Thursday, February 28, 2008
Meagan's post 2.0 (beta version)
Social Networking in a Library Science Framework
by Meagan Brown
Social networks have existed for as long as humans have been on earth. People have needed one
another to survive, gain resources, share information, and learn. However, the social network in
web 2.0 and library 2.0 takes a different route to achieve the same ends. Modern social
networking in libraries utilizes computer software that allows people to form virtual communities
and provides the opportunity to interact with one another. According to YALSA,
Social networking sites are those that provide this opportunity to interact. Sites that
allow visitors to send emails, post comments, build web content and/or take part in
live chats are all part of social networking sites (YALSA, 2006).
MySpace, LiveJournal, and FaceBook are commonly targeted sites, but social networking
tools include more than just these well-known sites. Social networking technology includes
include blogs, podcasts, instant messaging services, RSS, wikis, and many other public forums
where users create profiles and can interact with one another. The power of such resources for a
library and its patrons can never be underestimated.
Libraries using social networking software have the capability to create MySpace sites to
reach their patrons, particularly teens and other non-traditional library users. Libraries
canuse blogging software to update patrons about upcoming events, such as author visits, teen
game nights, and youth story times. Librarians can create wikis to share research findings, such
as genealogical trees, historical data, and other relevant resources. Patrons are able to
collaborate with other users worldwide who share the same interests, values, and ideas, as well
as being given the opportunity to engage those who don’t. Using these technologies allows
patrons to actively engage other people and groups with whom they would likely not have contact with otherwise, which facilitates active learning and critical thinking skills.
While there are many possible positive outcomes of using and offering social networking
technologies, there are also some possible negatives consequences. There are real and perceived
threats of social networks which have spurred legislative action. Two pieces of legislation in
particular threaten access to information in libraries. These are CIPA (The Children’s Internet
Protection Act) and DOPA (The Deleting Online Predators Act), both of which seek to protect
children from online predators by targeting social software that allows children to post personal
information and/or interact with adult predators on the internet. These pieces of legislation
require internet filters on public school and library computers that minors have access to for
research and social purposes, which can drastically limit the number of valuable educationaltools
(Murphy, 2006). It is thought that limiting access to such tools and sites creates a “safer”
internet for children. (Federal Communications Commission, 2006)
Please visit the following links to learn more and respond to the questions below:
1. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/17266
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/deleting_online_predators_act_of_2006
3. http://www.ala.org/washoff/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.cfm
4. http://www.ala.org/yalsa/profdev/dopainfopacket.pdf
Questions:
1. What are some possible positive outcomes for libraries utilizing social
networking software/sites and web 2.0 technologies?
2. What are some possible positive and/or negative outcomes of DOPA, CIPA, and other
similar initiatives for patrons?
3. What values or ethics could guide one’s support of social networking availability
to patrons?
4. What values or ethics might guide one’s support of DOPA and restriction of social
networking?
Works Cited
Federal Communications Commission. (2006, January 12). Children's Internet Protection Act.
Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
Murphy, B. (2006, July 26). ALA disappointed by House passage of bill that will block key web
applications. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from ALA News:
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=pressreleases&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.
cfm&ContentID=133666
YALSA. (2006). Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries: A Toolkit for Librarians & Library Workers. Chicago: American Library Association.
Hello Class, Here's group three's blog
Social Networking in a Library Science Framework
by Meagan Brown
Social networks have existed for as long as humans have been on earth. People have needed one another to survive, gain resources, share information, and learn. However, the social network in
web 2.0 and library 2.0 takes a different route to achieve the same ends. Modern social
networking in libraries utilizes computer software that allows people to form virtual communities
and provides the opportunity to interact with one another. According to YALSA,
Social networking sites are those that provide this opportunity to interact. Sites that allowvisitors to send emails, post comments, build web content and/or take part in live chats are all part of social networking sites (YALSA, 2006).
MySpace, LiveJournal, and FaceBook are commonly targeted sites, but social networking tools include more than just these well-known sites. Social networking technology includes include blogs, podcasts, instant messaging services, RSS, wikis, and many other public forums where users create profiles and can interact with one another. The power of such resources for a library and its patrons can never be underestimated.
Libraries using social networking software have the capability to create MySpace sites to reach their patrons, particularly teens and other non-traditional library users. Libraries canuse blogging software to update patrons about upcoming events, such as author visits, teen game nights, and youth story times. Librarians can create wikis to share research findings, such as genealogical trees, historical data, and other relevant resources. Patrons are able to collaborate with other users worldwide who share the same interests, values, and ideas, as well as being given the opportunity to engage those who don’t. Using these technologies allows patrons to actively engage other people and groups with whom they would likely not have contact with otherwise, which facilitates active learning and critical thinking skills.
While there are many possible positive outcomes of using and offering social networking technologies, there are also some possible negatives consequences. There are real and perceived threats of social networks which have spurred legislative action. Two pieces of legislation in particular threaten access to information in libraries. These are CIPA (The Children’s Internet Protection Act) and DOPA (The Deleting Online Predators Act), both of which seek to protect children from online predators by targeting social software that allows children to post personal information and/or interact with adult predators on the internet. These pieces of legislation
require internet filters on public school and library computers that minors have access to for
research and social purposes, which can drastically limit the number of valuable educationaltools
(Murphy, 2006). It is thought that limiting access to such tools and sites creates a “safer”
internet for children. (Federal Communications Commission, 2006)
Please visit the following links to learn more and respond to the questions below:
1. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/17266
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/deleting_online_predators_act_of_2006
3. http://www.ala.org/washoff/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.cfm
4. http://www.ala.org/yalsa/profdev/dopainfopacket.pdf
Questions:
1. What are some possible positive outcomes for libraries utilizing social networking software/sites and web 2.0 technologies?
2. What are some possible positive and/or negative outcomes of DOPA, CIPA, and other similar initiatives for patrons?
3. What values or ethics could guide one’s support of social networking availability to patrons?
4. What values or ethics might guide one’s support of DOPA and restriction of social networking?
Works Cited
Federal Communications Commission. (2006, January 12). Children's Internet Protection Act.
Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
Murphy, B. (2006, July 26). ALA disappointed by House passage of bill that will block key web
applications. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from ALA News:
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm? section=pressreleases&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay. cfm&ContentID=133666
YALSA. (2006). Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries: A Toolkit for Librarians & Library Workers. Chicago: American Library Association.
by Meagan Brown
Social networks have existed for as long as humans have been on earth. People have needed one another to survive, gain resources, share information, and learn. However, the social network in
web 2.0 and library 2.0 takes a different route to achieve the same ends. Modern social
networking in libraries utilizes computer software that allows people to form virtual communities
and provides the opportunity to interact with one another. According to YALSA,
Social networking sites are those that provide this opportunity to interact. Sites that allowvisitors to send emails, post comments, build web content and/or take part in live chats are all part of social networking sites (YALSA, 2006).
MySpace, LiveJournal, and FaceBook are commonly targeted sites, but social networking tools include more than just these well-known sites. Social networking technology includes include blogs, podcasts, instant messaging services, RSS, wikis, and many other public forums where users create profiles and can interact with one another. The power of such resources for a library and its patrons can never be underestimated.
Libraries using social networking software have the capability to create MySpace sites to reach their patrons, particularly teens and other non-traditional library users. Libraries canuse blogging software to update patrons about upcoming events, such as author visits, teen game nights, and youth story times. Librarians can create wikis to share research findings, such as genealogical trees, historical data, and other relevant resources. Patrons are able to collaborate with other users worldwide who share the same interests, values, and ideas, as well as being given the opportunity to engage those who don’t. Using these technologies allows patrons to actively engage other people and groups with whom they would likely not have contact with otherwise, which facilitates active learning and critical thinking skills.
While there are many possible positive outcomes of using and offering social networking technologies, there are also some possible negatives consequences. There are real and perceived threats of social networks which have spurred legislative action. Two pieces of legislation in particular threaten access to information in libraries. These are CIPA (The Children’s Internet Protection Act) and DOPA (The Deleting Online Predators Act), both of which seek to protect children from online predators by targeting social software that allows children to post personal information and/or interact with adult predators on the internet. These pieces of legislation
require internet filters on public school and library computers that minors have access to for
research and social purposes, which can drastically limit the number of valuable educationaltools
(Murphy, 2006). It is thought that limiting access to such tools and sites creates a “safer”
internet for children. (Federal Communications Commission, 2006)
Please visit the following links to learn more and respond to the questions below:
1. http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/17266
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/deleting_online_predators_act_of_2006
3. http://www.ala.org/washoff/woissues/civilliberties/cipaweb/cipa.cfm
4. http://www.ala.org/yalsa/profdev/dopainfopacket.pdf
Questions:
1. What are some possible positive outcomes for libraries utilizing social networking software/sites and web 2.0 technologies?
2. What are some possible positive and/or negative outcomes of DOPA, CIPA, and other similar initiatives for patrons?
3. What values or ethics could guide one’s support of social networking availability to patrons?
4. What values or ethics might guide one’s support of DOPA and restriction of social networking?
Works Cited
Federal Communications Commission. (2006, January 12). Children's Internet Protection Act.
Retrieved February 24, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html
Murphy, B. (2006, July 26). ALA disappointed by House passage of bill that will block key web
applications. Retrieved February 23, 2008, from ALA News:
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm? section=pressreleases&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay. cfm&ContentID=133666
YALSA. (2006). Teens & Social Networking in School & Public Libraries: A Toolkit for Librarians & Library Workers. Chicago: American Library Association.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)