Monica's blog

In one respect, I recognize the validity of a policy.  Policies offer protection for a company as well as guidelines and goals.  They are inevitably very helpful when properly designed.

However, after examining the readings and case studies this week, I identified numerous aspects that will make or break the effectiveness of a policy.

The sharing of ideas through social software is appealing because it is relaxed, spontaneous and enjoyable in nature.  Therefore, a policy regarding social software should be relaxed as well.

I would like to indicate some of the positive qualities I discovered in policies from our readings and case studies:

1) I was impressed with Jenny Levine’s tips on how to use Twitter in her blog post “One Approach to Org Twitter Accounts”.  Her thorough advice demonstrates that she is exceedingly familiar with Twitter.  I valued her suggestions due to her obvious knowledge on the subject. Policies that admit they are works in progress are admirable.  Similar to most technology, it takes a lot of time and practice to become familiar with social software.  Therefore, I believe that when first creating a social software policy for your staff and library users, it should be simple and adjustable.  It should include basic principles and indicate that it is subject to change as the technology becomes more familiar.  Some policies are best to be finalized at a later date when the users are as experienced as Levine.  There is no sense in providing a long and irrelevant list.  I believe that experience creates the most accurate guidelines.

2) Sharlyn Lauby indicates another great characteristic of policies in her blog post, “10 Must-Haves for Your Social Media Policy”.  Her first rule for developing a policy is to “Introduce the purpose of social media”.  She states, “the policy should focus on the things that employees can rather than what they can’t do. [. . .] that’s the spirit of social media – it’s all about leveraging the positive.  And that needs to be evident in the policy” (Lauby).  I completely agree with her statement.  I believe that by focusing on the positive, users feel more enthusiastic to contribute to the new social media.  The Multnomah County Library Policy exemplifies Lauby’s suggestion in the first paragraph: “Library social software tools provide a limited (or designated) public forum to facilitate the sharing of ideas, opinions and information about library related subjects and issues. Library social software is intended to create a welcoming and inviting online space […]” (Multnomah County Library).  Their message is positive while setting guidelines.  I thought Multnomah County Library was excellent at balancing their authority and their encouragement.

3) I also believe that policies are more effective when they are concise and written using recognizable terminology.   Policies that are lengthy are exhausting to read.   When too long, I believe that people typically quit reading.  I also believe that there is a greater risk of users disregarding the rules outlined in the policies due to frustration.

Some negative aspects of policies that I discovered in the readings and case studies include:

1) To continue from my previous point, some policies within the case study are much too long.  For example, the City of Seattle Blogging Policy was ridiculous.  In addition to its policy, it included links to four or five other lengthy City Policies.  This is a perfect example of a policy that will not be taken seriously.  I feel like they indicate every possible issue that may arise.  In a way, I wonder if lengthy policies, such as Seattle’s policy, are in fact creating more violations by listing every infringement to its users.  It’s the classic “DO NOT PUSH THE RED BUTTON” case.  Once the idea is in someone’s head, they might follow through.

2) The authoritative tone in policies is occasionally overdone.  To frighten the users of social software is the absolute worst idea.  How are users going to express their thoughts if they believe that they will get into trouble? Out of all of the policy characteristics, I believe that this fear is the most detrimental to the membership of our online library interactions.

3) Finally, policies should always aim to use familiar terms and titles.  For instance, the City of Seattle Blogging Policy states, “All City of Seattle blogs shall be [. . .] published using the approved City blogging platform and tools”(City of Seattle Blogging Policy).  What is the “City blogging platform”?  If I had to actually follow this policy, I would have to research further in order to comprehend.  I should not have to refer to additional resources to understand a policy.  These arbitrary terms are destined to cause problems.

4) A policy is inefficient if it provides several links to other policies to enforce their rules.  Leaving the middle of one policy to read another policy is disruptive.  I believe that the policy should be able to identify it’s values, guidelines, goals, and laws without the assistance of other policies.

All in all, I am okay with libraries having policies for social software.  However, I believe they should be positive, and encouraging.  These policies should be flexible, simple, and focus more on creating an active library community than to intimidate or frighten.

Tags: library, policy, web2.0