Meredith Farkas poses the interesting question of “What is social software?” in her book, Social Software in Libraries. She acknowledges the difficulty in defining the term and the various interpretations that people may have. Farkas (2007) decides that for the purposes of her book,
…social software is defined as a tool that must meet at least two of the three following conditions:
1. It allows people to communicate, collaborate, and build community online.
2. It can be syndicated, shared, reused, or remixed, or it facilitates syndication.
3. It lets people learn easily from and capitalize on the behavior or knowledge of others.
Although my initial thoughts of the term “social software” tend towards a more encompassing definition, I find the distinctions being made compelling. Many companies now have accounts with Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and more. Based on the definition by Farkas, it’s curious to wonder if companies are utilizing these tools in such a way that officially meet her criteria. Although many institutions may now have a presence in these realms, sometimes the activity appears one-sided. After a quick browse at several library Facebook pages for example, many just seem like an extension of their calendar of events. There do seem to be a number of patrons who “like” a posting, but very few who actually comment (though I must say that when someone does post a question in the comments, the libraries are quite vigilant and responsive). It’s interesting to wonder what intentions libraries have in mind when utilizing social software tools, and how effective they feel they are being. Also, how do the patrons feel about all of this?
Reference:
Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: Building collaboration, communication, and community online. Medford, NJ: Information Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment