One concern I have with this "pattern" is that it assumes the questionner can drop into a community and immediatly ask a question- without considering the context of the group/community in which the question is posed. There are obvious aspects of the culture- like what is the mission, raison d'etre for the group? What is the level of activity, Does one need to be a member to post etc. But in addition there are issues like is the group fully engaged in a conversation (scheduled or one that has spontaneously arisen) already or has the group already addressed your question in the recent past.

To resolve potential cultural problems, etiquette demands that the asker first read the archives of the group (if available); subscribe and participate as listener for a while or email the moderator/owner of the group and query in prviate if the question is appropriate.

Secondly, one needs to know how to ask a question appropriately. My biggest peeve is when someone asks a VERY broad question, giving no evidence of any effort or work that they have done already. I don't want my time exploited by someone who is too lazy to do any ground work themselves to answer their question. So a sub pattern would be to illustrate in your question what efforts you have already undertaken to answer it and how the additional help sought from the group will enlarge not only your undertsanding, but the discussion will be relevant and useful for all group members.

Terry

"Expertise" connotes a gated learning culture based on membership, rank, and authority. An expert's grasp is proprietary, like copyright. Internet forums share knowledge even at the risk of amateurism. Like copyleft, the real value is comparable, but the culture is utterly different.

Terry, I couldn't help but smile, having been on both sides of the already addressed your question in the recent past and VERY broad question issues. The greatest invention of the eariliest internet forums, the news groups, has to be the Frequently Asked Questions (aka FAQ). They make cultural rules explicit (were real life like that!!). No newbie should participate without having understood them, and this definitely belongs in this pattern (or subpattern as you suggest). Thanks for pointing this out.

crohse, you strike at the very heart of what it means to learn. Is it the acquisition of knowledge or is it in the social relationships and situations of co-participation? I am going to turn to Lave and Wenger's notion of Communities of Practice (CoPs), which is firmly rooted in the latter, to explore the items you bring up.

1) Membership in a community is based on rank and authority. Members participate in learning at different levels depending on their level of authority or seniority in the group, i.e. whether they are a newcomer to the group or have been a member for a long time. A newcomer learns from the group, and in the process moves from peripheral to full participation in the community. At first, their activities are to simply gathering domain knowledge. Eventually, their tasks become more complex and the newcomer becomes an old-timer who is now recognised as a source of authority by its members.

2) But that doesn't mean that an expert's grasp is proprietary. Learning is in participation, and over time, results in practices that reflect the purpose of the community. These practices are a property of the community (hence, the term communities of practice, not individual expert of practice). They don't belong to the expert, although the expert has a great influence over the activity.

3) Yes, there is the risk of amateurism in an internet forum, but this is only at the periphery, where newcomers first learn. Above, Terry mentions a typical one - trying to engage experts in a topic they've recently covered. Usually such posts are ignored or the poster admonished, and community life goes on. The poster, if they stay, is now a little wiser, slightly more competent, moves closer to the ‘centre’ of the community, and in doing so, can contribute to any joint enterprises. In fact, CoPs depend on the ability of amateurs to move to the centre and constantly renegotiate these activities for the CoP to function. So hurray for amateurs!

Thanks, crohse, for bringing up this notion of expertise. I think I'm going to have to revise the pattern again!