Thing 13: LibraryThing (with a diversionary comment on Narcissism, if you'll forgive my self-indulgence...)

Thing 13 was one that I awaited with sceptical anticipation. I am, admittedly, a little bit of a geek and I do have a fairly extensive book collection, so I thought that LibraryThing might be a fun toy to play with.

Ugly, ugly, ugly. And there's a tag named "Zeitgeist". Ick.

How wrong I was. Anyone who reads this blog from time to time may think that I'm on a downward slide into pessimism, so negative have recent comments been, but LibraryThing really is plumbing new depths. The interface is confusing, ugly and incoherent; the records it offers are poor and usually not the actual book you have in hand (it's very USA-centric, using Amazon.com (!) as a default catalogue, and the Library of Congress catalogue takes ages to load anyway) and I frankly cannot see any use for it in a personal context whatsoever - I'll just go to my shelves to see what I have! It's not even much use to the most devoted but hard-up bibliophile, as you can only add 200 books before you're harassed for money. I quite like the fact that you can get early-release copies of books in return for writing a review, but most of these are in e-book format (I'm yet to bow to Kindle pressure) and, according to previous 23Thingers, it's easy to become black-balled if you fail to write even one review, which seems a little harsh! And, as a last whinge, I'm slightly freaked out by the fact that it knew I was in Cambridge, when all I'd given them was my gmail address. Is this based on the IP address? Not happy, about that, either way.

I hoped that I might be able to make use of it for the library, but the layout was still foxing me and I could not find a way to embed it in a useful place for our users. You can add it to your blog as a widget, but as the library does not yet have a blog and I seriously doubt that our readers would go to an external site just to see new purchases, it's a little pointless on the organisational level as well.

Rant over, but suffice to say I will not bothering with LibraryThing any more. But if you will now permit me a little wander off into the wider world of social media. The Telegraph published an article two days ago (i.e., two days into the England-wide rioting) about the increasing narcissism found amongst young people, which the author ascribed to overuse of social media. The negative effects of social media use include vain, aggressive and anti social behaviour, along with bouts of anxiety, depression and other psychological disorders. A negative effect on academic performance was also claimed by the psychologists in America who ran this study.

Image from beastoftraal.com

Obviously, it's difficult to say how widespread these supposed negative effects are, because the range and diversity of people who use social media is massive, and different platforms are used in a number of different ways. However, the biggest issue with these findings is that, as far as I can see, cause and effect have been muddled up a bit here - I would suggest that social networks have proliferated BECAUSE OF an increased sense of selfworth in our society, rather than creating vanity as a new phenomenon.

Since the advent of Pop Art and Warhol's idea of 15 minutes of fame, we have been bombarded from all angles with the message that if your name isn't known out there, then you don't exist. In a society where ever more groups in society feel disaffected, disconnected and apathetic, people depend upon their online identities and the subsequent feedback to feel as if they matter. If the only way to gain acceptance and worth is online through the interest of strangers, is it any wonder that we're anxious if no-one has "liked" our activity in the last 24 hours, or has commented on our latest tweet or blog post? I'm sure that even the most confident people still feel a little less confident if their contribution to the internet goes unnoticed.

Moreover, the importance and the power of social media has never been in clearer focus than in the aftermath (I hope I'm not too premature in saying that) of four nights of riots and public disorder across England. Blackberry Messenger and other networks were used to mobilise crowds of rioters. Youths across the country took the opportunity to voice their opinions via BBC reporters' microphones, an opportunity which came about purely because of the disaster they had caused. A lack of social cohesion has been blamed for causing the disaffection of thousands; this use of social media shows that we are ever social creatures, but that online networks are replacing the physical ones which have sadly been neglected for too long.

(Physical) Post-its pleading for peace in Peckham
Photo from BBC News

I believe that there is absolutely a place for social networks and social media, but only within the context of an otherwise healthy and balanced life, which includes regular face-to-face contact with family, friends and co-workers. After all, Twitter in particular was instrumental in mobilising wave upon wave of so-called "Riot Wombles" in London, Manchester, Birmingham and so on. The discourse now is mostly about spending cuts and how these have exacerbated ill-feeling and isolation; that is not in doubt, though the solution will be extremely difficult to work out. But politicians, and more than ever, parents have a responsibility to instil a sense of community, mutual respect and collective worth in young people, which seems to be so sadly lacking.