communicate more openly. These are all positives, especially in a world that is heading in the direction of what McLuhan envisioned as the "global village." We must ensure that proper foundations are constructed to provide members of our society with a place to call home in cyberspace, "a place where we're known and accepted on the basis of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the content of our character." Without planning, without a deliberate architectural vision about shaping virtual communities…the incoming hordes of cyberspace inhabitants will continue to be alienated, isolated, without any sense of belonging. Virtually homeless" (Godwin, 1998, pg.41). It's time society realizes that "with the power of telecommuting, it is possible to expand dialogue, to show people that individuals can be effective, and to organize groups of strangers into communities. There are few more important tasks at every level from the neighborhood to the planet in the days ahead" (Deward, 1988, pp.2-8).