In an NPR article Linton Weeks writes, “Twitter lives up to its tree-full-of-sparrows name. There's a ditzy quality to the microblogging, a sort of say-whatever-pops-in-your-head capability that is the application's draw and its drawback. It is like thinking aloud in front of strangers. It is a marketing tool and a me-me-me medium.” One question I have had for a while is how useful SNSs are in the information seeking process. Are they useful at all? Are there benefits to these sites that a more static online/database search cannot fulfill? In the world of SNSs right now Facebook and Twitter are the powerhouses. Yet as mentioned above the amount of “say-whatever-pops-in-your-head” status updates far outweighs any content driven post. To serve as examples, below are two status updates that have shown up on my Facebook wall in the last couple of minutes:
I understand that most researchers do not rely on Twitter or Facebook as a major source in their information seeking process. I also understand that when users “microblog” on these sights they are not necessarily trying to convey any real information or concern, at least in the journalist sense of the word. Yet, with the advancements of Web 2.0 these SNSs have a new ability to draw out unique connection points between users. What I have found in my research this week is that while the major SNSs (Facebook, Twitter…) are useful for keeping in contact with your offline/online community they are not all that useful for information seeking. For those truly seeking an environment where quality information can be found a more niche resource is required.
Being a future academic librarian I have been looking for online opportunities where students can meet up with other people with similar interests and share information and resources. I am curious as to if Web 2.0 tools such as social tagging and user generated lists can help students find research resources in a new way or if these tools are more of a distraction. This week I began experimenting with the website librarything.com. This SNS revolves around each individual’s personal library. When you sign up for an account you also enter in your library (books only) and then the website will connect you with other users with similar books in their library.
In the article Does the Internet Strengthen Community? Galston states, “Some researchers have argued that, because the absence of visual and tonal cues makes it more difficult to see the pain that words can inflict, the Internet reduces restraints on verbal behavior and invites individuals to communicate in impulsive ways (200).” I find this to be especially true in the comment section of news articles and blog posts. The hyperbole found in many of these comments is extremely difficult to interpret. It is also difficult to understand sarcasm in printed text. With this being said, I wonder if a more specified SNS, such as LibraryThing, would help with this? Would I find extreme content (through out this post I use extreme in the sense that every argument is a yes or a no or black or white leaving very little room for dialogue) or difficult language to interpret in the postings on LibraryThing? To begin answering this question I must first say that the “group” page on LibraryThing is far superior to Facebook’s option. Group pages on Facebook are difficult to get involved in unless all the members are personal friends and the group is organized around an event or central cause. Outside of this, most groups on Facebook come across as gimmicky and are usually about user count more then anything else. On LibraryThing I found the group dialogue to be much more centralized around common themes most of which comes out of what people are reading.
As the website analyzes the books in my library it suggests the groups that would be most relevant to me. In the screen shot to the left you can see that LibraryThing has made suggestions of 5 groups I should join. These suggestions are generated based on the books in my library.
I found that one issue with trying to find information resources through a SNS like LibraryThing is that it is easy to build unauthentic libraries and this has the ability to affect the search process. LibraryThing has two options for booklists (as seen in the follow screen shot): Library and Wish list.
The desire to add every single book I have ever considered reading into my wish list is high. However doing this affects the ability to authentically match up with other readers with similar interests. Rosen states, “Today’s social networking sites organize themselves around metaphors of the person, with individual profiles that list hobbies and interests (22).” For those using LibraryThing recreationally total authenticity would not necessarily be a top priority. However, someone who wants to use the site as part of the process of selecting resources for a research project the authenticity of the booklists would be a top priority.
After setting up my library I was given a list of suggested users I should “friend” based on having a similar library. This was the main aspect I was exploring for evaluating the sites usefulness for information collection. For example if a user had 10 similar books as me in their library I would look at the rest of the books to see if there was anything in their library I wanted to add to my wish list. The problem I found was that as my wish list increased the users I was being suggested to “friend” began to change. The benefit of having a large library is that the total number of other users you are connected with increases the down side is that not all of these libraries held relevant resources. One way to get around this is to browse the users who have read highly relevant books for a particular topic directly from the books page (my user name on this website is H.Clay).
The down side to this is that some people will just have the book in their wish list without any other relevant resource. A conclusion I came to is that LibraryThing would be useful for someone with a reader advisory question (i.e. I liked these three books what should my next read be?) or for someone at the very early stages of research when resources are still being collected and evaluated.
One aspect of LibraryThing that caught me by surprise was the amount of information I was able to learn about the users before we even became “friends”. Concerning this Albrechtslund states, “A majority of profile holders provides pictures of themselves and their friends as well as the name of their hometown. However, only a small minority include their full name, phone number and e–mail address (2).” At times I found the exact opposite to be true. One of the tests I tried to test the strengths of LibraryThing was to find books on theological librarianship. To do this I added books into my library about general librarianship as well as book specifically about theological librarianship plus general works on theology and church history. After adding these books to my library I was directed to a couple of users who had these books in their library. I found that the first user I clicked on was the director of the Duke Divinity Library at Duke University. Duke’s divinity school is one of the more prestigious programs in America. His user profile gave me information about his interests as well as his non-.edu e-mail address and access to his yahoo messenger account (not to mention his entire book list).
It will be interesting to explore his profile more and see what resources I can find to aid in my personal development as a future librarian. Several times I have found myself wanting to go into someone else’s library and just look to see what books they have on their shelf. From this website I can do this while being 5 time zones away.
To conclude, Bigge stated, “Social networking sites are spaces where identities are created, shaped, readjusted and ideas, opinions and feelings are expressed or performed. Call this digital gardening — personalities are trimmed and shaped like hedges, weeds are removed, digital publics are seeded (4).” I believe that the website LibraryThing can be a useful tool in the digital gardening process. The main difference between this SNS and the Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought tool on Amazon.com, which more or less does the same thing, is that LibraryThing will actually connect you with those people who have read those other items. The ability to have that social connection brings the potential to actually communicate with people who have read the book.
A common theme I found in this weeks reading was the issue of authenticity within online communities. This is best portrayed in Weeks’ NPR article and Bigge’s argument about the politics of online social groups. A dichotomy exists between those who are only seeking social aspects of online communities and those who are actually wanting to gain something from an online “relationships”. How does one measure the usefulness of those online environments and the authenticity of the users? I believe one way to remedy this issues is by choosing smaller SNSs for a more authentic encounter. LibraryThing presents a space for those wanting to add a social component to the process of information seeking. By decreasing the exposure to “say-whatever-pops-in-your-head” microblogging (as commonly found on Facebook and Twitter) one can have a more focused online encounter and more authentic dialogue with other users.
Articles used:
Virtual Friendship and the New Narcissism By Christine Rosen
Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance By Anders Albrechtslund
Does the Internet Strengthen Community? By William A. Galston
Social Responsibility and the Web: A Drama Unfolds By Linton Weeks
The Cost of (Anti-)social Networks: Identity, Agency and Neo-luddites By Ryan Bigge
