Uncategorized

This report contains an evaluative statement using three experiences documented in this journal as evidence of meeting the learning outcomes of the subject and a reflective statement on my development as a social networker.

Evaluative Statement

The three immersive learning experiences documented in this Online Learning Journal (OLJ) titled Library 2.0, Social Media Marketing and The Social Media Revolution illustrate an understanding of social networking technologies and library 2.0, the ability to evaluate social networking technologies for both users and organisations, and comprehension of developing and implementing information policy to support the use of social networking technologies.

Social media has been described as online tools which “allow for the creation and exchange of user-generated content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61) and enable “communication, participation and collaboration” (Thoring, 2011, p. 142). Social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are the most popular type of social media, with 15 million active Australian users of Facebook as of April 2016 (Cowling, 2016). With such a membership rate, organisations must use social networking technologies in order to successfully interact with their community.

The Library 2.0 learning activity demonstrates an understanding of social networking technologies as reference is made to updating processes and technologies to move towards a more connected and collaborative library, which are specific benefits of social networking and web 2.0. This activity also identifies a current confidence with utilisation of Facebook and a desire to further explore Twitter after gaining an understanding of the dialogical benefits of the tool.

Web 2.0 describes the use of the internet as a platform for users to interact, collaborate and create content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61; Kwanya, Stilwell, & Underwood, 2013, p. 188). Library 2.0 utilises both the social media technology of Web 2.0 and the participative principles behind it. The term ultimately describes an alteration of how librarians and library patrons interact (Holmberg et al., as cited in Huvila, Holmberg, Kronquist-Berg, Nivakoski, & Widén, 2013, p. 198). Androich (2012) reiterates the importance of meeting customers in the communication channel of their preference, and increasingly this is social media. To be successful in library 2.0, librarians must be active in these channels.

The five pieces of selected advice in the Library 2.0 learning activity do not simply define library 2.0, but instead relate to improving adoption of the concept in a particular workplace. This indicates an advanced comprehension of library 2.0 and how it applies in a practical context. As a solid grasp of the concept of web 2.0 is necessary to understand library 2.0 (Kwanya et al., 2013, p. 188), it can be surmised that the Library 2.0 journal post signifies competence in the understanding of both concepts.

Social media connect people with each other and organisations in new ways. When used strategically, and selected carefully for their individual features and functionality, social networking tools can vastly improve relationships with users of organisations, and help to achieve organisational goals.

The Social Media Marketing journal activity illustrates an understanding that use of social networking tools must represent the needs of the organisation and its users. The first step is to work out what the overarching organisational goals and smaller social media targets are and then decide which tools best meet those needs.

For example, Facebook allows people to “discover what’s going on in the world” and “express what matters to them” (Facebook, 2004) while Twitter is limited to 140 characters and identifies itself with “real-time updates” and “what’s happening now (“Twitter is your window to the world,” 2016). Therefore Facebook is ideal for creating either a public community or private workplace network, and sharing opinions, information relating to the organisation, photos and videos. Twitter is particularly good for concise interactions and live tweeting during events. Both are good for receiving and responding to feedback. Use of Pinterest has been shown to have different motivators such as fashion and creative projects (Mull & Lee, 2014, p. 196), and so could be a better investment for retailers rather than information organisations.

The Library 2.0 learning activity also supports the ability to critically examine the features of particular social networking technologies, as a developing understanding of the benefits of Twitter is described. The ability to respond to feedback is also discussed as a positive functionality for organisations, as even if the feedback is negative, responding promptly shows a side of the organisation that can be seen to care about the public.

The Social Media Marketing activity demonstrates an understanding of a flexible implementation strategy after technologies are selected, consistently evaluating them to gauge if they are still successfully meeting the needs of the work group and the users of the organisation.This can be done by using the analytics capabilities of each technology (King, 2015, p. 26; Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 79).

In a socially networked world, where brand control has shifted to consumers (Thoring, 2011, p. 141), marketing is about participation in social media and having a conversation (Thoring, p. 142).

The Social Media Revolution learning activity displays understanding of issues arising from this need to participate in social networking. The activity shows comprehension of how individuals currently behave as digital citizens and the implications this has for information policy development. Areas identified as needing further policy include appropriate and safe internet use, information evaluation education, copyright, equal access to information and general implementation policy surrounding responsibility for social networking technologies and moderation of content.

Some important points when developing policy include ensuring the policy is not restricted to particular technologies. The policy should also support organisational goals, the culture of the organisation and its users (“Keys for developing a social media policy,” 2013).

Reflective Statement

In the introductory post at the beginning of this subject, I was using the social networking sites Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. I expressed interest in learning about other tools and discovering how social media could be maximised in the professional environment and whether the value of social media really outweighed the staff time and effort for implementation. I have found this subject to be an extremely satisfying learning experience, as although I was previously confident that I knew the unique benefits of social media and how this applied in a practical setting, I discovered that I was lacking a true understanding of just how effective social networking technologies can be when used appropriately. They are essential to meeting the needs of users and therefore achieving organisational goals.

The most noticeable development in my understanding of the benefits of social networking technologies is that they are not designed to simply push information, but should be used to have a conversation with your users (Kavada, 2015, p. 1; Thoring, 2011, p. 142). When this is in place, true interaction and collaboration begins to occur, improving the relationship with users. As needs are met, the tools become more and more successful at achieving outcomes for the organisation.

In addition to understanding the importance of using social networking technologies to have a conversation, I have also learnt that strategic use of social media allows us to shape that conversation so that it serves our purposes (Kavada, 2015, p. 1). A successful strategy requires knowing what your users need and where they prefer to communicate. Consumers influence and create content, changing the corporate message to a social one (Kilgour, Sasser, & Larke, 2015, p. 327), which is more likely to be trusted by users. Allowing users to participate, and ensuring content is relevant and interesting to them allows users to enjoy their interactions with the library, as without enjoyment it is difficult to keep followers engaged (Curran & Lennon, 2011, p. 34). Social media also offers libraries the capability for a fast response to remote user enquiries, which can improve the reputation of the library with users (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 72).

Prior to this subject I thought Twitter rather superfluous, however I have completely reformed my opinion. Microblogging provides opportunities for succinct client feedback, networking, customer relations and publicity, particularly live tweeting during events (Thoring, 2011, p. 143). Combining these possibilities with the easy to scan feed, meaning users can quickly find information relevant to them (Dashevsky, 2015), makes Twitter an important organisational tool. I have already started to implement the use of Twitter within my employment at a public library and look forward to further developing the service.

I have further learning to do when it comes to information policy. I have a solid understanding that use of social media should fit into the larger strategic goals of the library (King, 2015, p. 32) and that due to the evolving nature of social media, policy should be regularly updated (“Keys to developing a social media policy,” p. 44). However, there are specific issues arising from the prominence of social networking, and although I am confident in providing policy to address the digital divide or regulate internet use and behaviour, in other areas such as intellectual property, privacy and safety I will be endeavouring to improve my level of knowledge.

With this new knowledge of how to utilise social media within an organisation, I am hoping to pioneer changes in my own workplace, a public library, to evolve our use of social media to move towards the library of the future, which is an intelligent, organised network of multiple information pathways (Kwanya et al., 2013, p. 192).

My development as a social networker through this subject has led to some new goals as an information professional. I would like to clearly define the needs of our users and improve our implementation strategy for social media to more closely align with those needs. I also will be endeavouring to ensure our content is not a one-way communication but is having a conversation with our users. Setting targets for social media engagement and content, and measuring them using the analytics capabilities of the technologies will also be important. Although these steps will take time, effort and cooperation of higher level staff, by streamlining our social networking strategy opportunities exist to use our staff time more effectively. For example, ceasing the use of Pinterest and spending this time improving Facebook and Twitter interactions. These measures will enable us to obtain better results from the use of social media and create an engaged community who improve the value of our service.

References

Androich, A. (2012). They’re talking (and tweeting), are you listening? Marketing, 117    (13), 16-18. Retrieved from      http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1460760917?  accountid=10344

Cowling, D. (2016, May 1). Social media statistics Australia: April 2016 [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-  april-2016/

Curran, J. M., & Lennon, R. (2011). Participating in the conversation: Exploring usage of  social media networking sites. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15 (1), 21-38.  Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/915080829?  accountid=10344

Facebook. (2004). About Facebook [Facebook page]. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from  https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info/?tab=page_info

Huvila, I., Holmberg, K., Kronquist-Berg, M., Nivakoski, O., & Widén, G. (2013). What  is librarian 2.0 – new competencies or interactive relations?: A library professional  viewpoint. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (3), 198-205. doi:  10.1177/0961000613477122

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world unite: The challenges and  opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59-68. doi:  10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Kavada, A. (2015). Social media as conversation: A manifesto. Social Media + Society,  April-June, 1-2. doi: 10.1177/2056305115580793

Keys for developing a social media policy. (2013). Information Management Journal,  47 (6), 42-44

Kilgour, M., Sasser, S. L., & Larke, R. (2015). The social media transformation process:  Curating content into strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,  20 (3), 326-343. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-07-2014-0046

King, D. L. (2015). Analytics, goals and strategy for social media. Library Technology  Reports, 51 (1), 26-32. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1646465071?  accountid=10344

Kwanya, T., Stilwell, C., & Underwood, P. G. (2013). Intelligent libraries and  apomediators: Distinguishing between library 3.0 and library 2.0. Journal of  Librarianship and Information Science, 45 (3), 187-197. doi:  10.1177/0961000611435256

Mull, I. R., & Lee, S. (2014). “Pin” pointing the motivational dimensions behind  Pinterest. Computers in Human Behaviour, 33, 192-200. doi:  10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.011

Ramsey, E., & Vecchione, A. (2014). Engaging library users through a social media  strategy. Journal of Library Innovation, 5 (2), 71-82. Retrieved from  http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1628573845?  accountid=10344

Thoring, A. (2011). Corporate tweeting: Analysing the use of Twitter as a marketing tool  by UK trade publishers. Publishing Research Quarterly, 27 (2), 141-158. doi:  0.1007/s12109-011-9214-7

Twitter is your window to the world. (2016). Retrieved April 9, 2016, from  https://about.twitter.com/

As an employee of a public library, the digital divide and internet regulation, specifically censorship and appropriate usage, are important areas of policy concern, as equity of access and freedom of information are some of the primary goals of the organisation.

Libraries have a responsibility to ensure that everybody has reasonable access to relevant information, which today often means a provision of internet access (Pautz, 2013, p. 310). Internet access is pivotal to societal interaction and participation, and can be considered an essential, similar to electricity and water (White House Council of Economic Advisors, 2015, p. 9). Home internet accessibility is shown to be directly affected by race, income and education level (White House Council of Economic Advisors, 2015).

This digital divide can be addressed by public libraries, initially by learning, through observation and community communication, exactly how people wish to use the internet in their library and if there is enough opportunity to do so. Policies will form around these needs, including the number of computers required, adequate level of internet connectivity, other types of technological equipment that could be provided, an update schedule, and how to manage access to these technologies. A simple and effective way to ensure everyone has an opportunity for access is a booking system which limits users by time (Pautz, 2013, p. 314).

Statistics show that smartphones have helped to bridge the digital divide, with the majority of American adults aged 15-64 now having a smartphone (Hall, 2013). This takes some pressure off libraries needing an ever-expanding number of expensive internet access computers, however it does mean that having a free wireless service is necessary.

Providing such broad access to the internet throughout the library brings questions surrounding censorship and appropriate use of the service to the fore. Policy should be aimed at assisting users to make educated decisions, giving clear guidelines on how laws apply to library internet use and what is appropriate and inappropriate usage of the service (Pautz, 2013, p. 312). This could be a plain english terms and conditions screen to click through before computers or devices connect. Filtering software is often inefficient and can make important information that patrons may be reluctant to ask for, such as information regarding sexual health, unfindable (Pautz, 2013, p. 313). This information should be available for the many that would benefit, and access to the service denied for those who refuse to adhere to the usage policy.

References

Hall, B. S. (2013, May 17). Smartphones have bridged the digital divide [Blog post]. Retrieved from  http://readwrite.com/2013/05/17/smartphones-have-bridged-the-digital-divide/

Pautz, H. (2013). Managing access to the internet in public libraries. New Library World, 114 (7/8), 308-  318. doi: 10.1108/NLW-01-2013-0007

White House Council of Economic Advisors. (2015). Mapping the digital divide [Issue brief]. Retrieved  from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_issue_brief.pdf

(Hutchings, 2015)

Five trends identified from the above video that have an impact on how individuals behave as digital citizens:

1. Facebook tops Google for weekly traffic in the US.
2. Generations Y and Z consider email to be outdated.
3. Wikipedia has 15 million articles and has been shown in studies to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica.
4. 78% of consumers trust peer recommendations, while only 14% trust advertising.
5. We will no longer search for products or services. They will find us via social media, in the same way that the news does. (Hutchings, 2015)

These have significant implications for the need for new information policy development in the public library where I am employed.

The first two trends illustrate the popularity of social media, in particular Facebook. As a library we must respond to community need, and if the preference is to interact with us through Facebook and other social media, we must have policies surrounding the content we place on social media, how responsive we are and who is responsible for maintaining social media. The public internet service also will predominantly be used for social media, so policies also need to be in place for our users that provide clear boundaries on what is acceptable and unacceptable when using social media. Educational guidelines referring to online safety could also be important.

With sites like Wikipedia gaining popularity and credibility, information searching behaviour changes. Instead of using books or reference librarians, people find their own information and use it. This gives us an opportunity to focus on to develop policy and practices surrounding educating users on evaluating sources and copyright issues, to ensure they can do their own research, and find their own information in a responsible way with the public library still being an essential part of the process.

The last two trends exemplify a major shift in how people learn about their world and interact and interpret it, expecting pertinent information to find them, and finding peer communication more relevant than traditional advertising. As a library we must embrace new ways to inform and connect with the community. We must have a solid presence on social media, we must respond and moderate our content, and we must ensure adequate internet access and digital literacy. Everybody should have equal opportunity to access social media in order to communicate and participate collaboratively, while also accessing news, products and services.

References

Hutchings, T. (2015, January). The social media revolution 2015 [Video file]. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdcFOiTYxw

It is important to first decide what you actually want to be able to do with social media, and then to choose and implement the best tool for that particular activity (Facet Publishing, 2015). The public library I am employed at is rather guilty of doing this the other way around, with a directive given that we must have a presence on a particular social tool, with little or no discussion as to why exactly we are there, what we want to achieve and how we will succeed. This has led to confusion in the past surrounding the types of content to be posted and social media not being used to their full potential. It is reiterated in other readings that the first step to a successful social media marketing plan is to initially set goals before deciding on and implementing tools (LePage, 2014; Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 76).

With goals in place and the right tools chosen for the task, it is most practical to assign staff, and perhaps even community members, who are already interested in using social media to manage social content (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 78). Forcing it upon staff is counterproductive, there is no particular communications officer/librarian, and most job descriptions have not been revised for social media duties inclusion. Therefore encouraging those with an interest and providing further training on particular tools is the best way forward.

There also needs to be a schedule for when content is created or posted and who this is done by, and guidelines for the type of content. LePage (2014) advises use of the thirds principle:

• 1/3 content is promotion and profit driving (in our case profit is use of various library services.
• 1/3 sharing of content created by others.
• 1/3 developing personality, brand and community relationships.

I found this principle simple and would think it to be effective. While I consider that we already promote and brand quite well, being more selective on content that we share could be useful to our social media image. Connecting more with our community including other public libraries and sharing their content, will help grow the network and further work out what does and doesn’t work for our users (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 78).

Lastly, our social media presence must be constantly evaluated against our goals, by both using the analytics provided by the sites themselves (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 79) and our own measures such as numbers of likes or shares (Ramsey & Vecchione, 2014, p. 77), in order to improve the conversation we are having with our community and ensure the social media tools we are using are helping to achieve overall organisational goals.

References

Facet Publishing. (2015). Introduction: Social media for creative libraries by Phil Bradley [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zSsloDyvUg

LePage, E. (2014, October 29). How to create a social media marketing plan in 6 steps. [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://blog.hootsuite.com/how-to-create-a-social-media-marketing-plan/

Ramsey, E., & Vecchione, A. (2014). Engaging library users through a social media strategy. Journal of  Library Innovation, 5(2), 71-82. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csu.edu.au/docview/1628573845?accountid=10344

(UC Berkeley Events, 2007)

I have selected five pieces of advice given by the keynote speaker, Meredith Farkas, in this video which would be particularly relevant in helping the public library I am employed at embrace Library 2.0. These are:

• Question EVERYTHING that we do currently.
• Put our information where our users are.
• Place radical trust in our users to help create the future.
• Avoid technolust.
• Allow adequate time for web 2.0 learning and responsibilities.

(UC Berkeley Events, 2007).

Questioning everything we do is important for embracing library 2.0. This process encourages innovation in how we approach all tasks and procedures, and helps identify those that are irrelevant or need updating in order to create a more connected, collaborative environment.

We know who a lot of our physical customers are, and why and how they use the library, but know much less about our online community. Therefore we really need to establish where our community go for information and ensure we have a presence there, as so many people do not think of the public library as a highly relevant information tool. We do have a Facebook profile which is regularly updated, particularly during special events. and asks for community input frequently through games and questions.  After some research for this subject I have realised that Twitter could be beneficial to my library, as when used mindfully can engage the community, start a dialogue and create responses and action from that community (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012, p. 352).

It is OK to allow feedback and give control (to a certain extent!) to the public. Negative comments and inappropriate content can be moderated. Placing radical trust in our community involves understanding that people like commenting and contributing. We have to be more open and trust our users to help improve our services.

Having a team of people comprised of all levels of staff to evaluate new technology and asking for community input could be ways of ensuring chosen technologies will benefit our library and our users.

Once a web 2.0 tool has been implemented, appropriate time must be given to staff to use the tool effectively, it cannot be squeezed in around other duties if it is to have the desired library 2.0 results.

References

Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community and action: How nonprofit organizations  use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17 (3), 337-353. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-  6101.2012.01576.x

UC Berkeley Events. (2007). Building academic library 2.0 [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uOKFhoznI

What are your thoughts about the credibility or quality of user reviews?

It is desirable to make the right choice of products or services, in order to feel satisfied and to avoid wasting money and time. Travelling can be an expensive enterprise requiring a lot of organisation. Access to free reviews on a site such as Tripadvisor is a good resource, as long as one approaches these reviews with a degree of common sense, and does not rely solely upon user reviews to make a decision.

An important factor relating to credibility and quality of reviews, is identifying the author and their motivation for writing the review. McIntyre, McQuarrie & Shanmugam (2015) suggest that authors of online reviews, particularly regular contributors, are not writing for reward, monetary or otherwise, but are in fact writing out of a desire to have published material in a place where a large audience, not just one’s Facebook friends, are likely to read it (p. 12). Judging by the 65% of travelers researching online before travelling (Collie, as cited in Fang, Ye, Kucukusta, & Law, 2016, p. 498) , the readership is indeed there. If writing for publication, not reward, the majority of reviews are more likely to be honest and aim to be helpful, making them a decent place to find information to influence decision making, as long as the possibility of fake reviews, both positive and negative, is taken into consideration.

Could they be used as good evidence of the quality of services or products?

The helpfulness ratings used by Tripadvisor, allowing the reader to rate the review, is an excellent feature which greatly helps reviews to be used as good evidence for quality of a product or service. Not only does this rating ability help readers choose which reviews to read but also provides product and service managers an opportunity to address issues found in reviews that are affecting customer choices (Fang et al, 2016, p. 499). Fang et al. is of the opinion that reviews could be particularly important for attractions (compared to hotels and restaurants) as a pointless attraction can ruin an entire trip, where a bad meal may not (p. 499). However, I do think that attractions can also be a very subjective thing for each traveler, as different people find enjoyment in different things but no one really likes bad chicken or cockroaches in a hotel room!

Personally, I like to read online reviews in conjunction with speaking to people I know who may have been to the location or used the product or service. Reviews also are better evidence if there is a good number of reviews and reading a selection of them provides a similar picture. I also take into account my own preferences for accommodation requirements, travel experiences and food choices. Some people are pickier than others! In short, you never know until you go!

How do you think about charging customers for leaving bad reviews on Tripadvisor?

This is just terrible business. Far better to fix the problems identified by the reviewer, if the complaints are reasonable. Charging them just makes your product or service look even worse and that information will get out there somehow. There is very little hiding to be done in today’s socially networked environment!

References

Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism  reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52 (February),  498-506. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2015.07.018

McIntyre, S. H., McQuarrie, E. F., & Shanmugam, R. (2015). How online reviews create social network  value: The role of feedback versus individual motivation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1-16.  doi:10.1080/0965254X.2015.1095218

What is Web 2.0?

Web 2.0 refers to services that use the web as a platform (instead of software dependent upon the device operating system), and encourage and benefit from social collaboration and user contributions (O’Reilly, 2005). A key term commonly used when defining Web 2.0 is user-generated content (O’Reilly; Schwerdtfeger, 2013; “Web 2.0,” n.d) This indicates that if a technology has no capability for user information creation and contribution, it is not a Web 2.0 technology. Primary examples of Web 2.0 include YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and blogs, although it could be said that nearly every website worth its salt now incorporates Web 2.0 components, such as comments, ratings, reviews and even clickable ads.

Web 2.0 is now completely ingrained into our web experience. It was interesting reading through the 2005 O’Reilly article, one of the earliest articles that aimed to provide a cohesive definition of Web 2.0, as it felt quite dated. A quick google search confirmed my suspicion that the article was written before the release of the first smartphone, the iPhone 1st generation, in 2007.

I believe that smartphones have done much to fully incorporate Web 2.0 into our lives as an everyday tool. Reading the 2009 O’Reilly article helped to better understand why this is so and gave a nice update to the original article. Essentially we now carry the Web around with us. This fact and the continual uploading of a variety of content by many users make it a readily accessible and current source of information, connection, business and entertainment. In short,  “the Web is now the world” (Battelle & O’Reilly, 2009).

Web 2.0 is now such a part of everyday tasks it is almost useless to speculate on life without it. It is intrinsic to the creation, categorisation and distribution of much of today’s information, particularly to the younger generations that we need to reach as part of information organisations. In addition, even those that feel most disconnected in the physical world invariably find connections online. This information sharing, connected reality is fast-paced, overwhelming and sometimes, it feels, completely full of nonsense that we shouldn’t really be wasting our time with, such as celebrity selfies or posting about change rather than making any. However, if the pitfalls can be successfully navigated, web 2.0 provides endless possibilities for marketing, collaboration, discovery, connecting with the community and more. As I delve further into this subject I am looking forward to learning more about the possibilities and how to take advantage of them.

References

Battelle, J, & O’Reilly, T. (2009). Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on. Retrieved from    http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194Battelle

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business modules for the next generation of software. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Schwerdtfeger, P. (2013, March 17). What is web 2.0? What is social media? What comes next?? [Video  file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iStkxcK6_vY

Web 2.0. (n.d). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

What is Social Networking?

Social networking, in my own words, is the application of online websites and tools that allow global users to connect with one another and share information, ideas and experiences in many different formats, including words, images and videos.

A primary activity of social media sites or tools is that they enable and encourage online interaction between users to make comments and hold conversations, collaborate to create new ideas and information, and form a community of common interest. These social interactions can take place between people known to the user, members of a community, celebrities, strangers, and anonymous identities.

Social networking technologies I already use:

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Pinterest
• Facebook Messenger
• Youtube

Most of these are for personal use, however I do use Facebook extensively in a professional capacity as well.

Learning expectations:

Throughout this subject I am interested in gaining an overview of a range of different social networking tools, and some exposure to new ones that I have not used before (this has already happened with Diigo, which I am finding to be an excellent resource).

I am also interested to learn how social networking can be used most effectively in the professional information environment. As an avid user of social media, I can appreciate the unique opportunities social media presents to the professional environment, but am interested in learning more about how to maximise the tools, so that time spent by staff on social media most adequately meets organisational outcomes and addresses the needs of the community using the service, and so becomes an integral part of the service as opposed to just decoration or a one-sided communication.