There's some stuff I really disagree with in this article, though it's hard for me to tell whether it's because it's wrong or whether it's because I simply find it distasteful. It could well be the latter. Overall, the picture of community offered here is one where "individuals typically 'hire' communities to accomplish transitions that require human connection." This article describes communities which satisfy that function. One key principle is that "member quality determines community success." That's the bit that bothers me. If I apply this model to educational communities, I see pretty much exactly the same principle applied in elite universities today. Nick deWilde describes a system where member selection drives revenue (tuition) and success (community capability) that creates demand for membership. So his model works - if you're one of thre lucky ones who become a member.