I would say the problem is in the overload of the meanings of "culture" and "community", and the almost moral implications of these words in their colloquial se

I would say the problem is in the overload of the meanings of "culture" and "community", and the almost moral implications of these words in their colloquial sense. Technically, on a purely scientific level, contributors to a given library do have a "culture". There are rules and attitudes that they follow, more or less consciously, that are different from those that are followed by the contributors to a different library. Each of these groups also technically form a "community", as they are groups of individuals that share a common purpose. A hypothetical research paper that compared the inner workings of different open source contributor groups would be very legitimised in using the words "culture" and "community" to describe them, and researching these topics can be of great interest. However, the problem arises when these terms are reified towards laypeople, sometimes with somewhat of a self-serving, marketing, or self-congratulatory purpose from the user of the words: «Everyone knows Culture is a good thing! As is Community! And this Community has this Culture! Let's talk about the Culture of this Community! Are you a part of this Community? What can we do for this Community? How can we work on its Culture?» (I felt mentally exhausted just by writing this caricature)