Social media policy and user-generated content

In case you have missed the thread though other posts, I am impatient for the implementation of social networking technologies in the library I work at. This is being tempered by some of my readings and the need for a social media policy is another reminder that it is going to take time to implement social media properly.
In my readings about social media policy is what has been apparent is the need to include information in a social media policy about responding to user-generated content such as comments, and posts in response to library content. Fleet suggests that this falls into two areas: Comment moderation; and online interaction (Fleet, 2009, p.12)
The first issue would be whether to moderate comments before or after they are posted. It can be a disincentive to interact if patrons cannot see their comments appear straight away.
Content moderation in a social media policy sets boundaries for acceptable behaviour of patrons on company properties (which includes their social networking sites) such as acceptable language, personal attacks, off topic comments, spam comments, and blocking users for offences (Fleet, 2009, p13)e)
What really interests me are the 'rules of engagement' for staff in online interaction, since I want to be the person that is encouraging interaction on social networking sites. Social media policies should address and publicly promote the expectations for the way the library will behave online with respect to conversations and standards. (Fleet, 2009, p.14), Issues that can be addressed are will the library respond to spam, off-topic comments, defamatory comments, misinformation and disagreement and if so, how? Also how long will libraries take to respond. (Fleet, 2009 p.14)
These are important concerns to address, before they become an issue.

Personally, I like Vancouer Public Library approach to user generated content. They have decided to treat their social media spaces as any other physical space in the library where people are entitled to express their opinion (Cahill, 2009 p. 270) In the 'about' section of their Facebook page they have a disclaimer that the comments or information posted on the site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Library.  They also have a link to their social media terms of use policy.

I think that in order to continue to encourage engagement it is important to respond to all comments and to allow users as much freedom on library social networking sites as possible only moderating comments and posts that pose legal issues.

References:
Cahill, K. (2011). Going social at Vancouver Public Library: what the virtual branch did next. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 45(3), 259 – 278.
Fleet, David. (2009). Social media policies: An introduction. [ebook] Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/davefleet/social-media-policies-ebook

Policy concerns and Social Networking sites

Image used and remixed with creative common rights from Mark Smiciklas

For this task I have read a few articles to look at the policy concerns of 'privacy, disclosure of personal information and online safely using Social Networking Sites (SNSs)' and 'information access for all and adequate bandwidth/connectivity and the digital divide', particularly with SNSs.

Because social networks have a reputation of being fun users are not aware of how these sites can be potentially unsafe. It is suggested that with an increase in the use of social networking there has been a corresponding rise in online fraud and crime (James, 2010, p.1). This are not just online crimes such as identity theft, but in the physical world such as thieves finding out when you are not home via Twitter. (James 2010 p.1)
Web 2.0 technologies are set up to encourage networking and collaboration and involves a high level of trust (McAfee, 2010 para.6). And this can be misplaced. Most people are on multiple SNSs, cross promoting their different accounts, not realizing how much information can be leaked, little bits of information when gathered into a whole can provide a lot of information. Users can share personal information and opinions, which can go viral (James, 2010, p.3). This information needs to be protected or people can use it to damage reputations or for identity theft (James, 2010, p.9)
It is important that library policies identify at risk behaviours on SNSs and make commitments to user education.

Libraries, particularly public libraries, have an ethos of information access for all, and in reducing barriers of the digital divide. Many patrons are now using library PCs for social networking. These sites use more bandwidth than static websites and are often used for communication and entertainment. They are competing with traditional library patrons using it for education, interacting with government and applying for work (Bertot, 2009, para.40). Not allowing social networking on library PC would deprive patrons of their main source of communication and entertainment (Bertot, 2009 para.46). Also, SNS have penetrated so much into our society that patrons can use SNSs to interact with governments agencies, to subscribe to news, and for most of their communication needs. To deprive then of this would then only increase the digital divide. Library policies should then confirm the growing importance that social networking has to being a digital citizen.

References:

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., McClure, C. R., Wright, C. B., & Jensen, E. (2009). Public libraries and the Internet 2008-2009: Issues, implications, and challenges. First Monday, 14(11). Available http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2700/2351

James, M.L. (2010). Cyber Crime 2.0 versus the Twittering classes. Parliament of Australia, Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sci/cybercrime.pdf

McAfee (2010). Submission number 10: Response to the Parliament of Australia House of Representatives Re: Inquiry into Cyber Crime . Retrieved from www.aph.gov.au/binaries/house/committee/coms/cybercrime/subs/sub10.pdf