Reflection (23 of 23 Things)

I've learned a great deal from the 23 Things experience. Previously I had a general idea of what Web 2.0 was and knew only a small handful of Web 2.0 "Things." I was intrigued by many of the Things; my favorites being Delicious, Pandora, YouSendIt, GoogleDocs, Hulu and Blogspot. However, to be honest, I have started using all of these but in a completely non-social manner. All are for my own personal or professional benefit and I neither look at or care about what others post or what others' favorites might be. Who has the time?

As for libraries and social media, I believe it belongs in certain places. Blogging or Facebooking as means of library communication and promotion makes sense. Do patrons really comment on our blog? I'd be interested to know how "social" our blog has become. Teens seem drawn to technology, so social media might be a drawing card for teen involvement.

I am against YouTubing/streaming story times and other programming because it physically removes the patron from the library, especially harmful to children. Kids need to be in the library, attending programs, gaining socialization experiences and skills and getting their hot little hands on the books, music, puppets, etc. and not at home or daycare center passively sitting in front of a monitor!

As for what FPL should/should not be doing with social media, I stand on the side of caution. Social media sites are labor intensive because they need to be kept fresh and timely. How much work per patron impact do they require? Are enough patrons regularly interacting with, or, at the least, hitting our social sites?

This was a fun and enlightening journey. Who knows maybe I'll continue the count with Mr. King and Mr. Porter!

Upcoming: Events and Things to Do (22 of 23 Things)

Upcoming won first place in Seomoz's 2008 Web 2.0 Awards. Quick question: how come the awards are two years old - in cyberspace that pretty much spells antiquity? Did they only try handing out awards for three years; from what I can tell they ran from 2006-2008.

Anyway, I digress. Upcoming is a WEB 2.0 site that allows it's users to view, comment on, and add upcoming events from anywhere. This site can then link the user to the event's website, if it has one, or to a ticket purchase site. There appears to be no requirements for type or size of event. From my browsing you can find professional sports events and big name concerts to high tea on Mother's Day at the local Bed and Breakfast. Organizers appear to be making use of this site. Upcoming's calendar goes out for at least several years (I got tired of hitting the forward arrow) and past events are archived as well. Archiving past events - seems like almost useless information.

It's quite obvious that a library could easily use this site to advertise storytimes and other programming, my only concern is the amount of staff time versus benefit. The site looks well run, but I never saw many "users" - I think 9 was the highest. This number is arrived at by viewers clicking on "I'm interested" or "I'm going" buttons. So how to tell if the site is getting much traffic if viewers do neither?

I'll keep this in mind next time I have company or just need something different to do. Checking things out when going on vacation would be another good use of this site.

Wikis (Thing 21 of 23 Things)

Well, another thing to make my head spin. I've used Wikipedia many times before for quick - but nonauthoritative answers, but honestly have not taken the time to really investigate it. Wow, this is a ton of highly organized/archived information! How do people find the time to edit, let alone write over 3 million articles for free!! Does anyone have a life? What size server or whatever does this beast reside on? Or is it everywhere? Ominous music swells. You can tell I'm fuzzy on the technical working of cyberspace.

O.K. enough ranting. Wikipedia is pretty impressive. The site is highly organized and beautifully archived. Their "guidelines" for posting and editing seem intricate and complicated, yet it states that you don't have to know them to participate. It's like the newbies will either learn the "rules" as they go or they'll loose interest and be edited into history. The good contributors get good reps and other editors/contributors look for them. Somehow I like the fact that the older the article is the "better" more accurate it is. It's kinda like real life - the older you are, the wiser you are - or at least I'd like to think so!

I'll probably never edit or contribute a thing to Wikipedia, instead I'll use it as I always have but with a greater appreciation of the collaborative effort involved. Are there other wikis in my future -who knows!