No More "Social" Media: It's Knowledge Media

Comment

Comment by Steve Richardson on June 6, 2011 at 11:02am

Both are misleading.  Social sounds too much like extracurricular activity and Knowledge overpromises.  Networking seems a better descriptor because anyone who has done it appreciates that its appeal is the potential for discovery.  In my opinion, those who take it too seriously or not seriously at all just don't get it.  Most of these people will not participate for long, if at all, while those who stick around find their niche. 

Comment by Anne Steppe on June 1, 2011 at 8:10am

My comments are much simpler than what has already posted.  In my particular agency, the term "social media" scares the upper echelon.  The mental picture conjured up by "social media" is not a positive one, and instead of embracing the technology, it is shunned with only program-related exceptions.  Having just proposed a new internal-use only (and that still it scared them) web site that acts as a mix between Twitter and Facebook, the only concern was for the receiving negative feedback or postings.  An entire room of GS-14's and 15's and not one could see a benefit for forums, bookmarks, wikis, etc. targeted to help the employee.  Had I steered the idea toward "knowledge media" or "information media", though the idea would be the same, the words might have conjured up a different mental image and less anxiety on behalf of the directors.  My next go-round will definitely incorporate the ideas of 'knowledge media' or 'information media.'  It's amazing what semantics can do. 

Comment by Peter B Meyer on December 9, 2009 at 1:26pm

"Social media" emphasizes interaction and may have better traction with extroverts. But wikis and blogs can be useful also for activities like keeping track of one's own notes and calendars for one's own purposes, or conveniently logging experiences or data without knowing who if anyone will read them. They are ways to create and use web sites for one's own purposes through various tools without interactions with others. Therefore I agree "social media" goes off track.

I've read a lot about "knowledge" versus "information", and found it was useful to use the terms this way: "knowledge" is in someone's mind (and so is context-aware and ready to support decisions). "information" is a signal between minds, or in a machine, and so may be interpretable or visible to many minds. And it may include context or not.

Therefore I pick "information media" over "knowledge media". Both are more accurate than "social media" but unfortunately they are bland, and so seem ambiguous and fuzzy.

Comment by Jeffrey Levy on November 23, 2009 at 11:51am

Ah, language.

My problem with "new media" is that the White House New Media team uses it to mean "everything that isn't print." A video posted on whitehouse.gov with zero interaction is considered "new media." So Web 1.0 is "new media."

But, look. Use whatever terms resonate with whoever you're talking to.

And when we talk to *each other,* I promise to interrupt anyone using a term I don't recognize and I'll count on you to interrupt me when I do it. And we'll keep talking and helping each other. :)

Deal?

Comment by Noel Dickover on November 23, 2009 at 11:10am

Hi Chris,

Regarding DoD's position on the terms, I do know this intimately, but am somewhat hamstrung in that I really can't comment on much about it publicly. I will say that the big language distinctions we've been working through is the difference between "social networking services" versus "social networking sites". Regarding the use of the word, "social", there absolutely has been some misunderstanding on that term from people who don't use anything of the sort. To the uninitiated, it really comes across in our world as "coffee break", so there is an education process that must follow (Maxine Teller's catch-22 discussion on this point is very relevant - those who haven't used it find no reason to start, which makes it hard to explain what's different). This in part is probably why we went with "Internet-based Capabilities" - a far more encompassing term that is relevant (hopefully) today, but more importantly, should cover the new emergent cool things of the future.

Unfortunately for Andy, I think the knowledge term would be far worse. We've already had our "run" on knowledge management in DoD, and by and large that term has been largely thrown out as a money wasting fad. We largely spent our time trying to teach people the language of KM when we should have just been adopting the principles but still focusing everyone's attention on the actual problem using their actual business terms.

And I fully agree with Gwenne that regardless of what we call it, the basis of the difference really does involve the word "social". Like Chris (Dorobek), I don't really dig the "media" part as a term (I prefer social software), but the important thing is to find a term that resonates. If Social Media works in the EPA, they should go with it, especially if senior leadership accepts and understands that it. I doubt we'll all end up using the same term though. Really, the term that seems to have resonated the most across the Federal Govt is "New Media", which if you think about it, really just focuses on the idea that something different is happening.

Comment by Chris Jones on November 22, 2009 at 3:53pm

Great debate. Sounds like it's heating up.

I'll offer a definition of knowledge as information in context. Raw data, blogs, random insights and tweets are useful and interesting, but unless we put them in context, we can't easily know their relevance or their relationship to one another. Our ability to track them by topic is strained. To Jeffrey's point, we can't reconcile that various inputs are related.

With the increasing rate of content flooding our virtual desks, this becomes increasingly important.

So one aspect of productive use of this new media (if pushed, it's still my vote) is to help us establish context. Tags & hashtags (metadata) are vital for this, which exposes a link to KM (knowledge management). So I definitely see the desire to incorporate 'knowledge' in the framing of the Gov2.0 mission.

We just need to keep in mind 'knowledge' and 'information' are esoteric to many. If we need to make terminology more accessible to a larger base, let's use terms that create common ground, not perpetuate confusion.

In the end, I do agree w/ Gwynne - the real magic here is engagement and participation. Which I think this thread demonstrates. Let's keep it going, and get to an answer that everyone can buy into.

Comment by Keith Moore on November 22, 2009 at 11:53am

Hello Andrew, I for one would like to toss in both a vote to open up your conversation to a broader consideration. I whole heartedly agree in your epiphany of changing the term social media for Government to another term. Your requested term change is knowledge media. Not to in any way attempt to out do your epiphany, because I believe very much so in epiphanies. But I also agree that Government the most powerful institution known to our universe outside of the institution of faith, deserves its own distinctive and recognized brand if it is going to entertain adopting social media. Once this brand is established, then I believe the passage and dissemination of the new form of communication will more readily gain acceptance within all federal agencies.

Thus, I share with you that social media is not a term that best reflects governments business for and of the people. I also believe that the term “knowledge” media sets government in a exclusive and not equal category that may be separating the public from the public sector at a time when we need the public sector to engage, educate and empower the public. Henceforth, my vote is to continue this discussion by requesting that we consider for use within the government community from social media to “information media”..

Government at both its optimum and its minimum is chartered to provide the public with information. In this age of collaboration, participation and transparency, what the world needs now is information. Information we can believe in. Our government suffers from distrust. Evidenced by our heated health care debate and any other public issue today is poised for a debate and simply put; many feel that they have not been afforded information, the accurate information. So if Government is going to live up to any type of media challenge, at the very core, it should be information that government strives to offer to the public. I am afraid that the term knowledge may only heat up the debate and do less to bring about collaborations to ensure that the information we send out to the public is believable. The more we send out good information, the more knowledgeable the public will become to benefit from the information shared. I believe if we get this right, this will outpace social media, government will take its rightful place in leading our economy, stimulating new economies and providing requisite supports, funding, and information for our economy and communities to once again get back on their feet with credibility and less debate.

Comment by Jeffrey Levy on November 21, 2009 at 9:49pm

Chris: I agree that people should use whatever term resonates with their target audience.

But if DoD calls it "blue eggs" and EPA calls it "gravelly stumps" and DHS calls it "Flitter" then no one has any clue what the other agencies are up to.

So it's a challenge. As Bev Godwin says, leading is hard. :)

BTW, social media isn't accepted universally at EPA. What I meant to say was that people know what I mean. Convincing them still takes some energy, but at least when I say I want to come talk about "social media," they know what it is.

Comment by Gwynne Kostin on November 21, 2009 at 11:54am

Tomayto vs tomahto; swine flu vs. h1n1; pro-life vs. pro-choice, our choice in language is both important and beyond our control. I am with Drapeau on this one, it's called social media so that's what it is. And it'll take alot more than Andy K. and Chris D. to rebrand it. :-)

Anyway, it IS social. The fact that government is not--in many cases--embracing the social parts doesn't make it any less social. As we move toward actual citizen engagement (yes, the Open Govt memo will be out some day), the distinction between government desire to broadcast and social network members to participate will become irrelevant.

There is a reason why the poster child for engagement remains the TSA blog. There are humans involved on both sides of the engagement. And I am with Jeffrey--the execs do get it.

Let's not create another government specific Frankensteinist term that is meaningless to the rest of the world. Let's participate.

Comment by Andrew Krzmarzick on November 21, 2009 at 11:46am

Hey Folks - Glad to see renewed discussion here. Having now read several other opinions on this subject, I'd like to reiterate my original intention in broaching this subject. It was all about making the business case - and I think we all agree on this single point: we need to use whatever language is appropriate for our target audience to explain that there is a serious use and need for web-based applications to accomplish the mission more efficiently and effectively. Just so you know how I use "knowledge media" in my presentations, here's a sample slide:

Why? = Mission, Goals, Objectives, Measurable Outcomes tied to activity

Maybe we'll use collaboration tools, social software, social media, knowledge media, web-based applications or a myriad of other words to describe what ultimately we've all come to realize - this stuff is improving government communication and others who have not yet adopted them ought to get on board. Right?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page