Question Description
On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice On May 5th, 1997, the European edition of Business Tech Magazine led with Hoffman’s cover story "Internet Communities: How They're Shaping Electronic Commerce". This cover story highlights the extent to which the term virtual community has become almost synonymous with various forms of group-CMC (computer-mediated communication), including email-list forums, chat-systems such as IRC, web-based discussion areas and UseNet news-groups. There was no debate in the Business Tech Magazine article as to whether the group-CMC discussions are really 'communities', rather how the community, as opposed to content, can be used to encourage people to return to a particular part of cyberspace for commercial gain. In a similar vein, Simpson and Armstrong in "Internet Gain" argue that ignoring virtual communities would be a great loss of a marketing tool for businesses. They define virtual communities as computer-mediated space where there is an integration of content and communication with an emphasis on member-generated content. Not all virtual community commentators agree with the Spartan position taken by Hoffman. Rheingold, one of the prime popularizers of the term virtual community, provides us with a more emotive definition in his book The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. According to Rheingold, "virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". Rheingold's definition is extremely popular and has been quoted in many discussions about virtual communities. As discussed below, for social scientists, particularly sociologists, Rheingold's definition raises many issues, especially concerning the notion of community. This is because Rheingold argues via a variety of analogies from the real world such as homesteading that virtual communities are indeed new forms of "community". In fact, Rheingold implies that virtual communities are actually "a kind of ultimate flowering of a community". Moreover, Rheingold maintains that whenever computer-mediated communications technology becomes available; people inevitably create communities with it. Rheingold can thus be labeled as a technological determinist as he holds that there is a predictable relationship between technology and people's behavior. The debate over the validity of Rheingold's position has raised doubts about the existence of virtual communities and the appropriate use of the term. Weinreich claims that the idea of virtual communities must be wrong because the community is a collective of kinship networks that share a common geographic region, a common history, and a shared value system, usually rooted in a common religion. In other words, Weinreich rejects the existence of virtual communities because group-CMC discussions cannot possibly meet his definition. In Weinreich's view, anyone with even a basic knowledge of sociology understands that information exchange in no way constitutes a community.Q.Weinreich rejects Rheingold’s inclusion of virtual communities in the definition of communities for all of the following reasons EXCEPTa)virtual communities do not usually exchange informationb)virtual communities do not usually share the same territoryc)virtual communities do not usually share valuesd)virtual communities do not usually share a common historye)virtual communities are not usually rooted in a common religionCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.