SPEC Kit 304: Social Software in Libraries · 107
Time to learn and implement software.
Marketing service.
Uneven implementation within a service.
Time. T Interest. SB, UB Difficulty keeping up. KU
Training. ST Promotion. M Coordination with existing services. CP
Training. ST Leadership. O Coordination. PC
Online reference scheduling: highest local
use occurs when local librarians are not
readily available late evenings. SC
More work for IT staff.
Wikis are awkward, need to use
something more sophisticated like
Basecamp. O
We expect some resistance to social
tagging. SB, UB
Time in the day to deploy all this new
User Privacy
33. Do you have concerns about the privacy implications of social software usage in your library?
Yes 33 57%
No 25 43%
If yes, please describe your concerns and how you are addressing them. N=32
User Information
“Although no threat to privacy is immediately apparent, it is always possible that there are ways of tracking
the users of social software and thus infringing their privacy. For example, the reading patterns of library
patrons could presumably be tracked through RSS feeds or the personal information of library ‘friends’
could be tracked through Facebook. The library has an attorney on staff who monitors these issues. As yet
unaddressed: 3rd party commercial concerns, gathering information about users for their own reasons.”
“As a Canadian library we do have some concerns regarding data storage as it relates to the Patriot Act. This
has not stopped us from using Social Software. We are careful to respect user privacy and make conscious
decisions about usage based on that consideration.”
“As a federal government agency, people are concerned about what information we collect, how we store it,
and who has access to it. NLM avoids technologies that store personal information and minimize the use of
cookies and other tracking mechanisms to only those absolutely necessary for the experience. We do provide
Previous Page Next Page