Dictionary.com defines a “Community” as “A social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage”. From this description, one could easily conclude that purely online “communities” are not communities at all, but rather mere online discussion collections. This would be a reasonable assumption since some online discussion groups have members from all over the world that have never, and will never, meet in person. However, although important differences exist, “virtual” communities are just as viable as “real space” communities, since they share “virtual” government, typically have a common “virtual” culture, and can definitely reside in a specific “virtual” locality.

The are many obvious distinctions between “real space” communities and “virtual” communities. The most noticeable is the different communication protocols, mainly the lack of physical presence within the “virtual” communities. In a “real space” community, messages include much unspoken communication, namely body language, which can dramatically change the meaning of the message. “Virtual” communities have nothing more than their words and “emoticons” to portray emotion within their messages. This can be either a benefit or a detriment; emotion may get in the way of the necessary communication, but it also might be a critical part of the message. Either way, fully authentic conversation and dialogue can ensue in both “real space” and “virtual” communities. “Virtual” communities have the ability to exchange digital mediums such as, pictures and video. This capability also enables members of “virtual” communities to share information and media to a larger group more easily. A member can simply “post” a message, article, video or picture one time and have the entire community view it at their convenience. In a “real space” community, one would have to relay the message to each individual member, one at a time, or would have to wait until the entire community is physically present and attentive to relay the message to everyone at once. Individuals can be part of as many “virtual” communities as they want, or even play the role of more than one member in a given “virtual” community. Individuals creating multiple profiles is a much more impossible task within “real space”. In “real space” communities, goods and services are traded, with scarcity being the foundation for their economic structure. “Virtual” communities have an entirely different economy: “People create their own internal barter economy of information, whereby users help those who help them back.” (Grossman, From Anarchy to Power 28) Many things possible in one form of community are not in the other, and visa versa. The rules and protocols for “virtual” and “real space” communities are clearly and distinctly different; however they both have the “community” aspect in common.

Members of any community will always have at least one obvious characteristic in common; they all belong to the same community. Additionally, the members share a specific group locality, whether the community exists in a “real space” geographical area, or a “virtual” cyber realm. In “real space”, the specific locality can be a city, town, dorm hall, school, workplace, etc. In “virtual” space, the specific locality can be a website domain, IP address, IRC channel, UseNet group, mailing list address, or any other unique network protocol. Either way, the members of a community all, for lack of better words, “go to the same place” to participate in community activities, such as sharing ideas and discussion. This sense of shared locality, alone, is even enough for some communities to be viable, but other commonalities typically must be present in order for communities to form.

As a community develops - both “real space” and “virtual” - some sort of organizational structure and government must be created. Regardless of the medium, a community would be nothing more than a collection of discussion without some sort of structure and moderation. This organization can either be either explicit or implicit. Some communities have an actual set of rules, and a distinguishable person or people who have power over everyone else. Other communities have unspoken group norms. Either organizational structure is perfectly viable and can exist in either community. For example, in a “virtual” community with an explicitly defined organizational structure, a list of rules usually exists which members can access, and persons in positions of authority, usually the creator or an appointed moderator, have the power to amend that list. If a member is in violation of these rules, an administrator may chose to ban that user. In communities without explicitly defined structure, members who violate the standards may be simply ignored by the other members, or reminded that they are out of line with the norms. Without any structure in place or mechanisms to ensure the validity of this structure, a community would be destine to fall apart with unruly members taking over and bringing with them anarchy. Both “real space” and “virtual” communities must have a common government system in order to be considered viable communities.

The government and organizational structure of the community is created as the culture develops, and both have an influence one another. The culture is a critical aspect, and can only exist within truly viable communities. Included in this culture is the government and organizational system, community norms, topics of discussion, and typically specific ideas and beliefs. Members join communities because of the community culture: “People who use Usenet do so because they wish to communicate with others. This communal wish means that people on Usenet find it in their own and in the community's interest to be helpful. In this way, Usenet exists as a worldwide community of resources ready to be shared.” (Hauben, Netizens, ch 3) They have a common belief and the community grew from the culmination of people and ideas. It would be difficult to have a community based on nothing: “You need to build a community around a central activity shared by the community members. We don’t go to places or join communities just to chat or post messages, whether online or in the real world. Dialog and conversation are always incidental to the main activity.” (Grossman, From Anarchy to Power 16) Even if individuals become part of a community by chance, college dorms for example, the community will immediately generate norms, values, and beliefs in order to be considered viable. Communities, by definition, must have a culture.

Generally, people make arguments about how a community is viable if, and only if, it meets certain criteria. Communities are not defined by a set series of criterion, but are entities themselves, constantly changing, breaking the borders of our archaic definition. One hundred years ago, no sane person could possibly imagine a viable community existing outside of a specific physical locality. Fifty years ago, we just started pushing the boundaries with text only communities, and today they are all over the place. Differences exist between “virtual” and “real space” communities only because of the way interact with the different mediums. Network technology is changing the way we live our lives and view the world. This is not a phenomena specific only to advances in network technology; all technology advances have effects on our lives, some greater than others. Network technology is an overwhelming advancement, radically proving that we can do what we once thought not possible.