(I like parenthetical statements)

I found it difficult to understand the content of Wenger, because I could not get past all the meaningless drivel and overly ornate language (Dickens, anyone? Did Wenger also get paid by the word?). Distinguish this, differentiate that. It's interesting to note that for the entirety of chapter 1, Wenger tries to meticulously define the concepts of "participation" and "reification" when he's clearly just reifying his concepts to the audience (us, as readers). I suppose that's why there are so many examples and "clarifications": it's a shallow attempt to get the audience to take in what's being said and interpret it as one's own--to participate--when Wenger really just wants to deliver his own, concrete definitions. Yes, I say concrete, because even by defining a concept by what it is not, Wenger tries to more specifically narrow down the meanings of those concepts.

Beyond stylistic rantings, I question Wenger's decision to "reserve the term [participation] for actors who are members of social communities," to which he clearly states that he will not include computers as participants (whew, I almost wrote "participators"--that'd be my luck, in trying to write academically). This was one of our points of discussion while trying to define "community" on Team Heather: do we include bots, avatars, etc.? Such programs do actively participate in some communities, even if they are set up beforehand by a "real" person. The individuals on the other side of the conversations, whether they recognize that other as a human or as a bot, still participate in that community, and I believe Wenger argues that one cannot participate in isolation (human artifacts notwithstanding--or withstanding?). "In this regard, what I take to characterize participation is the possibility of mutual recognition." This will scare the living daylights out of some people (including me), but with the A.I. frontier ever approaching, "mutual recognition" will not be reserved to "people" of the living, breathing variety. Mutual engagement? Joint enterprise? Shared repertoire? Check, check, and check. Computers are part of our communities.

Some of Wenger's ideas to resonate with me (drivel or not). "Participation is a source of identity." Community, Identity, and Design (though I'm not sure about design) are not mutually exclusive; one cannot be defined without the other(s?). Individuals create or define their identities through participation in a community. It just makes sense.  Also, "participation is not something we turn on and off"; "[They] do not cease to be claims processors at five o'clock." TAKE THAT, TURKLE!