Communication is definitely an important and essential constituent of a community, online or off. Nessim Watson assumes that this debate resolves around the status of the term "community" when applied to virtual environments. But this is only goes halfway toward revealing the biases against recognizing internet fan groups as communities. The term that leads many naysayers to roll their eyes at these virtual fan groups is not a noun, but a verb: communication.
We've had virtual forms of communication before. If virtual communication has all of the attributes of face-to-face communication minus the physical presence, then we might look to pen pals, magazines, and fanzines as precursors to these online relationships. We can't deny the bonds made through pen pals, sending letters to someone you've never met, and lives halfway around the world. The same is true with letters to the editor of a favorite magazine, or the open contributions of a movie, music, or comic fanzine. In all of these cases, there is a lag in time between the written message of an author and when those words are read by the receiver of that message.
Instantaneous communication is possible on the Internet, but it is not used as often as this delayed form of communication, even in 2011. Watson's study of the Phish.net fan community, as well as Kibby's research on the Prine's online fans, make this point explicit. Some read and post their messages during the day; some do the same at night, after work; others may post a few times in one week, and not check back for a month. Like this wiki page, these forum communities are based on a publishing model. The difference being that many authors can contribute to the same text.
Watson points out that a common criticism (this one is by Neil Postman) of virtual communities is that there seems to be no obligation to the community itself. Or, if there is an obligation, it is a virtual one. It's easy not to post to this wiki: don't log on. No one is there to pressure you. Yet try to do this in a classroom environment when everyone is asked to contribute their comments, one-by-one. A different scenario. For Postman, without this social pressure and its resulting obligations we may just be talking to a screen. As Lysloff reminds us, when you really think about it virtual communication is ghostly.
In the end we should look more deeply into the community debate. Yes, communication is essential to communities. What we're really arguing over is the new type of communication taking place on the internet. It's not exactly face-to-face, and not exactly publishing. Critics often point out how online communication lacks certain properties of face-to-face communication. Instead of arguing that online communication cues can approximate those in the face-to-face world, we might ask what online communication can provide that face-to-face can not.