Week 1

4. LURKING VS. …….????

 Hi Arlyn and everyone,

Please allow me to propose an alternative to the term "lurker": "boundary member".Boundary member comes from community of practice theory, and it is not a negative term like lurker is.
Boundary members use the information gained from this CoP in other CoPs. It may sound like they are sapping resources, but that is not the case. They are using the knowledge gained from here in other areas and in other ways. That in itselfis valuable.
Occasionally, a boundary member is inspired to post something because they find it relevant. That's when those at the center of it all should perk up their virtual ears. It is an opportunity to see a new viewpoint. Boundary areas (and members) are important sources for new ideas. Without them and new members, things will just start going round and round.
There is a great welcoming spirit here at WIA. However, I think we should avoid comments like "coming out of your shell", "lurker", etc. and concentrate on the new ideas and viewponts they bring in. Therefore, I suggest we scrap terms like lurker and NvM because these terms are in themselves intimidating. Besides, of the 87 some odd members of WIA Yahoo gruoup, many of whom are boundary members; there may be one or the other (or more) who not only knows HTML (including layering), but DHTML, XHTML, ASP, Javascript, Java, XML, authoring tools, multimedia development tools, and PhP. It would be great to inspire them to come in and help us out.
Here are a few other things to consider. I, for one, am a boundary member in at least two other groups (sometimes this one, too). And what would it be like if all 87 members started posting at the current volume of those heavily involved WIA members. Would you have time to read all those messages?
Best,
Chris
A good article about this:
Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J.(2000). Lurker Demographics: counting the silent. CHI 2000 Conference Proceedings, ACM SIGCHI, Apil 1-6, 2000; The Hague, Netherlands.

:::::::::::::::::::::

Hi everyone,

I appreciate what Chris is saying about avoiding terms with negative connotation in reference to group members, but Webheads have always valued its boundary members even when we used to refer to them, for want of a better term, as lurkers. We have always encouraged, um bounding .. alright, lurking ... one problem with the new term is it doesn't lend itself to colorful coining as in the recent case of de-lurk. In any event, what I want to say, is that we are accustomed to cases where people have sort of camped out with us and absorbed our culture and then come out of their uhhh .. boundary member status (whew) to become informative and innovative members.
Seriously, well ... one nice thing about webheads is that we don't feel we have to be serious all the time. I admit I have taken a little license with this posting, but I do want to say that we are here for everyone's enjoyment as well as for everyone's benefit. It is clear to us that many are benefiting from our activities, and we want people to be comfortable no matter how actively or passively they chose to participate.
The main thing is that when I think about our group's having lurker, boundary, or passive members, I'm not at all thinking in negative terms about these people. Webheads have always welcomed a full range of participation and have no expectations that all members respond to issues or indicate at any time their level of participation. The level of participation that we have is enough to keep us all going. Everyone in this group is free to participate and respond to the participation of others (or not) as he or she sees fit. All are
welcome to feel at home with Webheads.
The secret to planning a great party is to invite about double the number of people you really hope will come. In scientific terms, nuclear energy is not released until you have assembled a 'critical mass'. It is clear (to me) that for communities to 'jell' you need a critical mass of participants. Therefore boundary members, though not taking part at a given moment in the actual fission, are just as necessary and valuable as the components actually generating the energy.
Vance :-))