 |
 |
Hello Interesting viewpoints... From observations of students' usage of Facebook, and other social networking tools, it strikes me that the most disturbing aspect of these tools is their strangely addictive qualities. Students would appear to spend an increasingly disproportionate amount of time 'poking', 'writing on walls' etc, time that perhaps could be better spent engaging with their subject and developing skills valued by employers. As a digital immigrant, and a Facebook newbie, I find Facebook compelling too, and I deliberately do not look at it in work time because of personal (if not employer) productivity concerns and because I have more important things to do in work time than building my social network. Mark ........... Mark Powell Head of Information Services, Careers Service, University of Bristol 11 Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU t: +44 (0) 117 331 7074 (internal 17074) f: +44 (0) 117 954 6818 e: [log in to unmask] w: <http://www.bristol.ac.uk/careers> --On 01 October 2007 12:52 +0100 Phil Bradley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Sorry Wendy, that really doesn't work that well for me either. Unless they > already know how much bandwidth is going to be taken up by using various > technologies they can't say that - it's simply based on an assumption at > best. Besides - which different technologies are we talking about here? > This is where the terminology fails of course, since it covers a > multitude of sins! There are lots of 2.0 resources that don't actually > use any great bandwidth at all. I'd also be tempted to say that if a > pharmaceutical company has a problem with bandwidth they need to > seriously reconsider their approach to accessing the internet from the > ground up, not by wholesale bans on products. > > As for security - that works as an argument slightly more, but not > greatly. Again, there are lots of resources that have no security issues, > and there are often work arounds for those as well - if you can't (for > example) download software onto individual machines, which I can > understand, there are usually alternatives. And rather than just say > 'security issues' I'd be more confident of a tech. support department > that was rather more forthcoming and looked at ensuring that they > understood exactly what those concerns are, and how to deal with them, > rather than attempt a blanket policy of hiding behind the word 'no' - > however technically it's dressed up. > > Phil. > > Internet Trainer, Web designer, SEO, Speaker, Author > Visit http://www.philb.com for free articles on many aspects of the > Internet. > My weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/ > *** How to use Web 2.0 in your library is now available *** > > -----Original Message----- > From: UKEIG: the UK eInformation Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Wendy Warr > Sent: 01 October 2007 12:41 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: To Every Technology There Is A Season ...[!] [?] > > Phil, > > Bandwidth and security are two of the "obvious reasons" that closed > organizations such as pharmaceutical companies tend to use for avoiding > various Web 2.0 technologies. > > Wendy > > Dr. Wendy A. Warr > Wendy Warr & Associates > 6 Berwick Court, Holmes Chapel > Cheshire, CW4 7HZ, England > Tel./fax +44 (0)1477 533837 > [log in to unmask] http://www.warr.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: UKEIG: the UK eInformation Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On Behalf Of Phil Bradley > Sent: 01 October 2007 12:25 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: To Every Technology There Is A Season ...[!] [?] > > I'm not really sure what the 'obvious reasons' are, you know. I've just > spent a few minutes looking through Facebook groups for this subject > area, > and found some interesting stuff. > > Firstly there IS a Facebook group for English Heritage members of staff, > which currently only has 14 people in it, but that's a start I suppose. > So > clearly there's some interest that staff have in being able to talk to > each > other outside the confines of the EH intranet (presuming you have one). > Perhaps one of the 'obvious reasons' is that the EH doesn't want this to > happen? > > Anyway, let's continue... there are groups that cover English history, > and > there are also local/regional groups. Presumably EH doesn't want staff > getting involved in discussions on subjects like this? Presumably they > feel > that it's better that their staff expertise isn't shared in a way that's > helpful to people? Perhaps they want to try and control the > conversations? > > How about the National Trust - not exactly the same type of organization > I'll agree, but a close enough match. There's the group "I'm a proud > member > of the National Trust and I don't yet draw a pension" which currently > has > over 200 members, 161 photographs, discussions and 50+ wall postings. > Seems > to be quite lively, and a really good way to share information back and > forth. Wouldn't it be nice if there was such a group for English > Heritage, > where staff could get involved, show their interest, enthusiasm and > knowledge for their subject, and help their members? Apparently not. > > There's a "National Trust working holidays" group with 94 members, > photographs and discussions. Not forgetting the "I work for the National > Trust" group with 50+ members, with some interesting conversations > taking > place. There's a small student study group about the NT as well. Then we > have the "National Trust staff past and present" group, and the > "National Trust Working Holiday - Brecon 2007" group. In fact, I found > another 4 groups before I got bored. > > Clearly there is a real interest - both in the organization itself and > its > subject coverage, and I can't believe that there isn't for the English > Heritage. I'm not convinced the "obvious reasons" actually exist - what > I > see is that English Heritage isn't interested in having conversations > with > members outside of their website, that they're not encouraging their > staff > to get involved with subjects of interest where they could really make a > difference. > > I assume what you might mean by "obvious reasons" are that staff might > spend > time using Facebook, when they should be doing other things. If that's > the > case, the obvious way of looking at that is to assume that the > organization > don't actually trust their staff to use such resources sensibly. Perhaps > they ought not allow them access to computers at all in that case? > Moreover, > surely it's the job of everyone in an organization to get involved, to > learn > and develop? Apparently not, if you're in English Heritage. Surely as an > organization it should want to foster interest in the organisation > itself, > and for it's subject coverage? But if your organization prevents you > doing > that, clearly that isn't actually the case. Surely an organization > should > want to help educate, inform, entertain and involve members of the > public? > In the case of English Heritage, apparently not. > > And that's really sad. Because the "obvious reasons" actually aren't > obvious > reasons at all. What a ban like this is actually saying is that English > Heritage doesn't trust its staff, isn't interested in getting involved > in > conversations with the very people it needs to engage with, and quite > simply > just doesn't care. > > Suddenly those "obvious reasons" seem a bit silly to me. > > Phil. > > Internet Trainer, Web designer, SEO, Speaker, Author > Visit http://www.philb.com for free articles on many aspects of the > Internet. > My weblogs: http://www.philbradley.typepad.com/ > *** How to use Web 2.0 in your library is now available *** > -----Original Message----- > From: UKEIG: the UK eInformation Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > On > Behalf Of SIMS, Diana > Some employers prevent their staff from accessing Facebook, as ours does > and for obvious reasons! > > Diana Sims > Librarian > English Heritage > National Monuments Record > Kemble Drive > Swindon > SN2 2GZ > > 01793 414632 > [log in to unmask]