Reference utility of social networking sites: options and functionality
| Published date | 05 June 2009 |
| Pages | 4-6 |
| Date | 05 June 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050910985246 |
| Author | Heidi Steiner |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
Reference utility of social networking sites:
options and functionality
Heidi Steiner
4LIBRARY HITECH NEWS Number 5/6 2009, pp. 4-6, #Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 0741-9058, DOI 10.1108/07419050910985246
Introduction
With Web 2.0, libraries are tweeting
about resources, sharing research advice
on blogs, posting pictures of events to
Flickr, gaining fans on Facebook, and
looking for new ways to make 2.0 work
for their institution and users. As the
number of social networks grow, it
becomes harder for libraries to
determine which services are
appropriate for their users and doable
given the library’s mission and goals.
Social networks are used by libraries as
vehicles for outreach for promoting
services, programs, and new resources,
as well as for providing general
information. Web 2.0 tools can also be
used for reference services.
Libraries have become increasingly
focused on being ‘‘where’’ their users
are. Of the two most popular social
networks, Facebook is nearly 100
million users ahead of MySpace in
world users, but ‘‘MySpace is still the
king in the US’’ (Arrington, 2009), at
least for now. A slightly different social
networking site that has recently grown
immensely in popularity is Twitter, a
microblogging site where users share
updates of what they are doing,
fostering conversation and
collaboration. Beyond their utility for
helping libraries connect with users on a
broader level, all three of these sites
present a range of potential for use in
reference services.
In addition, there are dozens of
additional social networking websites.
Some were created before Facebook and
MySpace but were quickly
overshadowed or fell out of favor in the
Western world, others are aimed at a
more specific user population (such as
LastFM for music or GoodReads for
books), and still others, such as Ning,
allow for the creation of your own social
network, which in particular presents
intriguing prospects for library
reference.
Since many, if not most, libraries and
librarians have already delved into the
world of social networking, this
discussion will serve strictly as an
examination of the functionality of these
tools for reference. It will also provide
brief overviews of each site, perhaps
introducing librarians to a new social
networking possibility, or a new use for
one already implemented, for their own
institution.
Facebook
Begun as a social networking
community reserved strictly for college
and university students in 2004,
Facebook has surpassed all other social
networking options in popularity while
reaching out to a seemingly never-
ending user-base. As of May 2009,
Facebook boasts over 200 million users
worldwide (half of which log in every
day). Two-thirds of these users are out
of college and the largest growing
demographic is people 35 years of age
and older (see www.facebook.com).
Besides students, politicians, professors,
and parents are using Facebook.
Libraries have certainly taken notice and
deemed Facebook a resource worthy of
attention.
Libraries in all sectors across the
globe have embraced the networking
and promotional powers of Facebook.
Many academic librarians utilize
personal profiles to connect with
students. Library Facebook pages are
often used to announce updates
promoting library services, resources,
and events. Some libraries are adding
applications with widgets for their
OPAC and select databases. Recent
changes to the Facebook interface,
predominantly the big switch to pages/
public profiles (formerly dubbed
‘‘groups’’ or ‘‘group pages’’)sharing the
same appearance as individual, personal
profiles, provide even greater
functionality for establishing a presence
as an institution.
Facebook provides the most promise
and possibility as a reference utility.
Users can send librarians messages via
the Facebook internal message system
or interact with them through Facebook
chat. In a recent ACRLog post, Camilla
Baker (2009) makes the interesting
point that ‘‘...if you want Facebook to
‘work’ for you, at some point you have
to give in and be a person first. I really
do think that’s what’s [sic] it’s intended
for, and how it’s best exploited. If you
have students you are truly friendly
with, let them know you’re a
Facebooker, and see what happens.’’
Despite the possible apprehensions of
some, personal communication through
individual profiles between librarians
and users is certainly a simple, viable
possibility.
Since institutions are not allowed to
create individual profiles on Facebook,
pages are the only option available for
creating a library profile. With the new
interface, libraries with pages can write
status updates to make announcements,
which then show up in fans newsfeeds,
put pertinent information on the info
tab, and create applications such as the
catalog or database widget that reside in
the boxes tab. One distinct advantage of
pages is that Facebook users can simply
elect to become fans and there is no need
for approval as with ‘‘friending.’’
Disadvantages of the page are the
inability for users to send messages
directly to a page through the internal
message system and the fact that pages
do not have the chat function. Users can
leave reference questions on the
library’s wall and a librarian can
respond in a personal message.
To continue reading
Request your trial