Abstract
Museums have now been using social networks for nearly twenty years. While they began by engaging in activities characteristic of web 1.0, they have come to learn how to adapt to the new digital landscape. They are now fluent in the language and conventions of each social media platform and post content on a daily basis. The 2005 Faro Convention is partially responsible for urging museums to develop these new online strategies. The present chapter examines how large institutions are capable of generating daily content that is both multiform and attractive, but which barely encourages the exchange of experiences and opinions between users. Interestingly, it is in the local heritage-based cyber communities that we find the creation of authentic educommunicative spaces that are even capable of moving action from the digital realm of social media into the physical world.
TopThe Role Of The Internet User: From Passive Subject To Active Citizen
Throughout history, every new means of communication has sparked debates about the effects that technology has on society. On the one hand, there are the pessimistic sceptics who worry that new forms of communication will ruin traditional means of interaction, if not (in the most hyperbolic and apocalyptic version of the argument) lead to humans beings to cease interacting with each other. On the other hand, optimists project that new innovations will actually increase and complement the traditional ways that people establish connections with others (Christakis & Fowler, 2010, p. 266).
One of the topics discussed in the Faro Convention (Council of Europe, 2005) is precisely the potential use of technology to move towards a more natural means of communication. The mass introduction of mobile devices (whether smart phones or tablets) over the last several years has made it possible to access digital documents from just about anywhere. Furthermore, mobile devices brought about significant improvements in communication systems: interface improvement, for example, has led to a simpler and more natural type of communication, through the use of touchscreens (which are visually quite attractive) or improved voice technology. The ease with which we can access different applications now allows us to find needed information immediately, which has resulted in users acquiring new educational and touristic skills that help interpret heritage (Cameron & Kenderdine, 2007).
Key Terms in this Chapter
Heritage-based Cyber Community: A group of Internet users who interact and regularly participate by using a specific social media platform to post and take part in initiatives related to heritage.
Rhizomatic Model: An un-hierarchical process of influence in which elements do not depend on a strictly ordered model, but in which any element can influence the rest.
Patrimonialization: A process by which a material or immaterial element becomes a constitutive part of a community’s identity that imbues said element with meaning and significance.
Cyber Community: A group of Internet users who interact and regularly participate by using a social media profile to post about a given topic.
Educommunication: A teaching-learning process that can be used on social media through which users exchange information and/or personal experiences.
Web 2.0: A collection of online mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of information and collective means of creating content. No longer are cultural products produced for consumers, but new processes arise by which the final product is consumed the very users who are also co-creators of said product. Tim O’Reilly first defined the concept in 2004.
Faro Convention: The reference for the protection and promotion of European cultural heritage (both material and immaterial) adopted by the Council of Europe in 2005 and which went into effect in 2011. The agreement, which is open to all member states, has been ratified by eighteen members.