social media usage could have an impact on the scholarly information dissemination advocated by the open research community. Kim and Abbas (2010) reported that Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries made announcements on Twitter including descriptions of resources, workshops, courses, and so forth. Compared with other Web 2.0 technologies, Facebook and Twitter appear to be more capable of syndicating and disseminating information (Cahill, 2009). Concise text mitigates the impact of information overload, making SNSs effective means of information dissemination (Kim & Abbas, 2010). This type of interaction involves a one-to-one relationship through Communication: dialogues and comments, and it is one of the most important areas in measuring the effectiveness of SNSs (Romero, 2011). SNSs function efficiently for communication purposes since the low level of required self-disclosure makes users feel more comfortable when launching conversations with acquaintances (McElvain & Smyth, 2006). Because of their concise format and informal tones, most SNSs are likely to induce interactions between users than other non-social networking Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis (Romero, 2011). It is generally believed that SNSs can promote a communication and may improve the quality of a conversation (Boyd & Ellison, user’s 2007; Ito et al., 2008). However, it has been observed that eliciting responses from users within public forums is not as easy as in personal social circles (Burton & Soboleva, 2011; Chen, Maxwell, Chu, Li, & Tang, 2011). This type of interaction usually involves a many-to-one relationship. Information gathering: SNSs are effective information-gathering tools that have been utilized in social science research to gather professional knowledge and responses from those who participate (Ahn, 2011; Poynter, 2010). With millions of users, SNSs offer opportunities for libraries to reach out to communities and foster understanding of SNS functions in libraries through characterizing the interaction
social media usage could have an impact on the scholarly information dissemination advocated by the open research community. Kim and Abbas (2010) reported that Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries made announcements on Twitter including descriptions of resources, workshops, courses, and so forth. Compared with other Web 2.0 technologies, Facebook and Twitter appear to be more capable of syndicating and disseminating information (Cahill, 2009). Concise text mitigates the impact of information overload, making SNSs effective means of information dissemination (Kim & Abbas, 2010). Communication: This type of interaction involves a one-to-one relationship through dialogues and comments, and it is one of the most important areas in measuring the effectiveness of SNSs (Romero, 2011). SNSs function efficiently for communication purposes since the low level of required self-disclosure makes users feel more comfortable when launching conversations with acquaintances (McElvain & Smyth, 2006). Because of their concise format and informal tones, most SNSs are likely to induce interactions between users than other non-social networking Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs and wikis (Romero, 2011). It is generally believed that SNSs can promote a user’s communication and may improve the quality of a conversation (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Ito et al., 2008). However, it has been observed that eliciting responses from users within public forums is not as easy as in personal social circles (Burton & Soboleva, 2011; Chen, Maxwell, Chu, Li, & Tang, 2011). Information gathering: This type of interaction usually involves a many-to-one relationship. SNSs are effective information-gathering tools that have been utilized in social science research to gather professional knowledge and responses from those who participate (Ahn, 2011; Poynter, 2010). With millions of users, SNSs offer opportunities for libraries to reach out to communities and foster understanding of SNS functions in libraries through characterizing the interaction
Huang-in-press-Interactions-between-English.docx