When conducting research online, the issue of what forms a community must be tackled (Gurak and Silker, 1997; Zappen, Gurak, and Doheny-Farina, 1997). Traditionally, discourse communities are composed of people with shared values, beliefs, and goals. Online communities and forums for the exchange of ideas are forming based on necessity or information availability. The establishment of a community is more of a public area where interests or information can be shared verses a group with shared beliefs (Zappen, Gurak, and Doheny-Farina, p. 401, 1997). These online chatrooms and bulletin boards call for new considerations of what counts as a community valid for study. The prolific nature of online discussions also make studying them ethically challenging. When one board has more than a hundred people subscribed, almost all using aliases, and only "stopping" by the space when it suits them, how do we gain permission to study their conversations-do we need permission to study them (Gurak and Silker, 1997).

Historically researcher in rhetoric have looked to other disciplines for methods of study and theories of individuals, interactions, and communities. In the instance of studying how knowledge is distributed online and the role of communication, professional writing should continue the rhetorical tradition of borrowing knowledge from other fields and examine how other disciplines are studying online communities, including those in computers and composition. Another avenue for studying the make-up of communities is to the popular press. Authors such as William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, and Howard Rhiengold all publish books describing, critiquing, and prophesying about virtual and technical communities.

Neal Stephenson's commentary under the subject area of author and then recluse is enlightening on the issue of community and space. He discusses how he has been termed a "recluse" by some because he does not have time to respond to emails from fans. This entry on his site explains his revelation of why so many people feel he must be available to them, as a celebrity. He concludes by noting: "A society in which news about an impending war is interrupted to announce the birthday of an actor, will categorize as reclusive a man, of a normal level of sociability, who posts a Web page explaining why he does not have sufficient time to answer all of his unsolicited e-mail." Because he is not available via technology and on at all times for his fans, he is a recluse. His social standing in his "material" community and friendships with people in close proximity do not matter to those who want to know him virtually and feel culturally that they have the right to his time and personal space.

An interesting note on Gibson's page is his use of the subject heading "Source Code" for his biography. As if he has been coded over time with the happenings of life. Gibson, unlike Stephenson, creates a virtual community for his readers (note the word for and not with). Gibson provides a blog of his travels and thoughts at various moments. In his last entry, September 12, 2003, he mentions that his blog will stop as he has to get back to work. It would be interesting to scan the archives of his journal in light of the next book he publishes to see how much of his world and creative process his readers were allowed to be. Nonetheless, Gibson provides insight into his personal life and is able to create a sense of closeness and community with his readers by maintaining a blog.

Howard Rheingold's site is a third type of creature - a more forward and obvious version of self-promotion. But his site has more depth, breadth, and questioning on it. His blog and posts about insights invite the reader into his mind. The title "Rheingold's Brainstorms" is appropriate to the content as he makes observations only he could make, given his extensive world travel and articulation of technologies' impact.

These three men provide different websites, but also different perspectives and creations that are relevant to academic studies. Because of their publications in the popular press they have more leeway with what they publish, and also more ability to make observations that cannot possibly be backed up with months of empirical and strategic data collection. Their books range from science fiction to nonfiction, but are all commentaries on what is happening to our communities and lives. They are not stifled by reaching for tenure, or attempting to integrate themselves into an already happening discussion. These authors give us material for thought and discussion. While they may not be academic, we need to listen to what is happening for the people who are out in the world observing and articulating.