“New spaces, activities and challenges: village kids in the library”

25,081 views

Published on

Bridging Worlds Conference 2008, Singapore
Day Two Track Three
Speaker 2 - Liddy Nevile

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
25,081
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

“New spaces, activities and challenges: village kids in the library”

  1. 1. New Spaces, Activities And Challenges: Village Kids In The Library Liddy NEVILE University of Tsukuba/La Trobe University liddy@sunriseresearch.org Abstract 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? Introduction 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,
  2. 2. 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 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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. Contextualisation 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
  5. 5. engage in such activities or are they just for fun? Social action 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 first set! 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 polish. 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 and Del.icio.us. 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
  6. 6. of tags going on. In particular, ‘intelligent’ automation of their use is becoming important. 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. Social objects 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 another. 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
  7. 7. around 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. (Anderson, 2007) Social software 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 online. 2. It can be syndicated, shared, reused, or remixed, or it facilitates syndication. 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. Social publishing 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
  8. 8. 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. Social inclusion 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. Social computing 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
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. 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. Semantic webbing 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 people. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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. Conclusion 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. References 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 http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why_some_social.html Engestrom, J 2007 NMKForum07: Jyri of Jaiku, Strange Attractor: Picking out patterns in the chaos From http://strange.corante.com/archives/2007/06/13/nmkforum07_jyri_of_jaiku .php 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
  13. 13. at http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/kevin_kelly.html Lankes, D (2008). “If They Build It They Will Come“ From http://quartz.syr.edu/rdlankes/blog/?p=510. Monroy-Hernández, A, (2008). How do Kids Tag? From http://www.slideshare.net/andresmh/how-do-kids-tag-presentation 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- 08/AugSep08_Smith.html Starmer, S, (2008). Single Athletic Female Seeks Single Slender Male: The Marriage of Metadata and Social Media. –From http://www.websocialarchitecture.com/community/metadata/index.htm Stutzman, F. 2006 “Unit Structures: The Network Effect Multiplier, or, Metcalfe's Flaw” From http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2006/07/network- effect-multiplier-or-metcalfes.html Stutzman, F. 2007. “Unit Structures: Social Network Transitions” From http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-network-transitions.html Jennifer Trant, “Social tagging and Folksonomies”. From http://dc2008.de/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/stevedc08-trant.pdf Turner, R, (2008). Self-Organizing for Discovery: Relatedness in User- Generated Content in http://www.websocialarchitecture.com/community/collaboration/ Turner, R, (2007). Self-Organizing for Discovery: Relatedness in User- Generated Content” From http://www.websocialarchitecture.com/community/collaboration/ UN, (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [A/RES/61/106] From http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199

×