One downside that the open source phenomenon--and, to some degree, the social web--is that the term "community" has been roundly abused during the last several years.
"Community" used to mean a village or town or (small) city. I think that the fundamental concept behind the old definition was that the community was heterogeneous, but functioned as an atomic unit. An economic and social ecosystem, if you will.
The problem with the latter definition is (to my mind, anyway), that the sense of heterogeneity is lost. I think this is particularly true when businesses use the term--and orders of magnitude truer when software companies use the term. Somehow, in the mind of the people marketing the developer outreach initiatives, the definition of "cult" has been transplanted into the word "community."
The trouble with that, of course, is that cults are emphatically not very heterogeneous. There might be a differentiation between "inner circle" and "everybody else," but that's largely it. Communities--the real ones--on the other hand, are highly interconnected. Folks in communities can typically be trusted to figure out what needs to be done overall, because they operate in several different circles in professional and private life. Thus, they don't have to wait around for a dictator or his lieutenants to tell them what to do, much less how to do it.
Basically, the English-abusing companies in question are looking for free--so far as their bean-counters understand the term, anyway--labor. Free testing, free marketing, possibly even free development. (I wouldn't be in the least surprised to learn that least one proprietary software company somewhere has tried "community-sourcing" their documentation.) And dangling out the warm, fuzzy idea of belonging to a "community" probably appeals to those who would rather not spend their weekends in a bar. (I know I'm not one for the bar scene, anyway...)
Honestly, I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. I see it done to various degrees of excellence as well as shabbiness, and it's really only the shabbiness that I find objectionable. Bottom line: When you ask for someone's disposable time--and I include the time spent trying out a platform/product/language, not even beta-testing--you are asking for a favor. Perhaps the favor is intended to be paid forward (rather than back), but it is a favor nevertheless. Not an homage to your technology's coolness.
And, see, that's largely what is missing when the company says "community" when they're really thinking "cult." For instance, asking someone to try your product--either as a demo or for beta-testing--without giving her/him a mechanism for asking questions or reporting problems is treating her/him as a cultist, not a community member. That's like organizing a conference around your offerings and not handing out t-shirts and tchotchkes...or (horrors!) skipping the free booze at the mixers.
Sigh. I know that one blog post will not stop the gang-victimization of an English word. Heck, "synergy" is still undergoing laser surgery to correct the scars of the '90s. But someone has to put up a fight. If not for the language itself, then to slip a pin into the corporate fat-heads who think that they somehow deserve other people's free time.
