1. Introduction of Social Media in the Context of Web 2.0 Framework

1.1 Social media

 Web 2.0 is a unifying term for technologies where users, interaction, and participation are stressed [1]. Web 2.0 gives opportunities and tools for new communication channels affecting the form and the content of communications among people as well as organizations. It underlines the characteristics as being user-centered, open, participatory, interactive, and knowledge sharing [2, 3].

  Web2.0 was the technological innovation-based applications and also the application-oriented technological innovation. The main manifestations are: personal publication and information integration, such as Blog, RSS; community collaboration, such as the Wiki; user-dominant participation, such as Tag, SNS, Social Bookmark; the better user experience, such as Ajax. It helped to apply the kinds of resources.

  Blog was a self-publishing tool that was similar to online journals where an owner could publish messages. Readers could subscribe, link, share links, comment in an interactive mode and indicate their social relationship to other bloggers who read the particular blog. Blog provided function for users with blog space and help users form user communities [4]. Blogs supported individuals to create their information as a kind of online diary, to form an archive, to converse with like-minded persons, and to form a democratic discussion [5]. Wiki, like an informal cyclopedia, was a web site that allowed online collaboration by admitting multiple users to add, remove, edit, and change content [6]. Wiki built a knowledge network system for the users, allowed multi linking in content among any number of pages, and support the knowledge-sharing in a community. Really simple syndication (RSS) used in the polymerization, share, delivery, subscription and publication of the information resources, was a simple lightweight XML format to share website content. RSS applies to all kinds of news reports and publish bibliographic data and other inquiries, similar to the traditional SDI Services. RSS, a web feed format used to publish frequently updated content, let the users subscribe to their favorite “feeds” and received automatic updates [7]. However, RSS normally opened access for all the users which was different with some social network sites to define the different user’s group, such as “Friends”, “Contacts”, and “Fans” and endow the different authority. Instant Message (IM) was known as "instant communications", such as MSN, Skype, QQ and so on. It included text, images, audio, and video forms to support the directly communication in two-way or multi-direction.

  Web 2.0 tools and its applications involved the essential component of social element. In Web 1.0 era, the sites provided personal message perhaps only the email address and offered few connecting ways for individuals. Although the enhanced Web 2.0 tools could support the multiple lever of private, a Web 2.0 project was usual touched by multiple people in the content creation, associated comments, discussion. Web 2.0 tools combined the micro-content from different forms, e.g. blog or wiki for content, discussion, and comment, a Delicious for URL, the bookmark, and the tag, the Flickr for photos, the twitter for dissemination. Web 2.0 platforms provided the actively participated models and provided the multiplex connection with different users with the social link. It called social media. [8]

1.2 Social media

  One essential features in distinguishing Web 2.0 projects and platforms is social media. “Social Media” is a term that in recent years has become closely related to the important applications of Web2.0. It allows individuals to construct the information with a bounded system and share connections with other users [9].

  Social media provides a great space for individual Internet users not only for the basic data storage needs, but even more importantly for the users’ psychological experience requirements, such as to "be found", "be authorized" and "be admired"[6]. It expands the opinions from an individual perspective of information transmission to participatory information transmission, this being the main difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The applications include blogs/microblogs (e.g. Twitter, Tpeople), wikis/wikipedia, image sharing (e.g. Flickr), podcasts/video- sharing (e.g. Youtube, Youku), and community forum/social networks (e.g. MySpace, Facebook) [10, 11].

  Creating micro-content in social media produced a series of increased effects, primarily multiple conversations and multiple connections. Micro-content meant that authors created small chunks of content, with each chunk transferring the main idea or concept [12]. Some types of micro-content contained a large of information which calculated with the byte number the storage meaning, for example, flash, audio, and video. However, it was easy to update by the users. Web 2.0 applications and APIs provided the user-centred way to create content which only making selection from menus, choosing from well-designed templates, or adding a page from established pages. When the users known earning how to use Blogger or Wiki spaces, they could avoid some of the professional software and computer knowledge and concentrated on the organization of content. It was drastically lower bar for participation and publishing so that the quantity and diversity of the amount of rich web media has increased. The users observed that they had manifold ways of writing and showing their content.

1.3. Social Network Sites

  Ellison defined social network sites as “web-based services that allowed individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, linked with other users with the sharing connection, and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system”. [9]

  Social network sites were unique concept that they enabled the users to express and make visible their social networks. Participants were primarily communicating with people who are already in the list of connections and their extended social network, rather than met with new people. When entered in a social network site, the users were filled in forms about individual message, personal interesting fields, and other description. Many sites encouraged the users to upload a profile photo and provided searching ways. The users chose the visibility of the profile with different groups.

  A social network site prompted the users to identify others which judged by system with the relationship of profile content. “Friends”, “Contacts”, and “Fans” were the popular terms of groups corresponded to different direction of information and connections [13]. The Friends list, visible to anyone who was permitted to view the profile, contained links to each Friend's profile which help the users to extend their connections and did not choose to search the new users. The APIs functions in some sites support the cross platform to find friends display. Most of social network sites provided the mode for the users to create immediate content.

  Some social network sites had the different developed feature. QQ, now extended its function to social network site, was originally as a Chinese instant messaging service. It had an interested function that the users could create permanent groups which usually were composed and were divided into of classmates, collaborator, and other classification, e.g. disease discussion, travel foreign country, car discussion. Many groups were opened for all users and some groups needed permission of group creators. More and more sites adjusted their structure and features after social network sites became popular, for example LunarStorm as a community site, Cyworld as a Korean discussion forum tool, and Skyrock as a French blogging service [13].

  Except for the common features as profiles, Friends, comments, and private messaging, the definition of social network sites determined that social network sites vary greatly in their other features and user base. Photo sharing, audio sharing, video sharing, blog, instant message, email system. Following the development of large screen mobile, manuscript induction, and the intelligence mobile software system, social network sites supported mobile interactions and some of them exploited mobile version.

  In summary, in the context of web2.0 technologies, social media lowered bar to content creation, combined with increased social connectivity, enhanced the ease and number of conversation environment. Another influential factor is find ability. The use of comprehensive and variety searching tools helped quickly locate related micro-content. Social bookmarking, content tagging, and sharing tools assisted to connect the access to high quality micro-content.

2. The possibilities of Taking advantage of Social Media in the Library

In modern society, social media could provide more communicative modes and tools for libraries [14]. The tools are user-centered, making them easy for the researchers to apply [15]. For instance, in a library point of view, social media can be used in sharing news, delivering library data and information about print and digital resources, marketing library services, providing information literacy instruction, and appealing users’ feedback. The tools, including Blogs, micro-blogs, RSS, instant messaging, social networking sites, mashups, podcasts, and vodcasts, were widely adopted [16].

2.1 Social Media provide possibilities for a online library website

  Stephens (2007) described library applications with blogs, RSS, wikis, instant messaging, wikis, and Flickr. Secker (2007) explored a comprehensive literature review about social media applications in libraries. Chen [17] analyzed using blog, Google Docs, and other Web 2.0 tools such as Delicious, Flickr, wiki to enabled greater efficiency and collaboration, improved section management, and improved the accessibility and integration of cataloging resources for enhancing the librarians’ work. Aharony [18] revealed personality characteristics as well as computer expertise, motivation, importance and capacity towards studying and integrating different applications of social media which influenced librarians’ use of social media.

  There were other investigations on the content surveys of library websites regarding the adoption of social media in Library websites. Blog was the prevalent tool when library applied social media y. These studies indicated an overwhelming acceptance of various social media in libraries. Each academic library adopted some forms of Web 2.0 technologies [32].

Table: The investigations on library websites about the adoption of social media

2.2 Social Media provide possibilities for a librarian

Web 2.0 applications and services used in universities, colleges and schools for several years. Wiki built the users’ communities and developed collaborating writing. Blogs supported various discussions, extended the boundaries of the classroom, and encouraged students to collect information supporting the development of teamwork skills and building the sharing information and knowledge [33]. Academic institutions engage the uses applying RSS, blogs, streaming media, social networks, tagging, and instant messaging as the active learning manner which gave libraries and librarians an excellent opportunity to train Web 2.0 tools for information literacy. Web 2.0 provided libraries and their patron connection ways and supported their academic and research activities.

New forms of digital content by Web 2.0, which involved the growth in volume, amount of noise, sharing of content and information participation, personal space, collaboration, and naive use, changed the role of librarians as information intermediaries and affected the responsibilities of librarians [34].

3. The challenge of social media to libraries’ information literacy education

Social media are different with traditional information resources, such as books, journals both in the infrastructure and the organization of the information content and in the dissemination information, publication, and authoritative respects of information.

Most of the information in social media present in the form of a small piece of micro-content around a particular theme. Its content show the diversity styles, including text, pictures, audio, video, animation, and other formats. Most of these resources have tags from user-generated raw indexes. The random indexes affect the authoritative, professional features of information with uncertainty. Information literacy education in Web 2.0 era must enable students to understand, recognize these types of resources, master the relevant characteristics of these resources, and learn from some useful resources to acquire their own knowledge and to fusion in their knowledge structure for their own use [35].

The challenge for libraries in social media is in some changes about the forms of resources organization, the methods of information access, the requirements of information evaluation, the creation, sharing and interaction of information, and the social responsibility and morality/ ethics.

The new forms of resources organization emerge in social media environment, such as blog, wiki, twitter, etc. Unlike traditional modes of information organization, the new forms are associated relative information with labels and reversed citation. Information literacy education needs to make the users to grasp the skills of review, retrieve, discriminate, track correlative information and the skills to create a blog, etc., learn to use the blog and other network technology to discuss, know to analyze and identify the authenticity of the information in the blog, and study to discuss with others in group style by using Wiki or other collaboration tools.

The methods of information access and have extended in social media environment. The applications of these methods, such as Tag, Rss, are greatly facilitate to the access and the use of information. It is different from the traditional index, e.g. thematic classification, that the users have more free control in setting information label according to their own understanding of relevant content. They publish information with their tags and share the same theme dispersed information posted by others.

Through Tag Clouding, they know what the other users concerned about and browse purposed the information at a glance. In social media environment, students enable to recognize information aggregation technologies, RSS, and use specialized RSS software to choose their own needs through their discriminate the Rss Feeds and retrieval engines and to obtain the latest information they need. The use of technologies and the recognition of the related information need to add to information literacy education for students.

The requirements of information evaluation have the new feature of Web 2.0. The principles of the identification and evaluation of the relevant information in traditional environment are also appropriate to the social media environment, such as the reliability, integrity, accuracy, and immediacy of information. There are new strategies for the evaluation of information in the Web 2.0. High attention and high visitor numbers are not necessarily high value or high academic authoritative [36].

The creation, sharing and interaction of information need to improve the ability of innovation, communication and cooperation. Web2.0 technologies provide personal information environment outside the classroom, as well as give a virtual place to organize and create information [37]. In social media environment, the users could create related blog groups, discuss with some questions in groups, learn to respect other people’s feedback, and integrate other’s comments to publish own views. It also provides the collaborating tools, e.g. wiki, to support integrating opinions and team writing. Blog, Wiki and other communicating technologies will be cultured on users' sense of teamwork, innovation ability of literacy [38].

The social responsibility and ethics are the aspects also in social media. Social media environment provides more freedom of the right to equal access to information for individuals and gives more stringent requirements for the users in information access, information communication, and ethical behavior. Such as discussed in the blog groups, the users need to not only respect the opinions of others, but also rational express their own opinions and not hurled abuse the others who held different views. Social media environment provides easier processes for supporting the users as the consumers and providers of information. The users need to build a rapport virtual environment to share their insights with others through information literacy education, including correctly identify the authenticity of the information, expose the prejudices and fraud information, respect differences and diversity of information.

References

1.             Holmberg K, Huvila I, Kronqvist-Berg M, Widen-Wulff G: What is Library 2.0? Journal of Documentation 65(4), 668-681 (2009).

2.             Anderson P: What is web 2.0. Ideas, technologies and implications for education 60, (2007).

3.             Stephens M: Electronic journal forum - Web 2.0, library 2.0, and the hyperlinked library. In: 2007.

4.             Li R: the Comparison of the modes of information communication of Blog and Wiki. Researchs in Library Science (10), 19-22 (2007).

5.             Godwin P: The Web 2.0 challenge to information literacy. In: 2007.

6.             Van Zyl AS: The impact of Social Networking 2.0 on organisations. Electronic Library, The 27(6), 906-918 (2009).

7.             Matuszak G: Enterprise 2.0: Fad or Future? The Business Role for Social Software Platforms, (2007).

8.             Genre N: Web 2.0. (2008).

9.             Ellison NB: Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 13(1), 210-230 (2007).

10.          Beer DD: Social network (ing) sites… revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd & Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 13(2), 516-529 (2008).

11.          Wilson S: Patterns of personal learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments 16(1), 17-34 (2008).

12.          Dash A: Introducing the microcontent client. URL: http://www. anildash. com/magazine/2002/11/introducing_the. html, (2002).

13.          Boyd D: Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites. (2006).

14.          Kling R, Mckim G, King A: A bit more to it: Scholarly communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(1), 47-67 (2003).

15.          Maness JM: Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. Webology 3(2), 44-55 (2006).

16.          Mahmood K, Richardson JV: Adoption of Web 2.0 in US academic libraries: a survey of ARL library websites. Program-Electronic Library and Information Systems 45(4), 365-375 (2011).

17.          Chen S: Can Blogging Help Cataloging? Library Resources & Technical Services 53(4), 251-260 (2009).

18.          Aharony N: Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research 31(1), 29-37 (2009).

19.          Nesta F, Mi J: Library 2.0 or Library III: returning to leadership. Library management 32(1/2), 85-97 (2011).

20.          Chua AYK, Goh DH: A study of Web 2.0 applications in library websites. Library & Information Science Research 32(3), 203-211 (2010).

21.          Han Z, Liu YQ: Web 2.0 applications in top Chinese university libraries. Library Hi Tech 28(1), 41-62 (2010).

22.          Harinarayana N, Raju NV: Web 2.0 features in university library web sites. Electronic Library, The 28(1), 69-88 (2010).

23.          Kim YM, Abbas J: Adoption of Library 2.0 functionalities by academic libraries and users: a knowledge management perspective. The Journal of academic librarianship 36(3), 211-218 (2010).

24.          Morris SE, Del Bosque D: Forgotten resources: subject guides in the era of Web 2.0. Technical Services Quarterly 27(2), 178-193 (2010).

25.          Shrager DE: Moving past Web 2.0 h! An exploratory study of academic law libraries. (2010).

26.          Si L, Shi R, Chen B: A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in top 30 Chinese university libraries. In: 2009.

27.          Tripathi M: Use of Web2. 0 tools by academic libraries. In: 2009.

28.          Xu C, Ouyang F, Chu H: The academic library meets Web 2.0: applications and implications. The Journal of academic librarianship 35(4), 324-331 (2009).

29.          Linh NC: A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries. Library Hi Tech 26(4), 630-653 (2008).

30.          Liu S: Engaging users: the future of academic library web sites. College & Research Libraries 69(1), 6-27 (2008).

31.          Shoniwa P, Hall DH: Library 2.0 and UK academic libraries: drivers and impacts. New Review of Information Networking 13(2), 69-79 (2007).

32.          Si L, Shi R, Chen B: An investigation and analysis of the application of Web 2.0 in Chinese university libraries. Electronic Library, The 29(5), 651-668 (2011).

33.          Ram S, Kataria S: Responding to user's expectation in the library: innovative Web 2.0 applications at JUIT Library: A case study. Program: electronic library and information systems 45(4), 452-469 (2011).

34.          Lor PJ, Britz JJ: New Trends in Content Creation: Changing Responsibilities for Librarians. Libri 61(1), 12-22 (2011).

35.          Zhang J: Research on Information Literacy in Web 2.0 Era. Library Journal 27(1), 58-61 (2008).

36.          Li Y, Gu L, Luan X, Wei Y, Li S: Constructing the University Libraries' Information Literacy Platform Mode under Web2.0. Journal of Library Science 31(008), 94-96 (2009).

37.          Wu N: The study of Information Literacy Education of Students in Network Environment. (2007).

38.         Zhu L: Use of teams in technical services in academic libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 35(2–3), 69-82 (2011).