- Avertising: The Knowledge@Wharton article pointed out that these tools are driven entirely by advertising revenue. Could these ads color the image of the library as a place for authoritative, objective information? As an "old school" librarian I think so, but I also recognize that most of the Internet is driven by advertising and users have learned to "tune out" ads that they don't find find interesting.
- Privacy: Comments from class members reflect those of the general Internet using population. They range from serious concern to no concern whatever. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle. I personally prefer that my picture and personal information NOT be listed on social networking sites. I also have a concern about the targeted advertising that could result and the stockpile of information about me that is out there on the Web.
- Information Glut: A vast amount of cyberspace is taken up by Web 2.0 content. Some of this might be useful from a medical library perspective but I would guess most of it is not. Does this information overload make finding quality authoritative, objective medical information more difficult? I think so, particularly for the lay person. Do we have any obligation to consider this as we create our blogs and Facebook pages? Again, I think so. The current emphasis among environmentalists about personal resposibility for our "carbon footprint" might eventually be needed for the Internet. Dare I coin the the term cyberspace footprint?
- Quality: Much of the social networking content I have seen is personal in nature and even many professional pages are more like diary or journal entries. An occasional bit of information is valuable, but most are personal musings and opinions (like this posting!).
- Authority: The concept of authority is critical one for medical information and one that I emphasize to all our medical and nursing students. Even though we can publish so easily, that doesn't make us authorities! I found myself wondering why the author of the Knowledge@Wharton article did not put his or her name on it?
- Time: Can I really devote time to maintain social networks in a virtual environment? How much? For what purpose? With whom? What will I have to give up in order to spend time on Facebook, My Space, etc.? I am reminded of a class I was teaching. When students went on break, each one pulled out a cell phone and started talking but none of the students talked to each other. They were socially engaged but not with their classmates; a great loss.
- Effort: So little effort is required to set up blogs and social networking pages that I wonder if the focus becomes the creation of content rather than the value of the content itself. "I have to think of something to put on my page," as opposed to "This is an issue that needs to be discussed." This relates to the quality issue. How much is factual vs opinion? How much planning, thought, revision, and research goes into the postings?
- Image: Librarians have long been concerned about our professional image. I think most of us don't want to fall into the shushing "old maid librarian in sensible shoes" stereotype. We want to keep up with the latest technology, partly to be sure that it doesn't make us obsolete.
The social networking tools we explored this week are not the tools I would use to help my patrons locate, evaluate, and make use of the best quality medical information sources, at least not at this time.
