Editing Lurker (section)

===Costs for others===
Lurkers can also negatively influence other community members. If community members can see that someone is lurking rather than participating, they may feel that they are being spied upon.<ref name=harv09>{{cite journal
 | last1=Garcia | first1=A. C.
 | last2=Standlee| first2=A. I.
 | last3=Bechkoff| first3=J.
 | last4=Cui| first4=Y.
 | year=2009
 | title=Ethnographic approaches to the internet and computer-mediated communication
 | journal=Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
 | volume=38 | issue=1
 | pages=52–84
 | url=http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/38/1/52
 | doi=10.1177/0891241607310839
| s2cid=145806547
 | url-access=subscription
 }}</ref> Lurkers might also take pieces of content featured in communities without seeking consent, violating the rules of the community.<ref name = harv99>{{cite journal
 | last=Sharf | first=B. F.
 | year=1999
 | title=Beyond netiquette: The ethics of doing naturalistic discourse research on the Internet.
 | editor-last=Jones | editor-first=S.
 | journal=Doing Internet Research
 | pages=243–256
 }}</ref> As a result, while individuals in online communities may feel that they are experiencing private interactions, a lurker may see it as a public space for observation due to their reduced feelings of belonging.<ref name=lindof02>{{cite journal
 | last1=Lindlof | first1=T. R.
 | last2=Taylor | first2=B. C.
 | year=2002
 | title=Qualitative research and computer-mediated communication.
 | editor-last=Lindlof | editor-first=T. R.
 | editor2-last=Taylow | editor2-first=B. C.
 | journal=Qualitative Communication Research Methods
 | edition=2nd
 | pages=247–278
 }}</ref> This can become quite extreme in more intimate communities such as chat rooms where lurkers are more obvious. Hudson and Bruckman entered [[IRC|IRC chatrooms]] as experimenters and either posted a message stating they were logging the chat, an opt-in message for logging, and opt-out message, or nothing at all. 63.3% of chat rooms kicked out the experimenters after they gave any sort of message, demonstrating a dislike of explicit chat logging. However, 29% of rooms kicked out the experimenters even though they did not post anything, showing a disregard for lurkers.<ref name=hudson04>{{cite journal|title=Go Away: Participant Objections to Being Studied and the Ethics of Chatroom Research|year=2004|author=Hudson, J. |author2=Bruckman, A. |journal=The Information Society|volume=20|issue=2|doi=10.1080/01972240490423030|pages=127–139|citeseerx=10.1.1.72.635|s2cid=18558685}}</ref>

====Free-riding====
Lurking is just one form of [[social loafing|free-riding]] that can happen within an Internet community, and is similar to asking questions without responding, or gathering information without distributing it.<ref name=kollock96>{{cite book |author=Kollock, P. |author2=Smith, M. | title = Computer-Mediated Communication | year = 1996 | chapter = Managing the virtual commons | volume = 39 | pages = 109–128| doi = 10.1075/pbns.39.10kol | series = Pragmatics & Beyond New Series | isbn = 978-90-272-5051-3 }}</ref> Lurking is seen as undesirable to communities because of the risk free-riding can have on the community if every member does it.<ref name=fulk96>{{cite journal |author=Fulk, J. |author2=Flanagin, A. J. |author3=Kalman, M. E. |author4=Monge, P. R. |author5=Ryan, T. | year = 1996 | title = Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems | journal = Communication Theory | volume=6 | issue=1 | pages = 60–87 | doi=10.1111/j.1468-2885.1996.tb00120.x| citeseerx = 10.1.1.404.873 | s2cid = 18703066 }}</ref> A [[Public good (economics)|public good]] is something that is impossible to exclude someone from and has a joint supply within the community. An Internet community is seen as a public good because it is a pool of data to which people may, if they choose, separately contribute information.  The survival of the community is then dependent on the contributions of the members.
Since it is impossible to exclude members from sharing in the benefit of the public good, people are more motivated to free-ride on the work of the other members and not contribute themselves.<ref name=kollock96 /> As a group grows in size, the likelihood of free-riding increases.<ref name=butler01>{{cite journal |author=Butler, B.S. | s2cid = 17002902 | year = 2001 | title = Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures | journal = Information Systems Research | volume=12 | issue=4 | pages = 346–362 | doi=10.1287/isre.12.4.346.9703}}</ref> Individuals are less likely to contribute if they do not view their contribution as making a visible difference and if they expect the other members to provide enough content to reach the desired effect.<ref name=fulk96 /><ref name=butler01 />
A lurker may withhold information because when they contribute, it benefits everyone in the community except for themselves. When everyone then chooses to withhold information, the collective benefit is no longer produced.<ref name=kollock96 /> With more people free-riding, it is more difficult to produce useful information and interactions among the group members. The group will then not have enough resources to attract new members and retain current members.<ref name=butler01 />
Lurking can also cost site holders money if they do not use advertising to generate revenue. The bandwidth costs of lurkers visiting a site may outstrip the value that donors or contributors provide to a community.