Discussion 4 – Filters, Hashtags and the Web 2.0 Revolution


The themes of knowledge sharing and collaboration have dominated our discussions since the beginning of the course. As the class began to explore sharing and collaboration tools, the discussions turned to the issue of information overload as a result of the ability to share and collaborate at warp speed. Even those whose professions require highly skillful management of information found the multiplier effect of open sharing daunting and “depressing.” While I agree that twitter and even Netvibes can result in a deluge of often irrelevant information, there are still ways, as yet imperfect, to filter the noise.

Twitter, in particular, presents a challenge to the novice user by allowing the same hashtag to be used by multiple and unrelated users and groups. As yet there are only imperfect ways to reduce this such as privacy settings and using a hashtag obscure enough that no one else would use it. Unfortunately, the volume of twitter users has rendered this unlikely. Perhaps creating several very focused and streamlined groups would help, along with privacy settings. As with Dr. Bozarth’s bookclub, we must invite only those who can contribute to and use our information and be careful on how we focus our group. Has the revolution eaten its children already?

My solution is to use Netvibes, blogs, and Diigo to categorize information and allow the “real time” function to reside on the blog or Diigo as a twitter blogroll. Instead of slogging through and reading links in twitter feeds, you can use Diigo’s tag system and the categories of blogrolls on blogs. Thus, users can categorize and describe information to be shared. It’s all about how to prioritize functions and features for different purposes.


One thought on “Discussion 4 – Filters, Hashtags and the Web 2.0 Revolution

  1. Wow, your blog post presented a lot of interesting points that I had not considered previously. I find it interesting that when we think of creating a learning environment using social media, we immediately begin to strategize on how we can make our communities private. Although, I completely agree with the solutions you provided in your final paragraph, I wonder, why are we trying to close our learning communities?

    Traditional learning communities are structured, closed, and basically have a course participant list that can rarely be revised. However, I see social learning environments as a protest to the traditional structure. It provides access to those that were previously excluded. It connects strangers across different time zones. Finally, it takes the learner out of the ideal scenarios they are accustomed to learning with and present “the noise” of the real world. Why should an instructor or instructional designer filter out the noise for their learners? Shouldn’t we be aiming for higher level skills where students can discern important and irrelevant information and synthesize different thoughts and sources to develop their own perspective?

    For example, I love how we are taking student discussions out of the controlled BB environment and bringing it to the real world where the students have designed their own learning environments. I am forced to deal with “the noise” or rather the “unique-ness and beauty” of real world blogs and discussion formats, rather than having a perfectly structures BB discussion thread.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s