This article defines social media as: "the movement of community contributions in an effort to help one another." So as the internet develops, it allows eveyone to be a film maker, journalist, critic, historian, raconteur, communicator, etc. Social media are fulfilling the long-held dream of uniting the planet into a world community in which all can quickly and easily communicate with each other. Nice.

Social media is a community each of us can help each other. Providing fresh content, exploring subjects, spreading love, linking, sharing your findings. Communication is the key every one learns and each of us grow and share new applications. We seek the common good.

This was a complete waste of time and print. The article seems like an exploration of ways to contribute to networks, but actually just summarizes the concept of user-participation. For instance, instead of linking to Twitter and explaining what makes a good or bad Tweet, it just skims by mentioning you could repost other's tweets,. There isn't even a link to Twitter. The article see-saws between assuming no social network experience and assuming comprehensive knowledge of network apps like Django. One of the five ways to contribute is "Stay Active", which basically tells you to participate instead of just reading. Really? Participating is a good way to contribute? Simply terrible journalism.