INF206 Assessment item 3 – OLJ/Evaluative report

Part 1: Online Learning Journal (OLJ)

Postings from Kathryn’s Blog – INF206 provide evidence that I have:

• Engaged in the self-paced modules, online readings and online class discussions throughout the session; 
• Completed a number of immersive learning activities using a range of social networking tools, and documented reflections and evaluations of these learning experiences throughout the session.

Part 2: Evaluative Report

Evaluative statement

An evaluative statement using three (3) experiences documented in my OLJ as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of this subject.

OLJ 1 – RSS feeds and readers (feed aggregators)

OLJ 2 – Building academic library 2.0

OLJ 3 – Social media policies

The abundance of social networking platforms and social media tools (Web 2.0) present many alternate methods for connecting with target audiences online. However, the mistake many organisations and individuals make is to focus on the tools rather than the relationships they are meant to foster (Brenner, 2010). Adopting social media principles around collaboration, harnessing collective intelligence, and creating community and content (the 4C’s Social Media Framework – Mishra, 2009) provide the framework for a balanced approach to online engagement. This approach includes listening to and learning from online conversations to understand the communities’ information needs, and to gauge where value can best be added.

Even though the tools are secondary to why we engage in online networked communities, they are none-the-less essential to the social network’s functionality. Therefore, selecting appropriate tools relies on a deep understanding of the audience and their needs, an awareness of available social media technologies, their capabilities and ‘fit[ness] for purpose’, and the message being communicated (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Each Web 2.0 tool is tailored to achieve different goals for different audiences at different levels of interaction around ‘social presence’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). For example, LinkedIn is geared towards professional networking and business relationships, whilst Facebook is generally for more casual/personal interactions.

Of all the Web 2.0 tools evaluated to date (of which there have been many), RSS feeds, feed readers such as Google Reader and FeedDemon, and other alert systems like Google Alerts, have proved the most valuable for keeping abreast of various websites and blogs within communities of common interest. RSS demonstrates the simple, but powerful functionality (“push” and “pull”) of social media in sharing and connecting with online content of greatest interest to individuals and groups, with a heightened focus on user-centred control (Udell, 2004). Creating a library blog without offering an RSS feed essentially misses the point.  

How though, does social networking and social media fit with libraries, particularly academic libraries? O’Reilly’s (2005) Web 2.0 meme map (see Figure 1 below) fundamentally describes the landscape - “the Web as Platform”. Library 2.0 as a concept, adopts this structure for two-way engagement with users to facilitate participation and collaboration in developing and enhancing library services. Farkas (keynote speaker – Building Academic Library 2.0, 2007; 2008) believes Library 2.0 exemplifies much of what librarians have been doing for decades; monitoring and addressing change to facilitate information flow. Farkas concludes that Library 2.0 is: 1) understanding users and non-users, and their changing needs; 2) using new technologies to take services to where users are, online; 3) trusting and listening to users, working in partnership to develop library services that inform community needs in a rapidly changing environment; 4) adopting agile approaches and a continuous improvement philosophy; 5) keeping abreast of new technologies and opportunities, and providing avenues for learning (accounting for new learning styles); and, 6) looking to exemplars from other sectors where new technologies have been successfully implemented.

Figure I - O'Reilly 2005

The verdict is in, social networking is ubiquitous. Even in academia, students and researchers (library users and non-users alike) socialise, network professionally, and undertake many aspects of their study and research online using a range of social networking and media sharing technologies (Alampi, 2012). To reach these audiences, library administrators and librarians must accept their place within this space.

Merely being in the space, however, is not enough. Digital environments provide some unique and challenging issues; risks and opportunities associated with social and public spaces. Importantly, social media policies acknowledge and address the underlying issues, and intersect with other information and related policies to raise awareness and provide clear guidelines for appropriate behaviour (Kroski, 2009).

Sound social media policy is based on answers to a few fundamental questions. Why “social media”? What are the objectives (Burkhardt, 2010; Lauby, 2009)? Who is the audience? What roles and responsibilities need defining? What are the potential risks and issues? The issues are varied and can be complex, such as: social, cultural and technological inequity of accessibility (‘digital divide’ including digital illiteracy, skills development and adoption of new technologies) (Hunt, 2012; Radovanovic, 2011); legal and ethical requirements around copyright and IP ownership, privacy, data protection (such as personal data in profiles) and FoI; and educational, with “generational change” and the online environment’s impact on how we learn (Arendt, 2009). All of these issues and more require consideration in a social media policy.

With thorough planning; knowledge, skills, attitudes, tools and technologies, and policy frameworks come together in a collaborative way to create community, content and a collective intelligence around common interests. The challenges for libraries and librarians in a socially networked world are many, but so too are the opportunities. It is a space we ignore at our peril, but is also a space in which we can lead innovation and change, whilst reaching out to and advocating for our users and potential users. 

References

Alampi, A. (2012, July 24). Social media is more than simply a marketing tool for academic research. The Guardian Professional: Higher Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jul/24/social-media-academic-research-tool  

Arendt, A. M. (2009, November). Social media tools and the policies associated with them. In Best Practices in Policy Management Conference 2009. Utah Valley University. Retrieved from       http://works.bepress.com/anne_arendt/7/ 

Brenner, M. (2010, September 15). The 4 Cs of social media. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/michaelbrenner/181159/4-cs-social-media 

Burkhardt, A. (2010). Social media: A guide for college and university libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 71(1), 10-24. Retrieved from      http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/1/10.full  

Farkas, M. (2008, January 24). The essence of Library 2.0? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://meredith.wolfwater.com/wordpress/2008/01/24/the-essence-of-library-20/  

Hunt, C. (2012, May 2). The new digital divide: Thoughts for leaders and laggards. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://socialmediatoday.com/courtney-hunt/500334/new-digital-divide-thoughts-leaders-and-laggards

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003  

Kroski, E. (2009). Should your library have a social media policy? School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6699104.html  

Lauby, S. (2009, June 2). 10 must-haves for your social media policy. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2009/06/02/social-media-policy-musts/  

Mishra, G. (2009, May 11). Digital activism & the 4Cs social media framework. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2009/05/11/digital-activism-the-4cs-social-media-framework/ 

O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? O'Reilly: Spreading the Knowledge of Innovators. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html 

Radovanovic, D. (2011, December 14). Digital divide and social media: Connectivity doesn’t end the digital divide, skills do. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/12/14/digital-divide-and-social-media-connectivity-doesnt-end-the-digital-divide-skills-do/

 

UC Berkley. (2007, November 19). Building academic library 2.0 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI 

Udell, J. (2004, May 14). Push me, pull you: Forget the old rules for how internet content arrives. It’s all about end-user control. [Web log post]. Retrieved from       http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/push-me-pull-you-059  

Reflective statment

A reflective statement on my personal development as a social networker,  and the implications for my development as an information professional, resulting from study undertaken for INF206. 

'Reflection' photo taken by Kathryn  Unsworth 

Reflective Statement 

As the “introduction to the subject” (INF206) (Hay & Wallis, 2007) states, “sharing content, collaborating with others and creating community—are not new”. So what’s different or special about social networking today, and why as information professionals should we care? According to Casey and Savastinuk (2006), “libraries are in the habit of providing the same services and the same programs to the same groups”, consequently failing to change. Conversely, Library 2.0 at its core is about change, where library services go through “constant and purposeful change”, provide opportunities for user participation in developing new library services, and successfully reach existing and potential users (Casey and Savastinuk, 2006).

Now nearing completion of INF206 and having undertaken as many of the course related activities as possible, I have come to appreciate that merging Web 2.0 technologies with a Library 2.0 ethos can provide strategic opportunities for libraries. The Social Networking Proposal (Assignment 2) was particularly useful, providing a practical exercise for applying many of the concepts and principles that underpin Social Networking, Web 2.0 and Library 2.0.

Yet, before signing on for INF206, I was a tentative user of social media (for example YouTube, Flickr and Slideshare) as a consumer, not producer. I had read and bookmarked blogs, but never made comments or added tags. As for social networking, my feelings about Facebook, well let’s just not go there! Twitter I considered was for people who needed a distraction from work. Second Life, isn’t that just a virtual space for gamers, and young people to ‘hangout’? Even with accounts in Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Yammer, I hadn’t really committed. I believed social networking to be a trivial, ego-centric and indulgent waste of time, which certainly had little or no place in a work environment. From that starting point, if I had rated myself against Forrester’s (2012) technographic’s profile, ‘spectator’ and ‘joiner’ would describe my level of evolution in a socially networked society. As a social networking agnostic the road was always going to be tough.

However, as journeys go, studying and participating in the coursework for INF206 – the readings and links to resources, Facebook interactions with other students, and the OLJ activities have been stimulating and enlightening, albeit distracting and time consuming. Whilst the experiences are not life-changing at this point, I have certainly discovered some strengths, and also some glaring weaknesses in how I adopt, adapt  and integrate new tools and practices (along with associated principles, values and attitudes) into my workflows and work-related beliefs. Today, a self-rating against Forrester’s behaviour ladder would place me on the “collector”, “conversationalist” and “creator” rungs, but only at the novice end of each rung.

I have found learning, evaluating and using new Web 2.0 tools generally enjoyable. The revelations have been: 1) the level of involvement and work required in establishing, then maintaining connections; 2) the intensity felt as a content creator (that sense of responsibility); 3) the sheer number of tools available (to learn, use and evaluate); 4) the nuanced differences between the networking platforms Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Yammer, and their appropriateness to purpose for specific audiences; and, 5) the volume of reading required to cover the subject comprehensively.

I still have a long way to go before I can consider myself a professional or proficient user of social technologies, but I’m committed to continuing my exposure. Much of the remaining reticence comes down to confidence. How much value can I really add? My concerns about reputation and the damage misinformation can cause, the public versus private issue (account hacking, ensuring privacy and confidentiality around personal information) and time management, are all yet to be overcome. Feeling overwhelmed by the abundance of tools is another huge factor. Effectively managing workflows may go some way to increasing confidence.

How does this awareness impact on my development as an information professional? I believe I now understand the game plan and the key elements required for the successful implementation of social networking initiatives. The critical element is to understand user needs.  Others include: providing opportunities for user participation and feedback; a continuous improvement approach involving iterative assessment; technology as a catalyst for change, but used only where fit for purpose; and, a well-understood governance and policy framework.

What this subject has re-enforced in me, are the Web 2.0 values of community,  content creation, collaboration and harnessing collective intelligence, and how central they are to Library 2.0 philosophy. A shining example of a participatory service is the National Library of Australia’s Trove: Australia in Pictures (NLA, 2013) initiative, where collections from Pictures Australia  are being moved into Trove. The initiative actively encourages people to contribute their Flickr images depicting “social, political, contemporary, and/or historical events of local or national significance”, drawing these contributions from library members and non-members alike. What a wonderful, inclusive and clever way to not only build a significant photographic collection, but also contribute to documenting Australia’s visual record. Achieved through harnessing collective intelligence and fostering a sense of community; Library 2.0 in practice.

Given Web 3.0 is on the horizon, the future for libraries is set to get interesting. Stuart (2010) puts forward his predictions for Web 3.0 as Semantic Web, Web of Things, 3D Web or a ‘mashup’ of all three. How that translates into Library 3.0 will rest on us to take the lead, as information professionals.

Excuse my poor attempt at humour!

References

Bernoff, J. (2010, July 27). Social technographics defined 2010. [Presentation]. Retrieved from http://empowered.forrester.com/ladder2010/  

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006, January 09). Library 2.0: Service for the next generation library. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html  

Hay, L., & Wallis, J. (2007). INF206: Social networking for information professionals. Module 1 – Introduction. Retrieved from http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF206_201290_W_D/page/2b19a744-2d77-4152-80fd-749b1d3d4ce5

National Library of Australia. (n.d.). Trove: Australia in pictures. Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/picture?q=

Stuart, D. (2010, February/March). Web 3.0 promises change for libraries. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.researchinformation.info/features/feature.php?feature_id=253

A brief exploration of Second Life

Kathryn's Jokaydia snapshots

Entering into a virtual world such as Second Life is something so outside anything I have ever done. I've never been into computer gaming, which is really what I equate Second Life to. I was totally dissatisfied with my avatar, ending up with one that was so far removed from who I am and what I look like. Even after quite a bit of tweaking, no joy. I wonder how important authenticity and keeping it real in Second Life is?

My initial thoughts were that I was going to struggle with this activity. Surprisingly, I've found Jokaydia  fascinating to explore, beautiful, and in some ways a relaxing place. It can be a little lonely though. There's much to master and understand. Unfortunately, time constraints have meant that so far I've only managed to scratch the surface. However, I intend to visit in the next little while and will try adopting a more positive approach to learning in this kind of environment - keeping an open mind. 

I'm sure there is much to discover.

Social media policies

Book cover images taken from Amazon.com

Social Media Policy Working Parties should consider including the following five (5) key points to guide employees’ responsible use of Web 2.0 tools for official, professional or personal use whilst on the organisation’s computer network:

1.   Privacy - statutory and regulatory responsibilities and requirements
Include a confidentiality section that clearly states what types of information can/can’t be shared online. The disclosure of sensitive, private and confidential information may be deemed a violation of law and must be carefully monitored. Appropriate behaviour includes respecting the privacy of co-workers; asking permission before posting any content owned by others.

2.   Online content creators and moderators should present themselves as authentic, transparent and honest.
When posting work related content, creators and moderators should use their real name, the organisation they work for, and clearly outline their professional role. In some cases, the inclusion of a disclaimer (of warranties) around personal views is useful when posting in a professional capacity (not official) to delineate personally held views (even from a professional perspective) from those of the organisation’s.

3.   Rights protection.
Content creators and moderators must understand the legalities around ownership and rights issues. Original works of authorship are protected under the Copyright Act (1968) in Australia. Permission to share existing content should be sought from the copyright owner and attribution given when material is used. Decisions around licensing any newly created content should be based on the levels of control or openness required for the material and by the organisation. If using open licenses such as Creative Commons, TERN, etc., include information about the licensing framework.

4.   Post accurate information. Content creators should be encouraged to write about what they know. Referring  to others where the topic is outside their area of expertise, or advise the user they will investigate and get back to them. Researching the topic thoroughly to gain all the facts and provide supporting sources with links ensures accuracy of the information being posted and helps build community too. When an error has been made, quick corrections are required, without seeming to hide the mistake.

5.   Add value.
When using social media for work purposes provide information that is relevant to the user, adding to their understanding within an organisational context. Don’t post for the sake of it.

Additionally, provide some guiding principles and indications around what standards are expected. A policy written in plain English will also be far more useful to employees.


Arendt, A.M. (2009). Social media tools and the policies associated with them. Best Practices in Policy Management Conference. Utah Valley University. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/anne_arendt/7

City of Hampton. (2009). Social media policy. Retrieved from https://82d7ee1c-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/munigov20/good-reading-and-resources/hampton_vasocial_media_policy09-002.pdf

Falls, J. (February 3, 2010). What every company should know about social media policy [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/what-every-company-should-know-about-social-media-policy/

Kroski, E. (January 10, 2009). Should your library have a social media policy? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6699104.html

Lauby, S. (February 6, 2009) 10 Must-haves for your social media policy [Web log post]. Mashable. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2009/06/02/social-media-policy-musts/

Authentic information in a socially networked world

Just a couple of take-home messages from an article by Wittenberg (2007) and another by Garfinkel (2008) around the authenticity of information within a socially networked world that inform the work of an information professional.

1. Quality assessment – Publisher-driven vs. Community-based
   
   Friedrich Nietzsche was quoted as saying, “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” Wittenberg (2007), in her article, puts forward a parallel notion to this argument when outlining the traditional process for quality assessment; “the authority to establish credibility rests with the publisher, who selects the peer reviewers, interprets their comments, and manages the author’s revision process”. While Wittenberg illustrates the publisher-driven system in her article, Garfinkel (2008) examines Wikipedia in his, which he sees as a community-based model for credibility assessment; “truth is received: the consensus view of a subject” becomes the accepted authority. Both authors suggest flaws exist in each system.
   
   Truth and authenticity are often not easily evaluated, particularly by users, whose information seeking patterns have changed significantly with the advent of Google. To ameliorate this situation, Wittenberg (2007) believes that librarians and publishers need a change in perspective around their work practices. The information professions must respond to the changes in learning preferences of young people, and become leaders through research and innovation to initiate pedagogical change. A commonsense approach that should also include the user in the change process.


2. Policies and procedures, and the power of many
   
   As a university student I am acutely aware of the status of Wikipedia amongst the academic community as a non-reliable source. Wikipedia is fine for gaining background information, but should not be cited in essays and assignments. Wikipedia is not seen as an authoritative or authentic source because the content has not been subjected to peer-review, instead is written and edited by volunteers.
   
   However, according to Garfinkel (2008), “studies have found that the articles are remarkably accurate”. Why? Because the Wikipedia community of more than seven million registered users follow a set of naturally evolved policies and procedures that enable the quick and judicious removal of untruths. This says much about ‘participatory democracy’ and the logical development of governance processes by a group of many. John F. Kennedy was quoted as saying, “A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” We should not shy away from crowd-sourcing and ‘collective intelligence’, but rather embrace it. 

Friedrich Nietzsche quotes. (2013). Good Reads. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=✓

Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth. Technology Review, 111(6), 84-86. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=35342513&site=ehost-live

John F. Kennedy quotes. (2013). Good Reads. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?utf8=✓

Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. The Journal of Electornic Publishing,10(1). Retrieved from ttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;cc=jep;rgn=main;view=text;idno=3336451.0010.101

ToonDoo

There are loads of little apps on the web quite useful for creating interesting ways to engage audiences. I've been playing around with a couple of late - ToonDoo  (http://www.toondoo.com/ - comic strips and cartoons) and Voki (http://www.voki.com - using avatars and audio). 

Here's my early attempt with ToonDoo. Again, just for fun!!

Click to enlarge

So cool!! Oh, not my cartoon, but the app.

Shifts and trends that may impact on digital citizens

Video Did You Know 4.0 (created by xplanevisualthinking Sept 14, 2009)

Information policy does not exist in a vacuum, therefore ‘shifts’ in information technology and its use impact not just on information policy, but budgetary, human resources, data security and many other business related policies within organisations.

I have chosen to highlight the following ‘shifts’ and trends taken from Did you know 4.0:  

1. Inequality in information access using mobile devices.
   
   Take up in industrialised countries has been phenomenal, with ready access for most to sufficient bandwidth and wireless and mobile connectivity. However, many developing countries cannot boast similar communications infrastructure, leaving them behind in the race for information and knowledge. In a global economy, information is essential to economic growth and improved standards of living. This phenomenon is referred to widely as the ‘digital divide’. A cohesive International and national approach to policy development is required to tackle this inequality.


2. Users as creators.
   
   With the introduction of Web 2.0 tools, online interactions are no longer one way (pushing information to consumers), but rather the consumer is now also a creator of content, adding value to information through tagging, commenting, liking, writing blog posts, uploading video to YouTube, photos to Flickr, presentations to Slideshare, and so on. Participatory and collaborative environments come with significant responsibilities in relation to the content generated; its appropriateness, accuracy, currency and level of interest, which provides considerable risk to an organisation’s brand if managed poorly. This is a major driver for policy development.
   


3. Teens and IM (instant messaging)
   
   As testament to how rapidly the information landscape is changing, it would appear that IM (as reported in the video in 2009) is no longer as ‘trendy’ a communication method used by teens as the new kid on the block, texting. Note: IM is a computer-based activity,  while texting is done using mobile phones. According to Lenhart’s (2012) study, 63% of teens surveyed are using text to communicate with others every day compared to 22% using instant messaging. It would seem from this study that landlines and email are even less favoured by teens. The personal nature of mobile phones (on body, always on, always available for use) makes policies for use of mobiles in schools very important.


4. Inappropriate use of social media
   
   All too frequently we hear news reports regarding cyber-bullying leading to tragedy. Whilst this is a legal issue, policy can help in awareness raising and education around appropriate behaviour. It is everyone’s responsibility to be respectful of others, behave responsibly, be safe, protect yourself, and behave ethically online.


5. Leading on from number 4, is the rise of hackers and spammers
   
   Unlawful activities online are increasing even though security systems are more sophisticated and seemingly robust. Security breaches place personal, private and sensitive data at risk. This is happening all too often, with some high profile companies falling prey to such activity (Bindra, 2012; Santo, 2012; Perkins,2012). Why does something so useful for “good” attract the basest amongst us for “malicious” purposes? This behaviour has given rise to information security strategies and policies, which have little effect on the activity, but do raise awareness around the issues. Hopefully promoting greater vigilance in personal online security. 

Bindra, A. (2012, December 06). Understanding the legal implications of bring your own device. Bring Your Own Device. Retrieved January 19, 2013, from http://bring-your-own-device.tmcnet.com/articles/318795-understanding-legal-implications-bring-own-device.htm

Lenhart, A. (2012, March 19). Texting dominates teens' general communication choices.Teens, Smartphones & Texting Choices. Retrieved January 19, 2013, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones/Communication-choices/Texting-dominates-teens-general-communication-choices.aspx

Perkins, N. (2012, October 13). The implications of rising mobile subscriptions worldwide. Business 2 Community The Implications of Rising Mobile Subscriptions Worldwide Comments. Retrieved January 19, 2013, from http://www.business2community.com/mobile-apps/the-implications-of-rising-mobile-subscriptions-worldwide-0305828

Santo, B. (2012, September 28). Hacking on the rise. CED Magazine - Communications, Engineering and Design Magazine. Retrieved January 19, 2013, from http://www.cedmagazine.com/articles/2012/09/hacking-on-the-rise