“New spaces, activities and challenges: village kids in the library”
New Spaces, Activities And Challenges:
Village Kids In The Library
University of Tsukuba/La Trobe University
The great thing about humans is that they respond and act in the moment.
The great thing about standards is that they offer stability and predictability,
which also means interoperability. Librarians and library standards; users and
tags; cheese and chalk, what is the best metaphor? Quantity has qualities to
be exploited but at what price? We harnessed the early waves of Web content
with metadata and now we need to harness the waves of metadata. Social
tagging is proving to be very contextual, as is the traditional librarian’s
advice. Is it time to recognize a role for the Semantic Web, to engage more
with the ‘webbing’ that holds the content and provides the environment for
the users? Is the webbing likely to be capable of offering the
contextualisation we need?
In this paper, I adopt the terminology of the future-smart thinker Kevin Kelly
and anticipate the ‘one’. The one is where we are headed with all our
technologies, according to Kelly (2007). He considers that as we embed more
in what is now the Web of technology, we are actually developing a single,
enormous system. It is where we will find what we have and where we will be
found. No longer will we be knitting and linking and making the Web, we will
be it, connected.
In this paper, I luxuriate in the opportunity to play with new ideas in the
emerging technological context. I want to start with some scenarios and see if
we can deduce from them some of the big questions for future libraries. I
hope I can bring all the threads together by the end of the paper.
Scholarly or academic?
My first point of concern was brought to mind recently by the following:
(1) Do not conflate the question of what to CITE -- that is always the
canonical published work itself, if the work is published -- with the
question of what version of it you managed to ACCESS.
(2) If you cannot afford access to the publisher's proprietary version,
then you access the OA version deposited in the OA Repository, but you
always cite the published work (and, preferentially, add the URL of the
accessed version too).
That's it. (Harnad, 2008)
This is a response to a typical question raised by the new publishing medium.
In a traditional library, it would be the book, freely available on a shelf, with
a page on which the material being cited was firmly located. Today,
publication is repeated across versions; there are questions of authority and
access rights, and there are problems with perceptual accessibility, especially
for people with permanent disabilities.
What is ‘published’? The original legal definitions are challenged by practices
on the Web in which authors make content available, sometimes in seemingly
formal ways such as on orderly Web sites, only to find they are accessed
through reproduction, via ‘back door’ locators such as Google, or otherwise.
There is a challenge for content creators, especially modern ‘scholars,’ when
many of the authors of interest give immediate access to their thoughts and
work, avoiding the traditional slow ‘quality’ review processes. They want
their work published and disseminated so they make it available for free.
An online article or blog posting is usually published with facilities for
immediate discussion and criticism. This can be contrasted with the
publication of an academic paper. Which is more scholarly? Not all libraries
are concerned with what might be called scholarly works, but they are all
concerned with quality, and that is at issue here.
This is just one way in which quantity is replacing quality. There is a serious
question about the quality of quantity raised in this context.
Scratch is, at one level, a programming language for children. It provides
simple facilities for the programming of media through the use of Lego-like
blocks of code that click together if syntactically appropriate.
Scratch was designed originally for use by under-served children in informal
learning contexts, such as after-school computer clubs. It aims to attract at
least children in the age range 8 to 14. In fact, the Scratch community is a
global online community of approximately 160,000 currently registered
participants. Their ages range from very young to quite old and the
community includes expert computer scientists and programmers but mostly
those for whom it was intended.
Scratch users download a free programming language and build interactive
animations that they ‘share’ by publishing them on the Scratch Web site,
often without saving them on their own computers. Use of the Web site is an
integral part of the Scratch experience.
As its originator Mitchel Resnick (2008) says, quot;Scratch makes it easy to
program your own interactive stories, games, and animations -- and share
your creations on the Web. As you create and share projects with Scratch,
you learn to think creatively, analyze systematically, and work
collaboratively.quot; Scratch assumes social networking and collaborative work. It
facilitates the re-use of others’ programs and offers online sharing at the
click of an on-screen button. The Scratch Web site insists that all work carries
a Creative Commons licence.
When a project is shared on the Scratch Web site, it is immediately displayed
as a working program, being converted from the original Scratch programming
language to a Java applet for display, and available like a YouTube object,
but interactive. All projects can be downloaded, all programs are open for
inspection, all programming commands can be switched to another language,
and all programs can be immediately re-used, further developed, and re-
loaded on the Web site where they appear with their heritage recorded.
A Scratch librarian faces a difficult problem when it comes to cataloguing
Scratch projects, as they are called. The audience for Scratch projects is the
development team, young people who make Scratch projects, teachers who
encourage them, educators who want to use Scratch, and researchers who are
interested in what the young people are building and what they are doing
with their projects and shared online environment. These communities have
very different ideas about what is of value in a Scratch project.
A single catalogue record, or metadata file, is unlikely to be useful to such a
spread of audience interests but what sort of catalogue records would be
useful? Who might produce them when a new project is posted every few
minutes, 24 hours a day? Which projects should be catalogued? Why? And
what is important about the projects?
Access For All
Most thinking people are aware that the Web has made life very difficult for
many people with permanent disabilities. The use of the ‘mouse’ or a track-
pad to drive the cursor is problematic for elderly people, and the cursor’s
position is not available for those with vision-disabilities. Multimedia is not
always useful but similarly, too much text or other things on the screen at
once can be confusing for some people, especially those with dyslexia.
The United Nations has a new convention (UN, 2006) that calls for inclusive
societies in which people with permanent disabilities are not distinguished.
Everyone suffers from lack of accessibility to online content when they
cannot hear, or see or manipulate the computer controls, whatever the
cause. The standards for making resources so they can be used by everyone
are imperfect and they are very rarely applied so that less than 3% of even
resources required by everyone are accessible to everyone.
Universal access is unobtainable but does the individual care? A user is surely
interested only in whether they can find a resource they can use. At any given
time, they have needs and preferences to be matched with resources that
satisfy them. Descriptions of those needs and preferences and the
characteristics of relevance of resources are needed for the matching
process. These are being standardised as AccessForAll metadata but how can
the needed resources be discovered on the Web? If an original search does not
find them, how can more searching be done to find them? Can a ‘see similar’
approach be generated to find what was missed the first time? Who will
create the necessary metadata?
One laptop per child, or per teacher
In parts of rural Cambodia, children and their teachers all have computers.
They have no electricity in their village but they have a generator and they
have wireless connections to the Web. The teachers struggle to teach
subjects, including English, that they do not know themselves. There are
almost no books, paper, or native English speakers. The authoritarian
pedagogies of the past are carried forward as all the teachers know.
Creativity is rare.
Many Cambodian kids are learning to Scratch, to program and take pride in
their work. They love to read and write but they have only their computers
for these activities. Like all children, they are hungry for learning but need a
variety of activities to extend their skills. There’s so much literature online it
should not be a problem, but how do they find it? What do they do when most
suitable resources they find are not for free? What do they know to look for?
How do they understand stories about worlds they cannot imagine? Why would
they want to read about lives that are totally irrelevant to them? How can
they learn the vocabulary when they have no assistance from their teachers
who are also struggling?
Many Asian languages are still not well-served online. The resources available
for children are not yet sufficiently plentiful. ‘Globish’ is the common
language across Asia and clearly the key to access to online educational
opportunities. While this form of limited English is very effective for
communication, it is rarely spoken by native English speakers who use a wide
vocabulary, often forget to constantly check their listeners are understanding
what is being said, and don’t use supplementary body language.
‘glish is a new project that aims to solve some of these problems, but can
only do so by engaging users to build the library that’s needed.
The four scenarios above all call for responsive librarians, people who can
understand the context and the user requirements and offer the users just
what they need, when they need it. Sadly, although such assistance might be
available in a physical library, it is too often lacking online.
What kind of library is needed? Or is it: “What kinds of libraries are needed? Is
the approach need for building contextually relevant libraries online any
different when it is a library for rural village kids, or for the urban elderly, or
those with special needs or small mobile devices?
Online cultural societies
It is tempting to ask what we can learn from online social networking. What
are the important ingredients of success? What is the longevity of what is
being demonstrated by the new social sites? Should cultural institutions
engage in such activities or are they just for fun?
On the Scratch Web site, there are tagging facilities and there is a tag-cloud
display; there are categories of projects allowing participants to form
galleries (collections) of favoured projects; there is a set of recommended
projects; there are facilities for comments about projects and a range of
interactive forums and resources to support Scratch users. It is interesting to
see what young people do with new technologies.
In the Scratch community, young people have found they can influence the
way the community works by using comments and tags. If a tag starts to show
up frequently, it signifies some sort of ‘fashion’, it seems, and the young
people produce projects that further support the fashion (Monroy-Hernández,
2008). It is interesting that to participate, the young people have to do some
serious work. This is very different from what happens on sites where, by
comparison, the focus is on accumulating commodities (photos, or
acquaintances) or where the interactions seem to be ego-centric chatter.
The Scratch site demonstrates the young people’s capacity for content
creation. Their comments, tags and interactions with existing content show
they can contribute to the metadata soup. I think of this as social activity.
Jennifer Trant (2008) reports from a very different context, the STEVE
project. There fine art communities were invited to tag paintings and
photographs held in major museums. One observation of interest was that
taggers from the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met, New York) appeared to be
people who would otherwise be contributors to the museum and who may
well have tagged everything offered as a way of ‘doing their bit’, fulfilling
their duty. In general, the STEVE taggers were not so diligent, but members
from the Met group asked for more things to tag when they had ‘finished’ the
While tagging does have something to do with information management
activities, it is also clearly associated with social action.
Tagging was a hot topic a few years ago. Gene Smith (2008) has found it is
still. He suggests four trends that point to tagging’s future.
1. More structure. Uncontrolled vocabularies are being replaced by
tagging systems that understand the difference between Polish and
2. Automanual folksonomies. Some tagging systems combine algorithmic
and manual approaches, closing the gap between what we might call
traditional information structures and the emergent structure of Flickr
3. Leveraging communities. Some systems have their users help reduce
the noise and eliminate meaningless duplication in their tags.
4. User-generated innovation. Tags have developed into a cheap and easy
way for people to innovate on top of a web application.
Smith’s observations suggest that there is more than the mere accumulation
of tags going on. In particular, ‘intelligent’ automation of their use is
Ryan Turner suggests that there is value in tags as pivots. Turner reminds us
of the role a reference to a book on a shelf plays when it takes us to a
general area and we then browse along the shelf for something more relevant
to our purpose. When a user finds a resource on the Web that is not quite
what they want, but which is accompanied by references to other resources
that might be, the initial resource is known as a pivot. Tags can be used to
identify those other resources. Like Google search results, however, tags can
be ‘too’ good and produce too many suggestions.
Tagging is thus an important activity for users. It provides opportunities for
some of the social action that binds them to sites. Harnessing the efforts of
taggers and the vast number of tags, however, is dependent on automation to
get real informational value.
Sebastian Chan (2008) of the Australian PowerHouse Museum says that in 2006
the Museum opened its catalogue in several ways, including giving more
access to what might have once been internal curatorial information. Google
has picked this up and the visitations to the Web site have changed
significantly. Compared with before, he says, there is much more visiting of
online collections, it comes more often from overseas, and it is more
detailed. He says this means more curatorial work for the staff but it has
given significant value to the ‘long tail’ of the collections in the Museum.
A number of other writers have focused on the role of the resources in the
social network, drawing a distinction between ego-centric and object-centric
social networks. The writers often use the term ‘migration’ to represent the
abandonment of intense interaction with one site to similar interaction with
Fred Stutzman (2007) wrote:
Object-centric social networks offer core value, which is multiplied by
network value. A great photo-hosting service like Flickr stands alone
without the network, making it less susceptible to migration. An ego-
centic network, on the other hand, has limited core-value - it's [sic]
value is largely in the network - making it highly susceptible to
migration. We see this with Myspace: individuals lose little in terms of
affordances when they migrate from Myspace to Facebook, making the
main chore of migration network-reestablishment, a chore made ever-
simpler as the migration cascade continues. (Stutzman, 2007)
Stutzman (2006, 2007) is suggesting that site ‘stickiness’ depends on the
value of the objects in the network, design of the network, the facilities
available, the quality of the activities, etc. Jyri Engestrom (2005) points out
that people alone don’t make a social network. He says social networking
involves people connecting to people around objects, In 2007 he reported five
principles relating to effective social network design:
1. You should be able to define the social object your service is built
2. Define your verbs that your users perform on the objects. For instance,
eBay has buy and sell buttons. It's clear what the site is for.
3. How can people share the objects?
4. Turn invitations into gifts
5. Charge the publishers, not the spectators. He learned this from Joi Ito.
There will be a day when people don't pay to download or consume
music but [for] the opportunity to publish their playlists online.
A common way to think about the Web is to think in terms of the technology
and quantity of content. This is essential but not sufficient thinking.
Marian Farkus quotes Tom Coates as saying:
social software is defined as a tool that must meet at least two of the
three following conditions:
1. It allows people to communicate, collaborate, and build community
2. It can be syndicated, shared, reused, or remixed, or it facilitates
3. It lets people learn easily from and capitalize on the behavior or
knowledge of others. (Farkas, 2007, p.1)
Many others talk about social software. This is not quite the same as the
collaboration software of the recent past, or ‘CSCW’ – computer support for
collaborative work. Collaboration among a small group has qualities that
distinguish it from individual work or cooperative work, but does not usually
refer to situations in which the combined effort is spread across seriously
large numbers of people, where quantity becomes a factor. Social software is
the technology that enables collaboration between individuals and crowds.
The publication within a site of users’ input has been dubbed ‘crowd
sourcing’ by John Allsopp (2008).
Crowdsourcing (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing). Wikipedia is
probably the best known example of crowdsourcing - where a loosely
organised group of individuals contributes something to a much larger,
more complex project. To me, this will perhaps be the most significant
step in the evolution of the web and will affect every aspect of our lives.
Crowdsourcing is not a homogenous technique. Some sites, such as Flickr,
achieve a certain ‘stickiness’ by making users dependent on the site for
access to their own resources, increasing the value of them by adding social
networking products such as tags and links. Other sites, such as wikipedia,
offer a certain measure of scholarly (or ‘vanity’) publishing, combined in that
case with the quantity value that even when the content is not peer quality
reviewed, it is quantity reviewed. The Scratch site wraps investment around
the projects published on the site by encouraging reuse of projects, or, as
they describe it, collaboration. At the museum cited by Trant (2008), where
users felt they were fulfilling some sort of duty, it was the relationship with
the cultural institution and the society that represented that bound the users
to the task, maybe even more than the paintings themselves.
The Open University in the United Kingdom is more than 50 years old. It was
the first major free pubic tertiary institution. It published its course materials
for free over the British television network. Students enrolled, if they chose,
to get qualifications. Students were supported locally by fellow students and
tutors, and received additional printed materials and submitted work by post.
Using TV this way made it a ‘disruptive technology’ (for a second time). Many
members of the public who had failed at school engaged with subjects they
would never have expected to enjoy, such as mathematics, and many people
with disabilities who could not otherwise participate in formal education
were able to gain qualifications. Given the number of people who had been
under-served during the war years, this made an enormous difference to the
educational level of the British population.
Inclusion of people with other than the expected needs and preferences is
increasingly becoming important to everyone. As we age, we seem to acquire
new needs; as we extend our interactions with a broader spectrum of the
community, we encounter new needs; as we become more mobile, we
experience new needs. The range of needs for the general public, more
closely than ever, is matching the needs of those with permanent disabilities.
As with curb-cuts – we can all benefit from designs that are inclusive.
But what we can’t do successfully, is categorise people’s needs and decide
for them what they need. The best we can do is make everything as versatile
as possible and then support individual’s choice with respect to satisfaction of
their needs. We must always bear in mind that some people do not have
choices, they have needs, while others may be able to work with preferences
among a range of choices.
The AccessForAll approach to accessibility depends upon social awareness and
social technologies. In the first place, it depends upon the publication of
resources in a range of formats, so that users have a choice of perceptual
modes of interaction with available resources. It then needs resources or
their components to be tagged appropriately so their classifications can be
used. Finally, it depends on technologies that can associate resource
components with user needs and preferences, and match them automatically.
Samantha Starmer (2008) says, “social computing is a social structure in
which technology puts power in communities, not institutions” For some time
the word social has been attached to tagging but it has meant little more
than informal, or user as opposed to provider, it seems.
Starmer’s sociological perspective asserts society is altered by social
computing. Chan has indicated that, as far as the PowerHouse is concerned,
the role of the Museum as a cultural institution is challenged. Other
researchers and commentators support Starmer’s view of social computing as
a ‘disruptive technology’. But as we have seen, it is not the technology, the
software alone that makes the difference. It is the combination of effective
enabling technologies and their use in a context that makes the difference.
Libraries as online information societies
There are many practical questions that obviously are implied by any online
initiatives, so evaluation and caution are important for cultural institutions in
ways that may not be so relevant to the ‘dot-coms’.
Cultural institutions have responsibilities relating to legacy physical
collections. These are unlikely to change in the future and they are generally
not important to the dot-coms. What responsibilities cultural institutions will
have with respect to new materials, given that in many cases they do not
actually ‘hold’ them, is an interesting question. For some institutions, digital
preservation is a major challenge and responsibility but if we think in terms
of the library and its clients as users of available resources, there may well be
different questions relating to preservation and responsibility.
We have learned that there Is a capacity for incredible levels of social
engagement with social objects online. We have also seen examples of
migration of that engagement (recently from Facebook to Twitter and now
back to the new Facebook). Fundamentally, the old principles still apply: it’s
what you’ve got and what services you offer. But there are some new ones:
what you let other people do; how much ownership and control you give
them; how much you amplify their capabilities, and especially how much
investment they have in your site being some of the major ones.
Abandoning Flickr means abandoning one’s photographs, and few are likely to
want to do that. It is not clear how community feelings of trust will change
when one such major site decides to abandon them, the users, however. So
herein lies a major opportunity for the cultural institutions.
If cultural institutions are responsible for collecting, maintaining and
preserving culture, perhaps they can see themselves as potentially the major
players who can assume the roles the dot-coms are now exploring?
We, as users, usually know little, in fact, about the privacy, security and
longevity of our social objects and seem to be fairly reckless in this respect to
date. Events such as the 9/11 attacks, the bombing of the treasures in
Baghdad and the recent collapse of some financial institutions’ should have
alerted us to the vulnerability of what we so often take for granted.
In the future, we are going to need more trustworthy facilities than will be
offered by fly-by-night dot-coms. We are also going to want better services.
Today’s scholars appreciate the services they currently get from their
libraries but few of them would not also dip into some of the new spaces like
Flickr, SlideShare, Google Docs, and open publishing sites. Online resource
users who might never have used a library catalogue to find a resource are
working regularly with search facilities that require increasing levels of skill
to produce worthy results.
Web librarians might be thought of as a new breed. Maybe, but they need
many of the skills and expertise of librarians of the past. When Sebastian
Chan (2008) talks about the statistics he uses to tweak the Web site of the
PowerHouse, we learn a number of things. First, we hear someone talking
about the sorts of concerns with respect to information that librarians have
specialised in for years. Secondly, we learn that there is information in places
we may not previously have been seeking it that can be used to great
advantage. Chan is very Web statistics literate. This suggests that future
online librarians might need not only to know their technology, but to use it
extensively to gather information about what users do, to trigger new
developments in their services. Doing this well will depend upon being able to
use the Web technology to gather the necessary information, of course, as
well as knowing how to interpret it. Thirdly, Chan has to be able to adapt the
site to the changes he wants. A fixed, ‘hard’ structure will not admit of such
tweaking and opportunities may well be lost because of that. This need is
confirmed also by the work of Andrés Monroy-Hernándus and the Scratch site
that can be adapted in minutes when new opportunities arise. In fact,
museologists gathered at the 2008 Museums and the Web Conference formed
a chorus in calling for a closer connection between user information services
and technologists, lamenting the separation and out-sourcing management
strategies of recent times. They felt strongly that without a strong
background in what was possible, their content service providers could not
adequately interpret user needs and respond to them. It is unlikely that this is
not also true in the library world.
Most of all, from Chan we learn that what is happening social computing in
the Web site area is remarkably like library work.
We are also led to the connection between both the objects and the work of
the range of cultural institutions. Marian Farkas (2007) sees social software as
enabling this, among other things.
Exploiting social computing will make significant demands on the technology.
As Kelly’s prediction suggests, the Web is becoming one, in which we are all a
part, alongside our devices, our objects (physical and digital) and the web of
interactions and information that we currently recognise as the Web.
This binding technology is crucial to the network effect referred to before.
While it is true that the more people who contribute, the more there is
available for working with, unless there is an effective binding agent, the
‘one’ will be an archipelago of disconnected and invisible objects, ideas and
Understanding the role of semantic organization of information is a technical
skill that is in short supply in current times. There is a lot of quantitative
organization, as we might characterise Google, but there are still many
problems increasing the qualitative organization of resources on the Web. In
particular, the role of interoperability of semantic organisational systems is
crucial to the effectiveness of the webbing that binds the resources.
The quantity issue is significant in this context. 10,000 resources that may be
relevant are not as useful as a couple that are relevant, let alone those that
command greater trust than others. Quality descriptions are more likely to
provide access to answers to problems than quantity matches in many cases,
although Google has shown otherwise in some cases. It is obvious that
machine comparison and analysis of millions of translations of expressions
from one language to another can give very good indication of what the
expression might mean in the second language, and so here quantity is a
useful alternative to quality.
Automation of the process of linking information semantically depends u[on
being able to ‘communicate’ the semantics, or meaning, to a computer.
Currently, this in turn depends in large part of what is called a pidgin
language (Baker, 2000). Semantically rich statements have to be reduced to
simple, atomic assertions, meaning that any human-comprehensible
statement may have to be ‘reduced’ to 10 or more very simple, computer-
manageable statements. So far this has only been done in any significant way
with three part statements such as “This-resource has-property-of-author
JaneSmith”. Such statements can be usefully constrained for particular
purposes (e.g. only relate a property of one resource to that of another by
relating a resource to another and then describing that resource (Dublin Core
Abstract Model, 2007), but not usefully extended beyond the basic three
parts. Such rules mean that all constrained statements are immediately
compatible (interoperable) with those that are not constrained in any way.
If such rules are observed, Web computers can now make inferences, check
the meaning of terms used, and they can contribute to the information
available on the Web. By making the relationship between objects, and
objects and their properties, and properties themsleves, the Semantic Web
exploits the quantity quality of the Web, and, by boring repetition of simple
logic inferences, adds richness to the objects by amplifying their connections.
The Semantic Web thus contributes objects for social computing, increases
access to them, and supports the use of objects in social computing.
Online library metadesign
Dave Lankes (2008) says that
No matter how many users one talks to in designing a system, there
will be a gulf between what a user wants and what a system can do.
The belief that users even know what they want, or that somehow a
library can correctly interpret the needs of users is at best
presumptuous. To truly build systems that met the needs of users, we
must let them build these systems directly. By transforming our library
systems into participatory systems, not only do we better meet the
needs of our patrons, we also build systems that reflect the core
principles of librarianship — getting away from simply adopting new
technologies developed in other fields.
This can be interpreted as a challenging call for librarians because it suggests
that libraries should engage not just in designing better library services for
the new environments, but they should design environments in which users
can design the services they want. Such a concept is not new. Meta-design
has been considered for some time as an important role for technology
architects (Fischer & Giaccardi, 2006). Meta-design puts the emphasis on the
design of capabilities rather than their performance. This calls for high-level
understanding of those functions. It’s hard to imagine any group in the
community better equipped or challenged to think about what functions
might be useful to users with respect to objects than librarians. On the other
hand, it does assume that librarians will be adding significant technological
skill to their repertoire.
This paper has raised a number of questions and provided few answers to
them It seems that there is a significant role for expert development of social
computing by libraries. It is necessary to add that such a role cannot be
defined simply by the performance of traditional library duties online so much
as by the development of what might be thought of as library social services
within the context of social computing. This assumes the Semantic Web
technology, and substantial work to be done by it, as well as the input of the
users, who form the societies that will contribute much of the content and
connections between it, one way or another.
Allsopp, J, (2008) quoted in “Dopple your fun” - Nick Galvin - August 18,
2008. From http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/life-on-the-
edge/2008/08/16/1218307304122.html?page=fullpage - contentSwap2
Baker, T. (2000). “A Grammar of Dublin Core,” in D-Lib Magazine, vol. 6, no.
10. From http://dlib.anu.edu.au/dlib/october00/baker/10baker.html
Chan, S., Tagging and Searching – Serendipity and museum collection
databases. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2007:
Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 31,
2007 at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/chan/chan.html
Engestrom, J 2005 “ Why some social network services work and others don't
Or: the case for object-centered sociality” From
Engestrom, J 2007 NMKForum07: Jyri of Jaiku, Strange Attractor: Picking out
patterns in the chaos From
Farkas, M. G. (2007). Social software in libraries: building collaboration,
communication, and community Online. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.
Fischer, G., & Giaccardi, E. (2006). Meta-Design: A Framework for the Future
of End User Development. In H. Lieberman, F. Paterno & V. Wulf (Eds.), End
User Development: Empowering people to flexibly employ advanced
information and communication technology (pp. 427-458). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harnad, S (2008). . Re: Author's final draft and citing 30 September 2008.
Email received by author 30 September 2008.
Kelly, K. (2007). The Next 5000 days of the Web. Talk posted on TED. Online
Lankes, D (2008). “If They Build It They Will Come“ From
Monroy-Hernández, A, (2008). How do Kids Tag? From
Resnick, M, (2008). Private communications.Smith, G (2008). Asis&T- The
information Society for the Information Age: Tagging: Emerging Trends,
Bulletin, August/September 2008 From http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Aug-
Starmer, S, (2008). Single Athletic Female Seeks Single Slender Male: The
Marriage of Metadata and Social Media. –From
Stutzman, F. 2006 “Unit Structures: The Network Effect Multiplier, or,
Metcalfe's Flaw” From http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2006/07/network-
Stutzman, F. 2007. “Unit Structures: Social Network Transitions” From
Jennifer Trant, “Social tagging and Folksonomies”. From
Turner, R, (2008). Self-Organizing for Discovery: Relatedness in User-
Generated Content in
Turner, R, (2007). Self-Organizing for Discovery: Relatedness in User-
Generated Content” From
UN, (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
[A/RES/61/106] From http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199