INF506 Evaluative Report: Part A

An evaluative statement using three experiences documented in your online learning journal (OLJ) as evidence of meeting the learning objectives of the subject (@ 750 words).

OLJ entries selected for evaluative report:

• Privacy and safety in online social networks
• Social media policies and guidelines
• Redefining content authenticity in a connected world

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to a Nielsen Company 2010 report, growth in online social networking (OSN) has increased, with Australia leading the average time spent per person on social media sites (1). New social applications and tools and improved ICT infrastructure have enabled this growth; however with a different way of communicating and interacting online comes challenges. A key challenge is not about ‘getting online’ but issues around implementation and operationalisation within a framework that embraces concepts of Web 2.0 and OSN, as well as realising organisational strategic value. The three OLJ entries indicated above have been selected because they represent complex issues. Additionally, exploration of these issues by the author demonstrate the author’s understanding of the interplay between people, culture, content, process and technology.

Privacy and safety in online social networks highlights cyber-security issues associated with privacy and safety, and reasons why many people, even though they realise the importance of privacy, continue to engage in potentially risky online behaviour.

Drawing attention to the reasons for engaging in risky behaviour and the impact of these behaviours can help improve privacy and safety awareness and limit risks. For information professionals this knowledge can be used in a personal capacity to protect personal and professional information, identity and reputation (2), and in a service capacity to develop relevant literacy programs and resources that encourage online participation while mitigating privacy and safety risks. Additionally, with more information services using OSN and social media, information professionals can advocate for privacy and security feature improvements.

Despite the positive benefits associated with OSN, there is a requirement to address the risks of privacy and safety in both practice and policy (3), which is of importance when considering the ‘public’ versus ‘private’ nature of online interactions.

The blurring of lines between personal, work or educational use of OSN and social media has meant that organisations need to provide guidance in the appropriate use of these services and tools. This need has been highlighted by the increase in cases of employees being fired for inappropriate online behavior (4), which may be inadvertent or deliberate. One could therefore assume that many organisations would have, or be in the process of developing policies/guidelines; however a 2010 study indicates that only one in seven companies have formal processes associated with adopting OSN and one in five have policies concerning the use of OSN technologies (5).

While it is noted that different sectors (corporate, not-for-profit, government, education, health) will have specific issues that need addressing, the five policies/guidelines listed in a Social media policies and guidelines... a taster can be used as resources to inform the development of a social media policy or guideline.

Each resource was selected based on the ‘product’ being user-centred, jargon-free, readable and accessible (6). Additionally, these resources have not been developed in isolation; they refer to associated material including: related policies, guidelines and other documentation; training resources; communications to encourage employee engagement with and take up of the new policy/guideline; and guides for use of social media tools.

As Web 2.0, in particular OSN and social media encourages collaboration, conversation, community, content creation and co-creation, and crowdsourcing (7) policies and guidelines need to balance individuals’ right to privacy and freedom of speech with encouraging social participation and mitigating risks for individuals and the organisation (8); aspects which are highlighted in the five selected policy/guidelines.

Many policies/guidelines include good practices for online engagement. Of interest is ‘add value’ or ‘give added value to content’, which result from active user participation; a core component of Web 2.0 (9). Content generation in Web 2.0 is across multiple platforms (blogs, wikis, micro-blogs, social bookmarking, multimedia) and takes a variety of forms such as, individual thoughts, crowdsourced ideas, comments and tags. For some, ‘Web 2.0 grey content’ is considered a critical source of professional information (10), others use the insights gleaned from user-generated content (UGC) to inform their business (11), or to incorporate into learning case studies (12); while microblogging content at conferences is used as a means of co-creating knowledge (13).

This varied nature of UGC makes it hard to define and evaluate its quality and credibility. Redefining content authenticity in a connected world explores these issues. In this exploration, an area identified where information professionals can impact on the emerging field of “social construction of meaning via diverse media” (14) is by providing metaliteracy training/education, which includes traditional areas of critical thinking and information literacy as well digital, media, visual and technology literacy framed within the social constructs of emerging technologies (15).

_______________________________


Endnotes

1. Led by Facebook, 2010.
2. Graham, Faix & Hartman, 2009, p. 234, para. 4.
3. Third, Richardson, Collins, Rahilly, & Bolzan, 2010, p. 8, para. 2.
4. Grensing-Pohal, 2010, p. 1, para. 2.
5. Cisco, 2010, 'The need for more governance and IT involvement in social media efforts' section, paras. 1-2.
6. Junco, 2011, p. 61, para. 5.
7. Hay & Wallis, 2011, 'What is Library 2.0?' section, para. 1.
8. Gevertz & Greenwood, 2010.
9. Levey, 2007, p. 122, para. 4.
10. Bank, 2010, p. 220, para. 3.
11. Ghinn, 2010.
12. Kane, Robinson-Combre, & Berge, 2010, p. 64, para. 6f.
13. Ross, Terras, Warick & Welsh, 2011, p.231, para. 5f.
14. Ipri, 2010, p. 567, para. 1.
15. Mackey & Trudi, 2011.

References

Bank, M. (2010). Blog posts and tweets: the next frontier for grey literature. In D. Farace & J. Schöpfel (Eds.) Grey literature in library and information studies, pp. 227-238. [Adobe Digital Electronic versions]. doi: 10.1515/9783598441493. Available from: http://www.alia.eblib.com.au

Cisco. (2010, January 13). Global study reveals proliferation of consumer-based social networking enterprise and a growing need for governance and IT involvement [Press release]. News@Cisco. Retrieved 2011, May 20 from Cisco website: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_011310.html

Gevertz, D. & Greenwood, G. (2010). Crafting an effective social media policy for healthcare employees. Health Lawyer, 22(6), 28-33. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Ghinn, D. (2010, January 5). Pharmaceutical industry: a discovery-led approach to social media. FUMSI. Retrieved from FUMSI website: http://web.fumsi.com/go/article/use/4436

Graham, J.M., Faix, A., & Hartman, L. (2009). Crashing the Facebook party. One library's experiences in the student's domain. Library Review, 58(3), 228-236. doi:10.1108/00242530910942072

Grensing-Pophal, L. (2010). The new social media guidelines. Information Today, 27(3), 1, 46-48. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hay, L. & Wallis, J. (2011). Library 2.0 and participatory library services.
What is Library 2.0? [INF506, Module 3.1]. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from Charles Sturt University Website: http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/tool/26d2b18e-4584-45cd-0045-a63fefd27c80

Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy. What does it mean to academic libraries? College & Research Libraries News, 71(10), 532-533, 567. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/10/532.full

Junco, R. (2011). The need for student social media policy. Educause Review, January/February, 60-61. Retrieved from Educause website: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM1118.pdf

Kane, K., Robinson-Combre, & Berge, Z. L. (2010). Tapping into social networking: Collaborating enhances both knowledge management and e-learning. Vine, 40(1), 62-70. doi:10.1108/03055721011024928

Led by Facebook, Twitter, global time spent on social media sites up 82% year over year. (2010, January 22). Nielsenwire. Retrieved May 20, 2011from: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/led-by-facebook-twitter-global-time-spent-on-social-media-sites-up-82-year-over-year

Levy, M. (2007). Web 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120-134. doi:10.1108/13673270910931215.

Mackey, T.P. & Jacobson, T.E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries.72(1), 62-78. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf+html

Ross, C., Terras, M., Warwick, C., & Welsh, A. (2011). Enabled backchannel: conference Twitter use by digital humanists. Journal of Documentation, 67(2), 214-237. doi: 10.1108/00220411111109449.

Third, A., Richardson, I., Collins, P., Rahilly, K., & Bolzan, N. (2011). Intergenerational attitudes towards social networking and cybersafety. A living lab. [Research report]. Melbourne: Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Technology and Wellbeing. Retreived from http://www.interactivemediarelease.com/download.php?f=5fouxy_FINAL_Living_Lab_Report.pdf&fc=FINAL_Living_Lab_Report.pdf


In text links were made to the following OLJ blog posts

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, May 17). A visual framework for social media implementation. Modified 2001, May 24 [blog post]. Available from: http://knowledge-bites.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/framework-for-social-media.html

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, May 17). Social media policies and guidelines… a taster [blog post]. Available from: http://knowledge-bites.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/social-media-policies-and-guidelines.html

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, May 14). Privacy and safety in online social networks [blog post]. Available from: http://on-socialnetworking.blogspot.com/2011/05/privacy-and-safety-in-online-social.html

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, May 14). Redefining content authenticity in a connected world [blog post]. Available from: http://knowledge-bites.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/redefining-content-authenticity-in.html

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, May 11). Information policy… or is it a guideline or standard? [blog post]. Available from: http://knowledge-bites.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/information-policy.html

Redefining content authenticity in a connected world

Two main attributes are taken into consideration when evaluating the authenticity of information: quality and credibility (1). However, with the availability of vast quantities of user-generated content in multiple formats, these attributes are becoming harder to easily validate. Furthermore, as Web 2.0 encourages a participatory and collaborative environment of information generation, seeking and use, consideration needs to be given to how authenticity is depicted in relation to the traditional method of peer-review (2).

Wikipedia, created through crowdsourcing of third party resources (3), is a primary source for many information seekers (4, 5). While Wikipedia has policies and procedures relating to verifiability of sources and presentation of a neutral point of view (6), there is debate about the quality of Wikipedia content, which ranges from something comparable to an encyclopedia entry, to a veritable mishmash of ideas which can also lack citations (7). Additionally, as Wikipedia allows author anonymity, it is difficult for information seekers to verify the credibility of an entry (8, 9).

Increasingly there is a shift to break down barriers between the traditional arbitrators of quality content (academia, publishers, libraries) and the wider community (10), which in turn “calls into question standard notions of what constitutes authority, [hence authenticity], by emphasizing the benefits of knowledge sharing via social networks” (11).

User generated content from websites, wikis, blogs, micro blogs, multimedia sources (presentations, podcasts and vodcasts) and feedback elements in information sources, such as comments and tags, is being used to inform information seekers for a variety of purposes, including health decision making to educational and research purposes. For example, a personal experience added to a photograph can inform academic research (12), or tweets about scholarly issues may lead to concepts that can be incorporated into the research process (13).

However, information sources located in these participatory online sites tend to be more opinion based (14), therefore the information seeker needs to critically review this dynamic content in order to distinguish between fact and opinion “before incorporating these ideas into his or her own knowledge” (15). Additionally, information seekers must be prepared to create an information context when evaluating resources which integrates multiple formats (16); that is, the information seeker must not only evaluate an online site for credibility, but each entry within that site (17) and the content within the entry.

Two key messages:

• The traditional peer-review quality control model of authenticity needs to be reconsidered in light of the participatory culture of Web 2.0.
• Critical thinking skills and information literacy need to be combined with other literacy skills (digital, media, visual and technology) in order to encompass the varied user generated content and contexts of Web 2.0.

__________________________________

Endnotes

1. O’Grady et al., 2009, para. Content.
2. Wittenberg, 2007, para. 5.
3. A pillar of Wikipedea is “No original thought”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original_research
4. Garfinkel, 2009, p. 84, paras. 1-2.
5. Lorenzo, 2007, p. 8, paras. 4-6.
6. See Wikipedia: Verifiablity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Neutral Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
7. Lorenzo, 2007, p. 8, paras. 8-9.
8. Wittenberg, 2007, para. 7.
9. CZ:Why Citizendium? Real names are better (last modified 2011, March 12). Retrieved from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Why_Citizendium%3F
10. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 1.
11. Ipri, 2010, p. 533, para. 5.
12. Ipri, 2010, p. 533, para. 7.
13. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 2.
14. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 73, para. 3.
15. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 74, para. 1.
16. Mackey & Jacobson, 2011, p. 69, para 1, p. 70, para. 3f.
17. O’Grady et al., 2009, para. Content.

References

O’Grady, L., Witterman, H., Bender, J. L., Urowitz, S., Wijer, D., & Jadad, A. R. (2009). Measuring the impact of a moving target: towards a dynamic framework for evaluating collaborative adaptive interactive technologies. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(2), e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1058

Garfinkel, S. (2008). Wikipedia and the meaning of truth. Technology Review, 111(6), 84-86. Retrieved from Ebsco MasterFILE Premier database.

Ipri, T. (2010). Introducing transliteracy. What does it mean to academic libraries? College & Research Libraries News, 71(10), 532-533, 567. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/10/532.full

Lorenzo, G. (2007). Catalysts for change: Information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. Clarence Center, NY: Lorenzo Associates. Retrieved from http://www.edpath.com/images/IFReport2.pdf

Mackey, T.P. & Jacobson, T.E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as metaliteracy. College & Research Libraries,72(1), 62-78. Retrieved from http://crl.acrl.org/content/72/1/62.full.pdf+html

Wittenberg, K. (2007). Credibility of content and the future of research, learning, and publishing in the digital environment. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). doi:10.3998/3336451.0010.101

Related blog post

Hayward-Wright, N. (2011, March 19) Preservation of online user generated content [blog post] Available from: http://on-socialnetworking.blogspot.com/2011/03/preservation-of-online-user-generated.html