Social media sites. In some ways, these seem to me like the worst of the Internet. What people like - more than what is valid, vetted, peer reviewed. Well, I guess peer reviewed, but not necessarily high quality. Tabloids with votes. I guess the real worst thing is that they can suck you in . . .to stories that you didn't want to read, and waste time that you didn't have!
I liked Newsvine the best - as it seems that the stories are all professionally produced. And categorized. Automatically locally relevent. And it seemed at first glance to be less entertainment-type fluff. I liked the graphic tools so you can viw the most commmented upon stories, and the most voted upon. The time I looked, they were highlighting special 'groups', such as feminists and conservative coalition (both are private groups). If I found an apropriate group, I may find increased agreement with votes and comments.
I actually signed up for Mixx, just to see what it's like in more depth. I realized from the tour that I can select only the types of stories I want to see, so maybe I can cut some of the fluff. I aranged my page to show me Science, Technology, and specific text searches.
As for using this tool in my library - I can't see it. I can't see how this could be relevent to my work. Unless, with time, I realize that the Sci/Tech categories in Mixx may acually have relevence, may provide another way to get to the cutting edge. The breaking news in my technology area. I'll read for a few weeks, and revisit this question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment