Birds of a Feather Flock Together and Other Sticky Situations on MySpace and Facebook

In the article "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace,” Danah Boyd discusses some “sticky” issues concerning MySpace and Facebook.

Both of these virtual communities are relatively new. MySpace was launched in 2003 and Facebook in 2004. At this time, both communities serve large populations of young people.

Contrary to the superstitions of some, most members of MySpace and Facebook are not “networking.” In other words, they are not using their virtual communities as avenues to seek connections with absolute strangers.

In the article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Boyd & Ellison distinguish between the terms “social network” and “networking” as follows: "Networking" emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networking is possible on these sites [online social communities], it is not the primary practice on many of them. . . . What makes social network sites unique is not that they allow individuals to meet strangers, but rather. . . these meetings are frequently between "latent ties" (Haythornthwaite, 2005) who share some offline connection."

As part of their community involvement, users are encouraged to create profiles that express their individual interests. Research indicates that in selecting the appearances of their profiles, users reflect even more about themselves. When visitors look at various profiles, they gravitate toward others who seem most like themselves. This discovering and connecting with the familiar becomes a cohesiveness—a glue that binds people within social groups. Thus, it is the “stickiness” that holds the networks together and brings users back again and again.

In the virtual world, it seems that it is also true that "birds of a feather flock together."

As researchers began to analyze which community various individuals tended to select, another type of stickiness began to surface--the kind of stickiness that seems to be pervasive, when attempting to say something that is awkward.

Although it seemed inappropriate--or perhaps tasteless--to mention it, Boyd began to note that people of the working class--the less educated--seemed more at home in MySpace and people of the more professional class seemed more at home at Facebook.

As she mentioned this trend, Boyd acknowledged that people don't generally like to openly admit issues having to do with social class. She acknowledged that the discussion was a "sticky" situation.

I don't know whether this suggests that virtual snobbery is alive and well; but it does seem to suggest that a virtual line has been drawn in the virtual sand of the virtual communities.

boyd, danah. 2007. "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24 . http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Library Patrons Are Like Ships That Pass in the Night -- Social Networks Could Bring Them Into the Same Harbor

For many years, people have considered America’s librarians to be physical places—what Chris Anderson (Long Tail 2006) would call bricks and mortar places—that serve flesh and blood people.

Many of the people who share the same libraries don’t actually know each other. Occasionally, they pass each other—like ships in the night—as they come and go. Woven into a library’s common web, they have what Boyd & Eillson (2007) call “latent ties.” They exist in a mutual community; but they don’t really connect. [Incidentally, statistics seem to indicate that the members of the traditional library community don’t actually come to the library very often either; and for many reasons their absences are felt.]

Libraries could learn several things from social communities—like MySpace and Facebook.

In another post, I discussed the manner in which like-minded people find each other in social networks. I discussed the cohesiveness that results from their virtual connections, saying the following: “When visitors look at various profiles, they gravitate toward others who seem most like themselves. This discovering and connecting with the familiar becomes a cohesiveness—a glue that binds people within social groups. Thus, it is the “stickiness” that holds the networks together and brings users back again and again.”

If libraries learn nothing else from social networks, they need to take note of this last trend. This “stickiness” that occurs when people connect.

In their article "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship," Boyd & Ellison say that the people who ultimately connect in virtual communities actually had “latent ties” beforehand. Again, they were like ships in the night—merely passing. It was the connecting that mattered—that gave the relationship purpose—that brings the people back into the site again and again.

In her book Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online Meredith Farkas (2007) says that many libraries have become the “physical hubs” of their communities. (p. 73).

I certainly cannot speak for all of the nation’s libraries; but from what I have observed, I would amend Farkas and say that a few libraries have become their communities’ physical hubs. I would say that most libraries have the potential to be that physical hub; but that they fail to step up to the plate.

When I think of a wheel and a hub, I think of spokes that connect and circulate—that function as a unit. Ships that pass in the night are not wheels—they are not hubs. The library needs to find ways to pull its ships into the same harbor. Social networks—virtual communities could help.

Anderson, Chris. ( 2006). The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More.
boyd, danah. 2007. "Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia Blog Essay. June 24 . http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.htm

Farkas, Meredith. (2007). Social Software in Libraries: Building Collaboration, Communication, and Community Online.

Is It True That Everthing "Bad" Is Good for Us -- or Do We Merely Need to Re-Define "Bad"

Let's play a game. Everyone close your eyes and focus for a second. When I say a word, don't speak--just visualize the word that I have said.

Okay -- Get Ready -- Here's the Word: "Library."

Of course, I can't say this for sure; but I bet most of you thought about a physical place--probably of bricks and glass--filled with books. It was probably a quiet place. It may have even been a fairly empty place--in regards to patrons. Yet, the patrons and the staff that you envisioned were probably flesh and blood humans--and the library and books were probably also real, and tangible.

If this is fairly close to what you have envisioned, you are correct--at least as far as the traditional concept of a library goes; but you are only partially correct, in terms of the ways that things are evolving.

The traditional library was created in the 19th century. This is the 21st century. In the 19th century, books were the stock and trade of the library. In the 21st century, books are only part of what the library must encompass. Now, libraries are challenged to also function digitally--to deal with bits--as well as books.

Things have changed. Information itself has changed. The needs of the patrons have changed. If the library hopes to continue to serve the patrons, it must also change--in many ways.

But the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

Above all else, today's library must be open. It must be willing to consider new ideas, new data, and new ways of doing things, because these new ideas, this new data, and these new ways of doing things ARE the patrons--and most importantly, the Patrons ARE the library.

A library for today's patrons--especially for today's younger patrons--must include options for electronic gaming, music, dvd's, computers, technological gadgets, multimedia software, etc. Many potential patrons, who would prefer to never read another book, would enjoy these other services and items.

It is important for the library to realize that these other items--that these other non-book services have significant merit, in their own rights.

In his book, Everything Bad is Good For You, Steven Johnson discusses the merits of the nonliterary popular culture. Among other things, he says the following:

"Increasingly, the nonliterary popular culture is honing different mental skills that are just as important as the ones exercised by reading books." (p. 23).

Most libraries need to expand their services so that the 21st century patrons are served in the media that THEY deem to be valid.

The library can elect to keep doing things the same, old, bricks and mortar, books-only, 19th century way--and hope that an occasional fly will flit through the building. Or it can opt to change and serve today's patrons, just the way that they are--not the way that the library wishes that they were.

When In Rome Do As the Romans Do.

When In the 21st Century Do As the 21st Centurians Do --

Or Don't Do As the 21st Centurains Do. Those are our options.

But if the choice is the latter, we should not be surprised to discover that funding is affected. After all, if the taxpayers are not being served by the library, why should the taxpayers continue to support it?

In summary, I'd like to return to my original point: the primary change that is required is one of attitude.

I have to think that the title of Steven Johnson's book [Everything Bad Is Good For You] is a tease. The title should actually be something along the line of: Many Things That You Traditionally Have Thought Were "Bad" Are Actually Good For You: Let's Reconsider the Meaning of "Bad." Let's Examine Our Attitudes.

Johnson, Steven. (2005). Everything ad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. New York: Penguin Group.