Mashups vs. Widgets

I had heard of Mashups and Widgets, but had never used either social media tool.  In comparing the two, I found they each serve a relatively different purpose.  After personal interaction with both, I think Widgets would be more effective in reaching audiences than Mashups.  

Mashups provide a way to combine data with a corresponding location, resulting in a visual aid for users.  One example provided was combining a health care clinic address with a local map to provide a map of clinic locations to users.  I actually have a Mashup product  at my animal shelter.  I never realized the type of technology that was used to create it. We are provided a map of Rabies positive specimens by our local Health Department.  From the perspective of tracking disease transmission and implementing disease prevention, the Mashup tool is ideal for providing that information.  We can see where there is a concentration of Rabies positive animals and provide public awareness and education.  People are often interested, or at least curious, to see how close a Rabid animal was to their home or work location, so we are able to post that map as an educational tool.  Additionally, the visual component of a map will often encourage pet owners to comply with Rabies vaccine laws.

Widgets seem to be mostly associated with social media, but they can also be embedded in a blog or website.  One example provided was using a Widget to track fundraising results.  A widget could be embedded into a Facebook site for a local Fire Department to provide viewers an up-to-date look at a current fundraising effort.  

I discovered there are a few differences between Mashups and Widgets.  Mashups combine a location and data relevant to that location.  Mashups are geared towards an audience seeking to retrieve that specific combination of data. There was no mention of real-time ability in any of the Mashup descriptions I came across.  While Mashups can be placed on a website or social media page, there was no indication that there is a distribution function available.  Nor was there mention of an option for users to receive automatic updates.  Learning about Mashups led me to think that users looking for that specific data must retrieve the information, then maybe reload the website page to check for updated information.  Widgets, on the other hand, do allow users to get automatic updates.  This can be important to an audience that may be following election night results.  Widgets seem to be more user-friendly by engaging users, then keeping them engaged by offering customized applications. 

In comparing the two tools, Mashups seem to have a more official, business-like tone and administrative function.  Widgets seem to incorporate more of the traditional definition of “social” into a social media component.  Even the name is appealing, and the Widgetbox Explanation page offers an extensive collection of theme choices and options.  Mashups are more of an up-to-date finished product, made available to users.  Widgets can be set to automatically populate with updated information.  

Widgets can be designed to be very diverse and dynamic in nature.  Mashups provide information on a map, which is useful, but more static.  Widgets are more appealing from that standpoint that they can be embedded on social media sites and offer a more creative opportunity for Widget programmers.  Widgets can be used to distribute content to the audience and be developed to “add engagement” to a site (What's a Widget?, 2013).  Many users of new media are intrigued by applications that allow them to become more than just viewers.  Widgets can be programmed to allow users to customize what part(s) they are interested in viewing or using.  I think for all those reasons, Widgets would be more effective in reaching audiences than Mashups.

Sources:

How To Make Your Own Web Mashup. (2013). Retrieved from Programmable Web: http://www.programmableweb.com/howto

Mashups. (2013, July 1). Retrieved from AIDS.gov: http://aids.gov/using-new-media/tools/mashups/index.html

What's a Widget? (2013). Retrieved from Widgetbox: http://www.widgetbox.com/info/widgets/explanation/

Widgets. (2013, July 1). Retrieved from AIDS Website: http://aids.gov/using-new-media/tools/widgets/index.html

The Potential Impact of Unrestricted Web Publishing

The online edition of the September 19, 2013 issue of Time magazine caught my attention with an article entitled “Your Cat is 95% Tiger.”  The cited source for that Time article is a September 18, 2013 online article by The Christian Science Monitor.  The Christian Science Monitor version of the story, entitled “House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals” is more detailed than the Time version.  The Christian Science Monitor cites its source to be an article written by Tia Ghose for LiveScience magazine. The title of the LiveScience story was “Evolution of a Predator: How Big Cats Became Carnivores.”  In looking at the different versions of the article thus far, it seemed to me that there was something missing.  Perhaps the very original story wasn’t just comparing Tigger’s relatives to those of Morris.   When I thought the last stop in checking cited sources was going to be LiveScience, I found that I was wrong.  LiveScience credits the original work to the online journal Nature Communications. 

In evaluating the cited sources I would consider each credible.  Most impressive was the original study by Nature Communications entitled “The tiger genome and comparative analysis with lion and snow leopard genomes.”  The Nature Communications article was posted in a way to deliberately demonstrate its credibility.  It includes a link about the authors and their affiliations with zoos, biomedical facilities, genomics and genetics institutions, conservancies, and more.  The authors’ qualifications, credentials and connections to the subject are easy to obtain and verify, as they are provided at the end of the article.  Throughout the article, there are cross-referenced footnotes with hyperlinks to navigate easily to their specific placement in the article.  I was quickly able to research one of the collaborators on the tiger project, and other studies easily accessible and of similar subject matter. I didn’t see any noticeable bias, and found the following statement at the end of the article:  “The authors declare no competing financial interests” (Nature Communications 2013).  The website is up-to-date, including an October 8 Press Release.  Overall, Nature Communications seems to be a very credible source.

The potential impact of unrestricted web publishing regarding this article could go in unexpected directions.  The goal of the study was to address endangered subspecies of tigers in an effort to prevent extinction. Out of context, a reader could easily misconstrue some of the facts. For example, the Nature Communications article includes a Venn diagram outlining shared gene clusters.  I could see a tabloid picking the simplest piece and declaring “Cat Boy found in Korea—details from Nature Communications inside” as a plausible article based on one part of the original article. Another piece that could wreak distress—but certainly sell newspapers--could be presenting just a single fact that four subspecies of tiger subspecies have gone extinct in the wild in the past century. There are efforts in place to re-build their populations in controlled environments. Instead of real science, misconveyed information can lead to a misinformed audience if sources aren’t vetted or if knowledge of a subject doesn’t exist to question the information relayed.  

I consider Time and The Christian Science Monitor to be credible.  However, both distributors chose to present the story ala carte—an effort, no doubt, to target an audience specific to their publications. More than likely, Time and The Christian Science Monitor consider their readership less interested in the science component, more interested in the pet element.  Changing the title and limiting content to meet their needs didn’t compromise any of the facts.  They did cite sources properly, so backtracking was do-able. The LiveScience version was less pet-centered, and more science-centered in its discussion of genes and breeding.  Therefore, I consider there to be a risk involved, even among credible sources, as to what happens to information they publish as it evolves through mass media.  In addition, I wonder how many original authors find humor, or dismay, in how their publications look as they are distributed through mass media.

Sources:

The Christian Science Monitor:  http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0918/House-cats-and-tigers-share-95.6-percent-of-DNA-study-reveals/%28page%29/2

LiveScience:  http://www.livescience.com/39695-tiger-lion-leopard-genome-sequenced.html

Nature Communications journal: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130917/ncomms3433/full/ncomms3433.html

Time magazine: http://science.time.com/2013/09/19/your-cat-is-95-tiger/#ixzz2hAj5kp9A

Social Media and Truth

I logged onto Facebook and the first item in my newsfeed was one word: “Furloughed”.  Someone I had dinner with just last night posted it.  While there was discussion about a possible furlough occurring, discussions on budget cuts are commonplace in the DC area due to the high number of Federal Government employees and government contractors.  I really only use Facebook on a regular basis, and am very discerning about things I see posted.  However, the “furloughed” posting was by someone I know and trust.  Living in the DC area, and as a former Federal Government employee myself, I know that furloughs and reductions-in-force (RIFs) do occur.  I absolutely think that social media sites can be reliable for obtaining credible information, especially when the “source” posting is someone (or an organization) you know to be reliable.  I don’t credit Facebook for being the credible source overall.  I consider the individuals or organizations that are putting information out there.  Facebook is just a tool to share that information, and it is my responsibility to decide which information is fact.  I have the choice of who I include in my “friends” list and I am selective in what information I’m willing to accept vs. information I’m more suspicious of.

Of course, one of the next feeds down promise I can have perfect skin and lose a ton of weight with no effort.  Those, of course, are no-brainers to just skim past and ignore as fiction.