AGM is a unique community. Although similar to a morning coffee group that meets at the corner shop, AGM is global in scope. The community is composed of people from around the world, the computer and the activities of the community in the context of CMC. This community goes beyond sharing a cup of coffee, a bit of gossip and a common meeting place. AGM incorporates the computer and CMC into the community.

Alt.good.morning (AGM) is part of Usenet. Just as Usenet is a hybrid of interpersonal, group and mass communication, so is AGM. Usenet can look like a monologue, a give and take discussion or a multilogue. It is a many-to-many asynchronous, distributed multicast transmitted by computers using NNTP or UUCP protocols in a point to server broadcast scheme. The messages are encapsulated, public texts. Usenet is relatively simple to participate in and provides a range of interactivity dependent on the energies and inclinations of its members. All of these characteristics are also true of AGM. AGM is a global coffee shop or back fence full of chit-chat and conversation, a global town-meeting complete with all the contradictions of any social space and a global support session.

Besides being a newsgroup, AGM is a group of people who communicate using the Internet. They talk on Usenet, they exchange emails and they use talkers, a synchronous distributed multilogue with fragmentary public messages similar to Internet relay chat (IRC). They are an Internet community. But more than this, AGM uses traditional communication channels--telephone, snail mail and face-to-face (FtF) meetings. They are a real life community.

Internet communication adds new complexity to the ranges of expression possible via CMC and new complexity to the research methodology. In studying a Usenet community, I utilized ethnographic methods to characterize the wealth of interactions found in AGM. I have used participant observation, interviewing, a questionnaire and document analysis as the basis of the descriptions and explanations of this culture. Together, practice and activity theory provide insights into how and why AGM has built a community. Cultural knowledge and cognition are embedded within the communicative practices of this community and these practices form the foundation of the community. In a computer mediated group (CMG) such as AGM, computer use is the primary method for participating in the community and thus the computer becomes as invisible as a window. I have made explicit and visible that transparency of computer use in this CMG, to provide insights to the relationships among the knowledge, the history and the cultural life of this community of practice. By considering the interactions and interrelations among the components of AGM, including the computer, the individual people, the community with its rules and roles, my research resembles an activity theory approach. The result is a picture of a CMG as a robust community, richly textured by individuals and their activities.

To classify computer mediated communication (CMC) as inherently impersonal, lacking in normative reinforcement and with less socio-emotional content than other forms of communication is to deny the diversity and variations within this communications medium. CMC is no longer limited to email. With the extension of CMC into services such as IRC, multi-user domains (MUDs) and Usenet, communication via computer has expanded. With the extension of CMC to public, synchronous and many-to-many spaces, communication via computer has evolved. Given time to learn this new form of communication and time for social information exchange, people have used CMC in satisfying interpersonal relationships. As a member of one of the more recreational CMC areas of Usenet, AGM has surpassed the level of affection, emotion and creativity available in traditional FtF communities. AGM has achieved what is called hyperpersonal communication [148].

This research has been about how a spontaneous and heterogeneous electronic group on Usenet performs, how conflicts are resolved, how community is formed and what part the computer plays in this interaction. This research has been about CMC as a communicative context instead of just a tool. AGM utilizes the affordances of Usenet provided specifically by newsreader software to create a group of friends. They use header information and sig files to help in creating and maintaining unique identities. They use threading and kill files to structure their reading of messages from the group and the quotation system to contextualize and frame their messages to the group, They are people of all ages and all walks of life. They access AGM from school, work and home. They communicate with each other often and with a variety of media. They strongly identify with the group and express feelings of deep involvement with and even addiction to the newsgroup. AGM is a part of their lives.

AGM has built a robust community. It is a collection of distinct individuals who creatively use this text-only medium to fashion unmistakable and well-defined identities for themselves. Identity is created from email addresses and the information in the sig file. The customized sig file often provides the most salient clues in distinguishing between individuals when the message body so closely resembles all the other messages received. Other distinguishing characteristics are the writing style used, the roles adopted in the group and the explicit information provided about oneself. AGM has created a group identity with a shared history. Through their on-line behavior and language constructs they continue to build and reinforce their group identity. Their discursive practices reveal their ideals and the support they give to and receive from the community. They view the community as one of friendships, support and silliness. Their commitment to AGM is evident in their handling of conflicts within the community, in the efforts to maintain the homepage and the newsletter, in the plans for each of the annual meetings and in the continued efforts to post to AGM. AGM has not been torn apart by the conflict and challenges to the group from outsiders crossposting or from internal strife. It has been made stronger due to group commitment to the ideals and purposes they had set for themselves. Instead of flaming and abusive behavior, they used education, reason and proactive silence to challenge and ultimately to modify the behaviors of the transgressors.

AGMers have used humor and other patterns of communicative play to create solidarity and affiliation within AGM. They have a shared history and continue to build that history from discursive practices and IRL meetings. The special vocabulary of AGM is a distinguishing trait of this community and provides identifying markers for participants on AGM. Words such as "psot" and "klem" are easily recognized and stamp the sender as a member of the group. The expressive style of writing dense with affiliative remarks and paralinguistic features make AGM a rara avis among Usenet newsgroups. The discursive practices convey the attitudes and assumptions which underlie the culture of AGM. They have included tangible objects in the community--t-shirts, pictures, postcards and IRLs. AGM has built into the community the possibility of FtF interaction through multiple backchannels of communication and actual IRL meetings. The newsgroup is the visible portion of this community; it is the exoskeleton of the community, a boundary between the world and its essence, the binding framework which gives structure and unity to the group.

AGM is people who are connected to each other, not to computers. The computer is invisible. It is also an extension of the individual using it. Through their creative use of textual information AGM has defined the discourse of their community. They effectively use the hybrid communication space of Usenet discourse to create a rich communicative experience. AGM is exploring the expressive aspects of CMC with the brick, pictorial messages and interactive performance writing. Through extended conversations, humor and silliness, AGM creates solidarity and affiliation. Through the interactive performance writing of cascade bricks and Calvinball, AGM has extended the use of CMC to create new forms of conviviality.

An essential component of this community is the computer. The computer takes on characteristics of both transparency and visibility. When invisible, the computer no longer exists as a separate artifact in the activity or the delivery tool but becomes an extension of the person. After learning to use the various software, editor and quotation system, newsreader and email, you are no longer aware of the existence of the computer. The computer is as invisible as a window pane when you are reading posts. The computer becomes visible when you create a brick and shaped posts. The computer becomes visible when you miss posts, when lag time becomes a problem and when the computer is down. The computer cannot be separated from the expressiveness of AGM. The computer is an essential and necessary component of this community.

I began this study to find out how CMC is being used by AGM to build a community. By studying an existing community, I had hoped to find clues to how and why an educational listserv had failed to engage and involve its participants. I had hoped to find what ingredients were necessary for a successful on-line discussion environment and therefore a learning environment.

What is clear is that CMC is shaped by a variety of forces beyond the computer and that the computer subtly shapes those interactions. The practices, activities and social structures of computer mediated groups are emergent and not pre-determined [12]. AGM is only one of thousands of discussion groups on Usenet. AGM deliberately generates its own contexts and activities within a singular environment which includes the computer, Usenet, the people and their purposes for interaction. AGM would not exist without the computer. It would be a very different forum had the initial rules of the group allowed flaming or had the topic of discussion been motorcycles. Generalizing these findings to other newsgroups is problematic. Generalizing them to other Internet communication services is even more so.

I have argued that AGM is indeed a community. It has lively and engaging discussions. But to compare a Usenet community to a listserv is like the proverbial apples and oranges problem. I have provided a comparison of the different Internet interpersonal communication services in Chapter III. Although listserv and Usenet have many characteristic in common (e.g., asynchronicity, encapsulated messages, spatial distribution and existing environment), they also have significant differences (e.g., perceived source and visibility of messages as well as underlying metaphor). The AGM community and their types of message are the result of time and effort to learn to use the communication system, the inclinations of the individuals, the influence of the community as well as the influence and enablement of the computer. Learning the mechanics of posting and editing messages does not equate to communication skills in an asynchronous distributed environment. Since it is a hybrid of spoken and written discourse, Usenet communication requires a different kind of writing activity. Because you can read and write using traditional materials does not mean that you can write effectively on Usenet. This skill can be learned over time by paying close attention to the discourse and by participating, learning from your mistakes as you go. Time is also required to create the necessary interpersonal relationships that facilitate involved discussion. In addition, the activity must be valued; the information from this source must be worth the time and effort to learn to use the system.

The computer is an essential component of the AGM community; it cannot be separated from the activities of the newsgroup. It participates in the building of this community. As shown in Chapter VI, the computer constrains and reshapes our ways of building identity, recognizing individuals, communicating and maintaining social order. In Chapter VII, the computer constrains and reshapes our discourse. Thus, the computer is not a passive tool used by the people in AGM. It is an actant in the interactions. Even though the computer may be invisible in the activities of the community, it is still there and still influencing and structuring those activities. Its invisibility does not negate its participation in the interactions. Throughout this dissertation, I have made explicit the role of the computer in the activities of AGM.

To apply these lessons in an educational discussion arena requires several steps. First, an evaluation of the Internet interpersonal communication services is necessary to find the best match between the service available and the desired educational activities. Next, sufficient training in using the software and in communication techniques is also necessary. Often, students are told to experiment on their own to learn the software; formal training throughout the school term should be included in the curriculum. The social skills needed for effective communication in the hybrid spaces of the Internet must also be taught. Misunderstandings can be minimized by applying basic social skills and Netiquette appropriate to the Internet interpersonal communication service being used. In addition, the activities in the discussion arena must be valued, either extrinsically (for a grade) or intrinsically (for personal satisfaction). Finally, sufficient time must be allowed for learning curves and for enough traffic to be generated to make the discussion viable and interesting.

The above characteristics are major challenges to providing an interesting discussion arena in an educational context with the severe time constraints of a university classroom. Part of what increases the involvement on AGM is the multiple communication channels used by the participants. Other ingredients include a touch of the exotic and a chance to be unconventional or even outlandish in the safety of your own home. The willingness to try something different, to be someplace different, to be someone different are also part of the Usenet experience. Translating these issues to an educational discussion arena is problematic.

Many of the contradictory results of CMC research can be traced to the differences in communication services being studied and to the combinations of services studied as a group. CMC services are not equivalent. I have presented a comparison of some of these services detailing their significant differences and similarities. Future work in CMC needs to recognize the specific differences among these services and not assume the generality of findings from one service to the next.

The results of my research are more generalizable to other newsgroups than they are to MUDs, and to other general social groups than to topic specific groups. My findings corroborate the findings of Baym, that CMC is shaped by a variety of forces beyond the machines, that practices and social structures of computer mediated discussion are emergent not pre-determined, that participants appropriate resources and use them for their own purposes [12]. However, my findings go beyond those of Baym. The importance of the computer as an actant in AGM provide insights to the ways the computer and CMC constrain and reshape the activities of AGM. My findings provide insight to the nature of CMC activities in newsgroups that have a balance of participation among women and men and among different age groups. More research is needed in the expressive aspects of CMC including flaming, interactive writing, interactive performance and ASCII art.

This research has been an effort to place myself within the extended networks of social relations and forms of work that constitute the technical system [137] of Usenet. I have used qualitative methods to conduct this research. Qualitative research techniques have provided me with the tools necessary for a comprehensive approach to CMC research on a Usenet community. One advantage of studying an electronic community is that observations from Usenet come pre-transcribed. A disadvantage is the inaccessibility of some of the participants you might want to interview. It is more than their refusing to be interviewed; they completely disappear--net access gone. The time frame for this type of research is more protracted than in FtF interactions. You have to write the email then send it and wait for the response. Again interviews are pre-transcribed, but the turn-around time for questions and answers may be days or weeks. Working within a group with a variety of computer skills is also challenging to the researcher. Social skills are often more important on-line than in FtF because of the text only interaction; trust building may take longer without the FtF authentication and reaffirmation of legitimate activity. Time and patience is instrumental in research of this type. Qualitative methods are well-suited to the study of electronic communities.

CMC is the activity and the context of AGM. The object is to build friendships. I have described this activity as a complex interaction among the individuals, the computer, the community and the norms and behaviors of the community. Practice and activity theories are well-suited to structure investigations of the social dynamics of CMC. Usenet interactions are contextually embedded interactions. The computer is a tool mediating human interaction with the world and an actant in that interaction. Activity theory can frame investigations into the culturally developed ways of using the computer and its mediation which shapes activities. More investigation is needed into the internalized use of the computer, how it influences the nature of activity, shapes the goals of the people who use it and transmits cultural knowledge. This dissertation gives insights to these issues from the perspective of one Usenet community.