These are questions of (mostly) informal power. In social worlds and especially in their subworlds there is usually more or less implicit competition of who has the power to define what is the “real stuff”, i.e., what are the most essential acts, and appropriate levels of fakes that belong to (and, thus, shape the) primary activity of the social world. There are several lines of argumentation that are utilized here. Perhaps the most used one is the temporal one. Those claiming authenticity may refer to the “original” elements, processes, or even moral values that were observed in the beginning of the community (as if such a phenomenon exists, and could be pointed out) should be regarded as the real stuff also at the moment. If the presenters of this kind of thoughts are powerful enough, these conservative thoughts really may proceed and gain the status quo.

However, totally opposite use of temporal argumentation can exist, too. Precisely because some thoughts are new (and fresh), they should be regarded as something that will lead the subworld to a new success. Other references for argumentation might be, for example, the other members’ opinions (democracy), indicated utility (profitability), dangers of keeping the traditional path (survival strategy) etc.

Authenticity is not gained by simply stating why certain thoughts should be taken as the leading one. Other members are concretely coached (how to make proper fansites), sponsored (providing server space for fansites), or certain resources are allocated otherwise to indicate where the real authenticity lies.

Examples from Habbo and GeoCaching

Habbo questions of authenticity: which was the original fansite, which was the first gang, who first invented a specific game, which is the original place to be in, who was the first celebrity...

Geocaching questions of authenticity: Groundspeak, the company running the geocaching.com site, is obviously very conscious about this theme because they try to be as open as possible - announcing, for example, that a Finnish group Metsäsissit have had similar hobby since the 1980s, or that the cache types are continuously changing.

Social design strategy

Sooner or later your community may seem to look rather quarrelsome. Dont't worry, it's natural, or, better, social. When people feel that the community has changed a lot compared to the beginning state, they start to discuss, somebody even harshly, how this community has changed - and probably to very wrong direction. The genuine was better eginning etc. This is very normal social setting, in which oldies feel that their social position is worsened, and for this reason they try to compensate it with a strong reference to the times they were here but the younger (members) were not. Perhaps it is good to support this kind of discussion because otherwise you will never know why the old members left.