Over the past few years, large corporations have expanded the way that data moves across different markets and verticals. Today, AI is omnipresent in our everyday lives — powering things like maps, spam filters, banking transactions, social networking, and online shopping. AI has quickly become absorbed into business and leisure alike, adding value and enabling the creation of new products.

A need for innovation continues to draw interest from investors and founders, but a lack of resources is often their downfall in a competitive marketplace. Finding the highest-potential startups is important, but corporations and investors are wary about chasing trends in an oversaturated market. Building authentic connections is incredibly important for founders looking for the resources necessary to create a competitive moat.

That’s the problem that led Forbes 30 Under 30 “Aku” Aakriti Srikanth and “Cece” Chan Chuan Chen to create AI Venture Amalgamators, which gathers up investors and top executives from some of Silicon Valley’s biggest tech giants under the same roof to support innovation in AI.

AI Venture Amalgamators (AIVA) collaborates closely with San Francisco’s Modernist Social Club founders Steve Chen and Shan Shan Fu to host events where startup founders could meet with enterprises and investors to help them succeed in the competitive Silicon Valley technology landscape.

“Startups need the resources and support of major corporations and investors to make their vision a reality,” said Srikanth. “Both parties need to bring real value into the relationship. These strong relationships happen when two parties can agree upon the same values.”

On November 20th, AIVA hosted Venture Unite, a closed panel discussion to discuss how AI is transforming modern businesses, and how investors and corporations can work together with entrepreneurs to bring about this change. The panel featured fellow 2019 Forbes listers Priya Saiprasad and Sami Ghoche, as well as Forbes 2016 alumni Sarah Austin and Mandy Salzman.

The panelists discussed how corporations and investors will often determine whether AI startup will succeed or fail, and the importance of founders partnering with corporates who can understand what they contribute to the conversation. Getting access to the resources and data isn’t enough — startups need to understand how to apply that data to go to work for their customers.

Saiprasad highlighted how important timing is when considering new partnerships, “As an entrepreneur, it’s so easy to get carried away with a plethora of options in front of you. There’s a right stage to consider partners, potentially not when performing bread and butter on your own GTM.” 

When approaching a new partnership, startups founders must take care to understand the way major corporations and investors measure value and align their solutions to those metrics. The best tech doesn’t always win; even when they don’t quite understand the technology behind it, corporations and investors are more willing to fund startups if they are able to focus on the problem they’re solving for their customers.

Ghoche’s startup, Forethought AI, focuses on easing the burdens of customer support workers. Ghoche and his co-founders built an enterprise search platform called Agatha Answers which utilizes advanced natural language understanding (NLU) to improve customer service workflows and help agents answer inquiries. Unlike traditional chatbots, Agatha Answers relies on real people to answer the questions but eases the burden on them by providing recommended answers and advanced routing systems that are able to categorize the inquiries based on context.

Last year, they managed to win at TechCrunch Disrupt’s Startup Battlefield and raised a $9M Series A round led by New Enterprise Associates. “The things we’re doing as a company, and some other companies are doing, weren’t even remotely possible before,” said Ghoche, “If you read about some of the research that’s coming out, it’s challenging a lot of the mental models that people have about what AI is capable of doing.”

For Srikanth, personal matchmaking is key, “It takes understanding the goals of the other person, and trying to see how you could actually be valuable to them,” she said, “Getting funded by VC firms or angels is as good as a marriage. You’re going to be working with them and tied to them for the next 10 years or more.”

In addition to Forethought, Srikanth has worked with startup founders such as CyCognito’s Rob Gurzeev and Adeptmind’s Gu Wu, to help them build connections that give them greater access to the capital and other resources needed to realize their visions. She is currently working as a co-founder at Ahura AI, a workforce development company using facial tracking to measure learning patterns and adapt curriculums on the fly.

Building up close, personal relationships through these types of events is essential for startup founders hoping to thrive in Silicon Valley’s competitive and close-knit marketplace. “San Francisco, the valley is very small, and the community of ventures and entrepreneurs is very small,” said Salzman, “So kindness is very important; what goes around comes around.”

“Having that humble sort of mindset, where no one really knows it all, and we’re all in this system together, helping each other out,” said Saipaisad. “The more success [you have], there are more things that could go wrong in your life and things that could go wrong in your career.”

Ghoche says that he always plans for the worst-case scenario, “I’m a bit risk-averse. I have to be okay with the worst, or else I wouldn’t do it. If you know what the worst is, and you’re okay with it, that enables you to go for the big thing.”

I don’t want to ever forgive Trevor for killing Johnny Klebitz, but after the events of the game I can’t bring myself to want Trevor dead. Out of everyone in the Grand Theft Auto IV world, Johnny had the clearest motivations — he wanted to support his gang and his values, and needs a good reason to kill. Seeing him degrade into a meth addict in GTA V (and getting brutally murdered) goes against everything he (and by extension, you the player) stood for.

In the Lost and the Damned, Johnny tries to help his girlfriend Ashley with her drug addiction, but eventually abandons her to her fate, first by sending her to rehab and then later by telling her to stay away from him. This rationality is carried through all of Johnny’s actions in the game — despite being easily angered, for the most part he takes the time to plan out his actions before carrying through with them. Unlike most protagonists in the series, he’s never forced to compromise his values.

Until he meets Trevor. While it’s not a stretch to believe that Ashley somehow made her way to Blaine County, met Trevor and continued her self destructive behavior, the last time we saw Johnny there was so reason to believe he would continue to associate with Ashley. Suspending my disbelief of that, Johnny was strongly against her drug use. There wasn’t any reason that he would get back with her, much less follow along and get sucked into the same behavior. As many before me have similarly noted, they essentially erased his personality and carried over his character model and name into something unrecognizable. The Johnny that we knew was a warm, strong, and powerful leader — even after the loss of most of his friends, we still got the impression that he’d be able to rebuild and come out of it stronger.

Which brings us to our introduction of Trevor. One of the very first scenes we see is him stomping in the head of Johnny K. For many (including myself) this was a cheap and disrespectful way to drive forward the idea that he was a very disturbed person. He more than adequately proves this in all of his behavior immediately following the act, but instead of painting it in various shades of gray like most of the narrative does, it immediately showcases how out of control he truly is — something that it manages much better later in the story.

A couple people have already talked about the infamous torture scene and if it’s justified. What Spann notes is that the scene attempts to show Trevor’s deranged morality: his powerful distaste for authority and willingness to do something horrific for a quick buck. Moving Pixels noted that Trevor is a send up of whatever everybody has always been afraid of that GTA players do with their time, full of undeniable rage and rampage. He’s the man with a “cut here” tattoo around his neck.

What really showcases Trevor’s insanity is when he kills Debra. Here, you’ve spent time getting to know Trevor. You’ve seen him ‘rescue’ Michael’s daughter from Laslow, and spend time getting to know Franklin. He’s become somewhat likable, if not a bit unhinged. But suddenly, Debra shows up at Floyd’s apartment with a gun, and Trevor is driven to unleash his rage, murdering one or both of them (it’s left ambiguous). This brutal and ruthless scene is a powerful reminder that Trevor is, and always will be, a murdering psychopath.

The endings of the game are somewhat soured by the same issues that plagued GTA IV, where the rewards for choosing one option highly outweigh the other options. In this case, not being able to play one of the characters and losing access to all of their related properties and activities. But the option to kill Trevor is still there. Morally, it seems like a decent choice. He’s a despicable character who the world would most likely be better without. Even the title for the mission is “Something Sensible.”

But when Franklin chooses to kill Trevor, it feels like you, as the player, are making the wrong decision. Trevor even says to Franklin, “I ain’t been nothing but straight and true with you.” Throughout the game, Trevor has done terrible things, and you’ve even aided him by enacting torture. But the murder of Trevor by someone who he has shown nothing but his own unique brand of kindness to feels wrong and detestable on another level. This also says more about Franklin, who often represents the surrogate child of both Michael and Trevor.

After Trevor is killed, Michael is rattled, and clearly upset by the loss of his troubled friend. Despite his horrible nature, the people who he lets in still care about him, and Franklin seems to have a tough time justifying murdering him. Trevor’s mental state is unhinged and psychopathic, but also very fragile. And it’s this fragility that makes killing him such a bittersweet moment — not something that’s done on Trevor’s terms, in a blaze of bullets and fire (like the C ending) but by taking advantage of his emotional weakness and friendship with Franklin.

While I might never forgive Trevor (or Rockstar) for killing Johnny Klebitz, I don’t want to kill him, either. Just because I don’t like him personally doesn’t make me want him dead. From a narrative standpoint, I even think his battles with the Lost are a fun addition to the story — I just wish they weren’t at the expense of a morally sound character. It would’ve been a lot more fun for Trevor and Johnny to team up to get his gang back in order — even if that sometimes put them at odds, it would’ve allowed for us to get to know Trevor even better in contrast with someone with a moral code like Johnny’s.

After two times going through the story (once as a spectator and once as a player) I still haven’t been able to find myself liking Trevor, or forgiving him for his brutal introduction. I don’t like how he does things, or the reasons behind them. But I do appreciate his devotion to his friends and his honesty — the fact that he doesn’t end up killing Michael after learning about Brad’s death is his greatest saving grace. He’s able to regain his composure after a while, and after the last heist, he begins to let Michael back into his life. He’s able to show forgiveness for Michael after Brad was killed. I just don’t think I can ever really show Trevor the same forgiveness for killing Johnny.

Written for Critical Distance‘s Blogs of the Round Table an initiative which seeks to bring the diverse voices of video game criticism together around a monthly topic. This month the theme was “Forgiveness.”

Online Creative Communities:

Communities of Practice and Creative Writing Pedagogy

Abstract

For many artists and authors, the internet is presented as a vehicle for content and a place for promotion. An increasing number of creative people have discovered that the internet can be used to foster collaboration in digital communities, bringing with them their expertise and desire to learn from each other. A new pedagogy is being developed around online courses, especially those with a creative writing focus, which often require students to interact and critique each others work. Literary communities, often created because of the high level expertise of the professionals involved and the ease of working together, are haunted by many of the same forces that pressure print publications and tend to lack the energy that comes with the digital era. A few peer-based and professional creative community models exist on the web, but they lack a solid framework for writers to develop their craft. Communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), based around an organic group of members working to contribute to a field or craft, have become more prevalent online, as modeled by the community surrounding the growth of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. The proper model for a creative community suggests a certain level of experience, a user base with primarily intrinsic motivations, a comfortable and safe space for creativity, and interaction on a personal and individual basis.

Introduction

Research into creative writing communities is spread over a wide variety of disciplines and specialties, and so the literature discusses various aspects of both creative writing and the process of collaborating online. Before examining how creative writing is conducted online, we need to understand some of the basic concepts that come with both the online landscape and the act of writing itself. One key concept to explore is the idea of a community of a practice (Wenger, 1998; Yang, 2009), a term many of the authors adopt to describe a group of people collaborating on an activity. Alongside communities of practice are knowledge communities and communities of interest, which all may be able to coexist in the same space.

Different formats for online communities are discussed, specifically the juxtaposition of blogs and wiki technology, best exemplified by Peter Duffy and Axel Bruns (2006). To better understand wiki, I have included information about the development of wikipedia (Luyt, Aaron, Thian, & Hong, 2008; Lam & Riedel, 2011; Lucassen & Schraagen, 2011) as a community based around learning and knowledge gathering (Baytiyeh & Pfaffman, 2010; Yasseri, Sumi, Rung, Kornai, Kertesz, 2012; Zhao & Bishop, 2011).

When examining academic studies concerning different uses of technology in classrooms, we see that the qualities present in the online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) are also of value in online teaching. The idea of creating a community of practice is explored as students are encouraged to find their own motivations for creative writing and editing within and beyond the classroom, and to protect quality content. By examining both academic and non-academic approaches to knowledge gathering, I find that there is a need for professional guidance in any creative community, as there are large gaps in the background knowledge of users.

Much of the literature reviewed suggests a target audience of K-12 students with a focus on education and improving literacy. While this goal is worth noting in the construction of the project, the literature is utilized as a means of exploring how a community of individuals interact and benefit from a structured education environment. The Wikipedia community is introduced as a community outside of academia that benefits from administrators that curate.

Important to note are the variety of communities that already exist on the web. The most well known of these is Deviantart, a community devoted to young artists showcasing their work. What is discouraging about Deviantart is a lack of critical interaction between members. While it is easy enough to tag and share artwork with other users, there is little incentive or training that encourages users to collaborate and give constructive feedback. While there is a critique feature on the site, it is a premium feature that only truly devoted “deviants” will tap into. Criticism on deviantart is only upon request.

The most typical practice for creative writing online is to submit to an online literary journal. These journals exist in a form that is nearly identical to that of their print formats, and publishing on them typically requires the same processes that take place in print, including potential submission fees and other requirements. There is still no guarantee that your work will be read, and these sites are only a vehicle for getting your work seen. Aside from Deviantart, there are a few online creative writing communities that exist as social networks which allow writers to post their content and create a digital portfolio. These are often similar to literary magazines in that they showcase the top rated work on public pages. While there is some room for critique on these sites, they typically become content farms where writers submit work which drives traffic to the site, without an expectation of feedback (Brunton, 2012).

Community

Historically, a community has “constructed boundaries or social hierarchies, established histories and rituals, shared geographical space, mutual interests, and shared values and norms” (Brown, 2006). Perceiving community as a metaphor for the use of space helps to give context to the relationship between authority and discourse. Online communities are defined by public discussions, shared interests or characteristics, and social bonding. Membership is defined by an attachment to the community and an attachment to the other community members (Neff et al., 2013). Traditional face-to-face interactions and the construction of social sanctions are usually absent in virtual communities (Yan, Davison, & Mo, 2013).

What becomes quickly apparent is that virtual communities should include more than actual or perceived geographic and ideological similarity. A community of practice looks at the set of relations through joint exploration and problem-solving in a group, which manufactures the environment for learning and establishing group ideologies (Brown, 2006). Members of a community of practice communicate goals, resources, and principles while developing skills necessary to participate in these environments. Knowledge communities, such as Wikipedia, may also be communities of practice, but their end result is undeniably the pursuit of knowledge. Communities of interest may be built upon a framework that encourages a community of practice, but the interaction and learning that takes place in a community of interest is not on the same level as a typical community of practice. The distinctions within these communities is explored throughout the literature.

Community of Interest

Booth (2009) looks at the practice of fans utilizing wiki technology to re-craft narratives out of pre-existing texts, using the popular television shows Lost and Heroes. This practice showcases how collaborative technology can cause creative work to continue to transform and live long past its completion. Booth describes the “process by which communal interactive action constructs and develops a coherent narrative database” as “narractivity” (Booth, 2009, p. 373). Fans construct a working knowledge of the narrative depicted in the media object, and are able to deconstruct and transform it from the knowledge base that they have created.

Through the nature of serialization, contributors build up a working knowledge base about the material as it is revealed to them in official releases, and piece together mini-narratives about characters or events. These are linked to other articles on the wiki through their connections within the narrative.

Wikipedia: History and Accuracy

Wiki, Hawaiian for quick, was revealed in 1995 by Ward Cunningham as a “web-based platform to help computer programmers” quickly and easily share ideas (Cunningham, 2005). This idea remained obscure until Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales decided to begin working on a radically new idea: an online encyclopedia. Early on in the life of Wikipedia, it doubled in growth annually, with more content resulting in more users who were able to generate content themselves. By 2006, it peaked, with a smaller pool of potential content. As most relevant topics were covered early on, new additions often became obscure, and the discussion shifted from the volume to the quality of its content (Lam & Riedel, 2011).

Many have researched the growth of the Wikipedia community in relation to how accurate the articles are. Using data about the survival time of “error edits,” researchers at Nanyang Tech in Singapore examined whether the age of content correlates with a propensity for erroneous information (Luyt et al., 2008). In a 2006 study, researchers compared the Encyclopedia Britannica with wikipedia articles, and found similar numbers of factual errors, omissions, and misleading statements, suggesting that their accuracy is roughly equivalent. Luyt et al. (2008) looked directly at the Encyclopedia Britannica study and extrapolated from that when the edits which contributed errors were made, using Wikiblame to index articles and compare differences between edit dates. They then determined when the “edit error” was made in relation to the life of the article. It was noted that many of the errors come from initial edits, because early contributions and new material has a wider scope.

Luyt et al. (2008) conclude that basing the trustworthiness of the edit on time, edits, or editors is not necessarily useful information. They imply that editors pay more attention to the core material of an article instead of simply adding content (Luyt et al., 2008). Lucassen and Schraagen (2011) take this further in a number of their studies as they examine the concept of trust and its relation to credibility. They describe credibility as the perceived quality of information, whereas trust includes a willingness to rely on that credibility. In judging whether to trust specific users, their information skills and domain experience is brought into question. Novices must rely on surface characteristics, while experts can assess the content more deeply.

Lucassen and Schraagen (2011) tested to determine whether a decrease in factual accuracy has an impact on domain experts but little impact on novices, and the use of semantic features in trust judgments. Their finding echoes earlier studies which demonstrate how domain experts value Wikipedia articles’ credibility more than novices, because their preexisting knowledge is consistent with the information presented in the article.

Novices generally had less trust in the original articles because they are aware of their limited ability to judge their credibility, and are skeptical of the information being presented. The experiences and perception of Wikipedia itself frequently were cited both as a negative and positive influence on the perceived credibility of the information, without any reference to the content of the information. There is a typical distrust over the policy which defines that consensus as more significant than the credentials of the editors.

Yasseri et al. (2012) examines what happens when there are conflicts in the creation of Wikipedia articles, and consensus is not reached initially. A significant percentage of the discussion on major articles concerns vandalism and the act of reverting back to previous states, and the community has created measures to address this, including locking out non-registered users, banning malevolent editors, and tagging controversial articles. What Yasseri et al. (2012) examines is the cases where the contents of the article itself is brought into question as two editors with opposing viewpoints present their information. These conflicts generally are resolved over time as the discussion becomes stale, one side becomes dominant in number, or other external forces intervene, but rarely from the merits of one side’s arguments (Yasseri et al., 2012).

The Wiki Community

By looking at the studies for the accuracy of Wikipedia, it becomes clear that the edit community created surrounding the site is responsible for its continued success. What Sanger and Wales built in 2001 organically grew as a community of practice based around the interactions of its contributors. Interactions between contributors improves quality. A social structure is built around the collaborative act of knowledge building. The amount of communication naturally increases with the quantity of edits and the age of the article.

Unlike typical virtual communities, the Wikipedia community is not immediately visible to typical users and it emerged, rather than being designed. Personal relationships are not necessarily key values, though reputation and recognition is taken into consideration among users (Zhao & Bishop, 2011). The motivations behind Wikipedia are thus: primary among them is the motivation to learn and second most pertinent is the creation of a public artifact. (Baytiyeh & Pfaffman, 2011). While a sense of community is essential, Baytiyeh and Pfaffman indicate individual learning goals and creativity are more valuable in a collaborative environment. The importance of accurate, truthful information is ultimately up to the users who take command of the content themselves (Luyt et al. 2008; Lucassen & Scraagen, 2011; Yasseri et al., 2012). Their mission is to learn and create in an environment they control. Wikipedia can be seen as a knowledge community and a community of practice, where the purpose is practicing skills while sharing, acquiring, and creating knowledge. A commitment to a public online community combines formal knowledge with informal practice, and gives members the freedom to choose their own role (Baytiyeh & Pfaffman, 2011).

Writing, Teaching, and Technology

Barbara Karsbaek (2011) examines writers workshops as a tool for teaching writing. David James (2012) addresses criticism about the dominance of the professor in teaching writing, and how workshops are largely victims of subjectivity based on inexperience. Ideally, the writing process should highlight the weaknesses and strengths of a piece and students should learn how to better engage the reader. The writing workshop supposes that a creative work can always be improved, and is never truly finished, only abandoned (James, 2012).

When looking at teaching writing in an online context, there is an understanding that the most important goal of the task is properly teaching the material, regardless of the technology that is in play. Chong and Lee (2012) look directly at different types of software that can be utilized to promote teaching creative writing, and designed a modular software (Storyworld) that breaks apart setting, character, and outline as separate sections with a number of exercises for students to run through, as well as a module titled Story Creator for students to create and write their own stories. At every stage of the process educators give feedback and assess spelling, grammar, and creativity. Coskie and Hornof (2013) examine some key principles that may guide the implementation of technologies (such as Chong and Lee’s (2012) Storyworld) in writing workshops. Above all, the authors emphasize the importance of teaching students the writing process, and how to compose original content, instead of “fill in the blank” storytelling. The five principles are as follows:

1. Consider if the use of technology will enhance the writing or whether the writing will become subservient to the technology.

2. How will you monitor the use in action?

3. Understand the power and problems with the technology being used.

4. Promote social interaction and peer collaboration.

5. Decide where to explicitly teach lessons relevant to the technology (Coskie & Hornof, 2013).

These principles, which they title E-Best, point out a number of gaps in Chong and Lee’s (2012) design, most notably a lack of discussion about the need for a supportive social environment and a strong sense of peer support. A sense of interactivity and community is essential to effective writing instruction. (Mehlenbacher, Miller, Covington, & Larsen 2000; Hall & Davidson, 2007).

Increasingly in the realm of technology, there is space for the line between student and teacher to blur into something more akin to a newsroom, with the teacher primarily seen as an editor. Computer-based environments such as Blackboard (and Canvas) can be utilized for file sharing, chat, and threaded discussions in an online environment (Brown, 2006). A more democratic environment for learning writing encourages teachers to create a space where these communities can grow organically.

Stephanie Imig (2010) looks at how building a virtual writing community has helped her students to improve their writing. Through the use of video in a format called Livelesson, she walked students through a step-by-step process of how to create a poem taking advantage of personal memories and images of home. The conversation shifted from teacher-to-student over towards student-to-student as they found similarities between each other and began to foster a better understanding of their peers. Imig regretted that the exercise was voluntary, because many reluctant writers may have benefitted from a natural sense of success. Her experiment indicates that the art of writing workshops can be lifted into the virtual world without much compromise if the participants are eager and excited to participate in the discussion (Imig, 2010). Ducate and Lomicka (2008) also found that students preferred reading and writing about personal topics, although they seemed ambivalent about commentary.

There are a number of techniques online classes have utilized to teach writing to students. Classroom blogs and Google Docs/Drive allow students to work digitally. The teachers can then share this work with students from other locations, and generate a conversation across state or national borders. By encouraging young writers to start their own blog, teachers hope that they will continue to write after the class is completed. (Boling, Castek, Zawilinski, Barton, & Nierlich, 2008; Hall & Davidson, 2007). Other teachers take advantage of the editing ability of wiki technology to write and edit collaboratively. The wiki model suggests a larger focus on the act of revision. Teachers and students can provide feedback at any point during the writing process (Woo, Chu, & Li, 2013). Wichmann and Rummel (2013) argue that the talk pages, a major part of Wikipedia’s success, are not as successful when used in educational formats, and teachers need to take extra steps to ensure good revision practices.

Rama Ramaswami (2008) cites an instance where blog writing proved to create interaction between students and encouraged them to continue writing both beyond and during school hours. As Coskie and Hornof caution, the focus needs to remain on the writing, and blogging should be woven into the standard structure of the classroom. Studies have shown that creating comments of substance on blogs is challenging for students, and suggest that teachers focus on strategies to teach students how to make constructive, informative comments on each other’s work in an effort to promote peer learning. (Lacina and Griffith, 2012; Hall & Davison, 2007) Josephine Ellis (2010) and Yang (2009) look at why students are often initially apprehensive with blogs, and how students digital footprints might be protected, and Ellis counter’s Yang’s suggestion that culture is a significant factor. Pascopella and Richardson (2009) acknowledge the risks behind all types of online interaction, but believe that they are infrequent and easily managed.

The pedagogy around writing highlights the need to separating the technology from the practice, and offers methods for students to interact and learn independently. As the motivational influence of learning and creativity was seen as the most valuable motivation for communities of practice such as Wikipedia, the methods and research utilized by teachers should also apply outside of the classroom setting (Baytiyeh & Pfaffman, 2011).

Preexisting Models

Deviantart is touted as a community of artists working in the same space to create innovative content. The majority of its success comes from the grouping of art by production technique, rather than genres (Salah & Salah, 2013). While these artists are clearly learning from each other’s techniques, the community is more about showcasing one’s work as opposed to the skills that are developed by working in a community of practice. Still, it may be argued that a community such as Deviantart is a community of practice base only on the concept of creating a social world based on active participation (Perkel, 2011).

Online writing communities primarily come in one form. Evan Hughes (2006) introduces (short lived) website The Frontlist and its American counterpart Zoetrope as places where writers can submit their work to get feedback and recognition. These sites may incorporate a ranking system, and often promise the possibility of getting published; they primarily serve to streamline the publishing process and promote their writers. While many were short-lived, online workshops continue to survive as e-books and online distribution have become more popular. Small online literary magazines continue to surface as editors take advantage of the technology to work outside of the larger market (Paling, 2006). Websites such as TheNextBigWriter encourage interaction between writers by rewarding credits for posting edits, although there’s little to restrict the quality of the edits (Blanton, 2008).

The use of Cloud-based services is popular among small organized groups, but these services lack a community-based model. In additional to fanfiction blogs like those discussed in Booth (2008), sites such as Fictionmob are beginning to explore how wiki technology can be used to collaboratively create certain genres of fiction. Projects such as Creative Common’s “Remix My Lit” and Penguin UK’s “We Tell Stories” explore different ways that the web can be used to collaborate and create a community based around a shared practice (Wilson, 2008).

Discussion

As Duffy and Bruns found in 2006, both blogs and wikis are strongly community based. What differs is the type of community that develops through their use. While knowledge communities such as Wikipedia are built upon a community of practice, they restrict any form of creativity in the pursuit of neutral, unbiased information. Similarly, communities of interest such as Deviantart are focused only on individual creativity, and may not be considered communities of practice. Writing blogs, while useful for individual development and on a small scale, are dependent on the author’s ability to network, as there is no built in community outside of an academic sphere. Zhang and Bishop (2011) remind us that a community of practice is nothing without reification and content, and many communities fail because they separate the outcomes of the practice from the practice itself. Hadjerrouit (2013) highlights an important issue that can be seen throughout, in that cooperation (dividing a task) is not necessarily the same as collaboration (shared problem solving).

Joanne Roberts (2006) brings up a number of criticisms of the community of practice model, as defined by Wenger (1998) and seen throughout the examples. The issues of power, trust, and predispositions are presented as early concerns that can be seen throughout. The issue of power can be countered somewhat when examining Wikipedia as a community of practice, as we can see that the main motivation is learning, and not reputation (Zhao & Bishop, 2011; Baytiyeh & Pfaffman, 2011). The issue of trust is examined briefly in terms of students’ reluctance to post online or share knowledge, although it is admittedly something that continues to be an issue when posting anything in a public space. Finally, the examination of predispositions suggests that certain communities of practice may resist change once they’ve established a knowledge base. While this can be seen even in wikipedia, a focus on the creative arts provides a fluid environment for new knowledge. Roberts also criticizes communities of practice as being largely devoid of typical community values, although we can see through the communities of practice formed around teaching that the relationships between users are still important when dealing with creative writing (Hall & Davidson, 2010; Imig, 2010; Karsbaek, 2011; Pascopella & Richardson, 2009; Ramowski, 2008).

Further Research

Before a proper model for an online creative community can be designed, it is helpful to examine how students and other individuals use sites such as Deviantart and literary blogs and websites (including Zoetrope) to communicate their work. While there is widespread agreement that both blogs and wikis have their value in the education of writing, there is no proof that this community can form outside of academia in the way that Wikipedia formed. A survey of the population of creative writing sites would need to be made, as well as a campaign to determine the desire for a virtual creative community. Many writers already maintain their own writing blogs, but they are not associated with a community of practice and often stand on their own, or as part of a community of interest. The specifics of how creative writing bloggers interact is only briefly touched upon in articles about classroom blogs, and no suggestions are made for how to continue this outside of the classroom setting. Some important questions must be addressed: What tools would writers and artists deem useful online that they cannot already find? Are artistic communities open to collaboration and critique outside of controlled/academic circles? How should privacy and ownership be addressed? Is there a need for professional opinions in the creative space, and how can this be achieved?

Beyond the Literature Review

After spending a considerable amount of time exploring different aspects of creative collaboration, what became clear was the personal gravity I felt specifically towards interactive gaming communities. While traditional forms of storytelling allow for creative collaboration on a basic level, the nature of play inherent in gaming adds a unique element to the act of creation that transforms it beyond the capacities of established practices. To create something in a gaming environment is an exercise in total unpredictability, and there is often a minimum of learning that takes place because most occurrences in a gaming (roleplaying) world are happenstance, or developments built entirely on imagination. Breaching this topic while exploring creative communities proved to be impossible, and the decision to focus on creative writing communities instead limited the discussion to the literary and academic communities.

Creative Writing, as an academic discipline, is fairly new. There is still only a small amount of research into how best to teach people writing, and there will always be arguments about whether creativity can be taught. Literary communities, mostly backed by highly educated professionals, still exercise old traditions while adapting to new models offered by technology. They continue to evade the bulk of outside scrutiny by operating in closed circles, and their flexibility allows them to enjoy a comfortable level of success on digital platforms. Active research and development within this community would need to be done on a large scale before any consensus could be made on how it could best be served. Creative writers in the digital space now enjoy the diverse communities built around different technologies, and many of them seem to be content with the options that they already have. Establishing a superior model would require research into all of the successful qualities of these sites and technologies (Zoetrope, TheNextBigWriter, Deviantart, Fictionmob, Remixmylit) as well as a method for combining their unique, likely incompatible, offerings. While the research may benefit the communities, and lead to another form of online community, the writing community seems to treasure their privilege of slow evolution and change. The creation of something should be done as a community effort, and not as an individual endeavor.

References

Baytiyeh, Hoda, & Pfaffman, Jay (2010). Volunteers in Wikipedia: Why the community matters. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(2), 128–140.

Boling, Erica; Castek, Jill; Zawilinski, Lisa; Barton, Karen; & Nierlich, Theresa (2008). Collaborative literacy: Blogs and internet projects. Reading Teacher, 61(6), 504–506.
Booth, Paul (2009). Narractivity and the narrative database: Media-based wikis as interactive fan fiction. Narrative Inquiry, 19(2), 372–392. doi:10.1075/ni.19.2.09boo
Brown, Nicole (2006). The regionalization of cyberspace: Making visible the spatial discourse of “community online.” Composition Forum, 15, 1–20.

Brunton, Finn (2012). Constitutive interference: Spam and online communities. Representations, 117(1), 30–58.

Chong, Stefanie, & Lee, Chien-Sing (2012). Developing a pedagogical-technical framework to improve creative writing. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60(4), 639–657. doi:10.1007/s11423–012–9242–9
Coskie, Tracy L., & Michelle Hornof, M. (2013). E-BEST principles: Infusing technology into the writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 54–58. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1189
Ducate, Lara C., & Lomicka, Lara L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.
Duffy, Peter D., & Bruns, Axel (2006). The use of blogs, wikis and RSS in education: A conversation of possibilities.
Ellis, Josephine (2010). Student writing blogs: Apprehension, ambivalence or appreciation? Communication Journal of New Zealand, 11(2), 7–29.

Hadjerrouit, Said (2013). Wiki as a collaborative writing tool in teacher education: Evaluation and suggestions for effective use. Computers in Human Behavior, doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.004
Hall, Hazel, & Davison, Brian (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library & Information Science Research, 29(2), 163–187.
Hughes, Evan (Dec 31, 2006). Slush life A new online project aims to reinvent the writers’ workshop and circumvent the slush pile — changing the way new fiction gets published. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/405043172
Imig, Stephanie (2010). Writing rewired: Teaching writing in an online setting. English Journal, 99(3), 80–83. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/237323113
James, David (2012). At issue circling the wagons: A defense of writing workshops. Community College Enterprise, 18(2), 55–61.
Karsbaek, Barbara (2011). Writer’s workshop: Does it improve the skills of young writers? Illinois Reading Council Journal, 39(2), 3–11.
Lacina, Jan, & Griffith, Robin (2012). Blogging as a means of crafting writing. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 316–320.
Lam, S. K., & Riedl, J. (2011). The past, present, and future of wikipedia. Computer, 44(3), 87–90. doi:10.1109/MC.2011.94
Luyt, Brendan; Aaron, Tay Chee H.; Thian, Lim H.; & Hong, Cheng K. (2008). Improving wikipedia’s accuracy: Is edit age a solution? Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(2), 318–330.
Mehlenbacher, Brad; Miller, Carolyn R.; Covington, David; & Larsen, Jamie S. (2000). Active and interactive learning online: A comparison of web-based and conventional writing classes. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 43(2), 166–184.
Neff, Jessica J.; Laniado, David; Kappler, Karolin E.; Volkovich, Yana; Aragon, Pablo; & Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (2013). Jointly they edit: Examining the impact of community identification on political interaction in wikipedia. Plos One, 8(4), 1–10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060584
Paling, Stephen (2006). Artistic use of information technology: Toward a definition of literature and art informatics.
Pascopella, Angela, & Richardson, Will (2009). The new writing pedagogy. District Administration, 45(10), 44–50.
Perkel, Daniel (2011) Making art, creating infrastructure: DeviantART and the production of the web. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/docview/1322724918
Ramaswami, Rama (2008). The prose (and a few cons, too) of blogging. (cover story). T H E Journal, 35(11), 21–25.
Roberts, Joanne (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623- 639. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6486.2006.00618.x
Salah, Alkim A. A., & Salah, Albert A. (2013). Flow of innovation in deviantArt: Following artists on an online social network site. Mind & Society, 12(1), 137–149. doi:10.1007/s11299–013–0113–9
Wenger, Etienne (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge university press.
Wichmann, Astrid, & Rummel, Nikol (2013). Improving revision in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off. Computers & Education, 62(0), 262–270. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.017
Wilson, Jennifer (2008). The new media industry. The writer’s Guide to Making a Digital Living,19.
Woo, Matsuko; Chu, Samue; & Li, Xuanxi, (2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing doi:10.1007/s11423–012–9285-y
Yan, Yalan; Davison, Robert M.; & Mo, Chunyan (2013). Employee creativity formation: The roles of knowledge seeking, knowledge contributing and flow experience in web 2.0 virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1923–1932. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.007
Yang, Shih-Hsien (2009) Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice.
Yasseri, Taha, Sumi, Robert, Rung, Andras, Kornai, Andras, & Kertesz, Janos (2012). Dynamics of conflicts in wikipedia. Plos One, 7(6), 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038869
Zhao, Xiaoli, & Bishop, M. (2011). Understanding and supporting online communities of practice: Lessons learned from wikipedia. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59(5), 711- 735. doi:10.1007/s11423–011–9204–7