Something that I think should be considered is how levels of exclusivity grow as individuals become deeper involved in social networks.
Take for instance Michael’s example in the 2/17 class about sending a Twitter out to your Twitter followers that are attending the same conference you’re attending. You send out a message via Twitter that you’re inviting everyone for a drink at a nearby bar after the conference ends. Your Twitter followers get the message at the conference and soon your colleagues are talking about it. But let’s assume some of your colleagues at the conference don’t subscribe to Twitter and don’t get the message? How many of those colleagues are excluded?
Perhaps this a mere high school fetish in which if you’re not part of the “group”, you somehow don’t belong. However, how many of us have been caught saying to someone, “I have all my pictures on Flickr and Facebook. You should get sign up and get an account”?
Libraries should be careful to foster inclusivity to all patrons as they start social networks that revolve around an online access point. Perhaps they can foster the same social connection that’s occuring on the library’s BookSpace or Facebook. If there are online book clubs that formed through the library, look for ways that there can be face to face interaction to include patrons that don’t have interest in online social networks.
mikolas said,
February 18, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
I think ‘the exclusivity’, as you put it, of online social networks is a valid concern. I checked the wikipedia article listing social network applications and there must be about 100 of them (and for sure that list is incomplete). And while online communities are about bringing people that have something common together, the vast number of social network websites might be actually detrimental.