"The aims and motivations of the community-networking movement are not new. They've been anticipated and rehearsed several times this century as people endeavored to build stronger communities. These earlier struggles were marked more frequently by failure than success and include the community-center movement, the battle for amateur (noncommercial) radio, and the fight for community public access television. Although each had [its] particular idiosyncracies of history and personality, all examples offer valuable lessons for the community-networking movement. Success is not guaranteed. It is clearly possible that the community-networking movement may implode, as Mario Morino has warned, or merely shrivel into oblivion." (Schuler, p.354)Historically, each new community network (CN) has been a pioneering effort. Each of the Free-Nets I studied was a "first," and in each case the target community had never heard of such a thing before. As the movement gathers momentum, prefabricated systems like those that were produced by NPTN's Rural Information Network project may become more common, but still it will be important to place the needs of the community before any thoughts of convenience. I have become convinced that a balance needs to be very carefully struck between learning lessons from the Free-Nets that are already established and reinventing the proverbial wheel in each new community.
My experience as acting director of the RIN project made it clear to me that it is vital for the organizations that continue NPTN's legacy to study existing CNs more than they have done in the past. The time for experimentation is largely through, and it is unfair at this point in the movement to expect every CN's organizing committee to have a pioneering spirit, the will and patience to start from scratch. It is also unfair to expect them to do their own research into successes and failures of the past. If prefabricated systems are to be produced, they must reflect the very latest knowledge of what works best. This knowledge could be gained most effectively through frequent communication between the CNs' sysops and the staffs of NPTN's successors.
I realize that this study was conducted too hastily to be authoritative, but it has been my hope that it can serve as some sort of a model for future studies. I feel that in the course of my research I uncovered some knowledge that may be valuable to the CN movement.
One of the respondents to my survey wrote, "The computer is one of the first inventions which can be used to bring people together or drive them apart. It depends on how you use it." (Myers) While other media such as radio and television may have had the same potential in the past, they have served to "bring people together" into a global village rather than strengthening local neighborhoods. If computers are to have the opposite effect, the way we choose to use them will be crucial.
"If the systems are to be used widely, they must be easy to use, easy to access, and free of structural barriers to their use. Among other things, the systems must be reliable and responsive; the user interface must be intuitive and unintimidating; and special-purpose interfaces must be developed for those with special needs." (Schuler, p.398)The three Free-Nets I studied each experienced different barriers to universal access. CFN is strapped for resources, GLFN may not allow access through non-graphical terminals, and WC-SGFN functioned unreliably during a key point in its growth. Future systems must avoid these barriers as much as possible.
"I do believe the availability of the WWW to more and more computer users will hurt the Free-Net concept. This is too bad because the local flavor of the Free-Net is lost on the internet." (Ivany)
"Concerns that boundary- spanning networks might facilitate a breakdown of community affiliation, or disinterest in local affairs, appear unfounded. Although individuals benefit from access to wider national (and international) resources, ties to their local communities remain strong (and, arguably, are strengthened)." (Law & Keltner, ¶101)I tend to disagree with Law and Keltner on this point and agree with Mary Ivany. I think one of the greatest strengths of CFN and GLFN is that while they provide access to Internet resources, they do not do so at the expense of local resources. For example, both systems have SIGs for the local Red Cross, even though the Red Cross has a worldwide presence. In the absence of such local content, WC-SGFN has attempted to fill the gap with Internet resources, and in doing so it has invited an unflattering comparison to commercial services.
"It's a lot like parenting -- authoritarian, neglectful or overly permissive administration can stifle growth. Authoritative but fair is the best way." (Ammann, Jun. 22)The CFN users I questioned all seemed to agree that CWRU has been neglectful in its management of the first Free-Net, and that has damaged its morale as well as its usership. WC-SGFN, on the other hand, has become a proverbial watched pot. I have a strong suspicion that management style is an effect rather than a cause of a Free-Net's status. If further growth were an option for CFN, it would be in CWRU's interest to promote it, and if things were going well at WC-SGFN, its management would relax.
On a larger level, I feel quite certain that the gap left by NPTN's bankruptcy will be filled by other organizations, probably new ones founded for that purpose. Only a month after the announcement of NPTN's bankruptcy, John Kurilec founded the Organization for Community Networking (OFCN) to continue some of the projects he had been working on at NPTN. I have the strong impression that there are too many caring, dedicated individuals in the CN movement for it to lose momentum now.
"Online technology is growing and changing so fast --who knows what the future will bring." (Ivany)