Investigative Report - Social Media

Investigative Report - Social Media

• 1.
  LIS 2000 18 October2011 The Rise of Social Media: Following Library 2.0 Principles to Maximize User Satisfaction I. Executive Summary This investigative report examines scholarly articles pertaining to the issue of social media and its relation to libraries. The discussion begins with an examination of Web 2.0 services. Web 2.0 is a user-driven, participatory environment. From Web 2.0 rose a set of principles and services referred to as Library 2.0. Library 2.0 asserts that libraries utilize Web 2.0 technologies to stay relevant in the current Information Age and to provide users with the tools they need to successfully obtain the information they desire. Libraries are achieving this goal by implementing social networking pages, blogs, wikis, IM/chat features, and physical space changes. The adoption of new virtual programs has not been without its problems, including an overwhelming number of options to choose from, making sure to update web services constantly, and privacy concerns. This change is occurring globally, with a push towards information centers focusing on computer stations and communal areas rather than stacks of books. The American Library Association and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions are the main authorities for the promotion of librarianship and the drive to transform libraries into interactive communities. The conclusion reached is that it is essential for libraries to adapt to this new participatory virtual environment to ensure survival for the years to come. Only by meeting users in the online world they are most comfortable in (one in which the users shape their experiences) can libraries effectively serve their patrons.
• 2.
  II. Introduction You see it everywhere: on the bus, in the library, in a coffee shop. Prominent on screens of all devices is that typeface recognized all over the world: Facebook. With an impressive 800 million users and over seventy-five percent of those outside the United States, Facebook seems inescapable (Facebook 2011). Twitter, while not coming close to Facebook‟s active users in numbers, is quickly gaining popularity for its conciseness. We share, we comment, we like, we tweet. Facebook has even become a verb; “I‟ll Facebook you” can often be heard at social events. Facebook and Twitter are just the most popular social networks; there are many others on the Internet. The tide of popularity changes frequently online. One day another social network may rise to replace the giants of today, like how Facebook overran MySpace. The significance is that, no matter the name, social networks are here to stay. The sentiment of connection and community online is now fully ingrained in our societal consciousness. For libraries, as perpetual servers of communities, this presents an opportunity unlike any seen in the field before. Librarians can now connect with and reach out to their users in new and exciting ways. The users have moved to the online community, and to meet their needs, libraries must do the same to remain relevant in the current environment. III. Definition, Key Points, and Relevancy Social media can be defined as “technology that facilitates interactive information, user-created content and collaboration” (Elefant 4). Social media is a key part of the new generation of the web. To understand the trends libraries should follow to communicate with their users, one must first define Web 2.0. This term arrived in 2004 to illustrate the
• 3.
  new functions ofthe World Wide Web. From an unchanging, one-way information route to an innovative, user-driven community, the Web has become ubiquitous with social media with users participating in every aspect of their online presence. Out of this mentality rose Library 2.0. Michael Casey first coined the term on his blog LibraryCrunch and later said that Library 2.0 “should include three elements: constant change, giving library users control through participatory, user-driven services and implementing these to improve and reach out to both present and potential users” (Anttiroiko and Savolainen 91). From a questionnaire of library professionals in Finland participating in a Library 2.0 workshop, researchers identified seven core components to be interactivity, users, participation, libraries and library services, web and web 2.0, social aspects, and technology and tools (Holmberg et al. 675-6). These definitions place emphasis on participation by library users. Users control their experience by giving input and receiving information relevant to their needs and wants. Why should every library adopt a Library 2.0 philosophy? The simple answer is that the users demand it. Libraries see fewer and fewer patrons within their walls because it‟s more convenient to find what they need on their computer at home. Why go all the way to the library when what you need is a click and a second away? This is the mentality of the emerging generations. From children just learning to type to teens addicted to their smart phones, these are the people the library needs to cater to. People are no longer learning technological skills later in life; children are now learning how to utilize technology to their advantage from infancy. A 2007 survey indicated “91% of teens surveyed are using social networking” and “over 50% of teens…have an online profile somewhere” (Sodt and Summey 99). Those numbers are most likely even higher
• 4.
  today. Libraries needto adopt a philosophy that accounts for this change in skillset of their users in order to keep them interested as they grow. Janet Hilbunstresses that “today‟s teens are technologically savvy and use these technologies in a variety of ways” (48). To keep the next generation involved in their libraries, libraries and librarians have to “meet teens where they are – whether it is on a blog, a website, or a social network” (Hilbun 49). Library 2.0 involves a philosophy that accents creating a community for library users through the use of conversation, participation, experience, and sharing (Stephens 255). Open discussion about library policies between librarians and patrons with constant feedback and responses is crucial. Instead of an elitist, exclusionary attitude, the library should involve users directly in the day-to-day activities. This discussion and participation leads to improvements in service. The experience becomes engaging and challenging when the users are learning in an environment they created and influenced. Connections come from the sharing of opinions and library use among community members. Library 2.0 paints the picture of a user community that directly influences its experiences to become the most beneficial it can be. IV. Problems and Solutions The essential nature of a library is its continuing services as an information center. Libraries have the resources and librarians can find them. Patrons have high expectations of what a library can do and “libraries can adopt the Web 2.0 technologies and Library 2.0 philosophies to better serve their customers” (Sodt and Summey 107). With Web 2.0 technologies, libraries can move their information online to provide easy and convenient access. However, there are a multitude of options to do this: social networks, blogs, wikis,
• 5.
  chat, and more.In adopting new programs, libraries ran into the same problem as their patrons: information overload. There are so many different programs available that the choice of how many to include in the library‟s services and which ones became a difficult conundrum that libraries will continue to face for many years to come. Sodt and Summey warn “librarians would go insane trying to adopt and implement everything at once” (107-8). The solution is to pick and choose which programs best serve each library‟s community. Not every social outlet will be ideal for the specific users a library serves. Chu and Meulemans recommend “explor[ing] options and appropriately, minimally integrat[ing] new tools into the existing array of technology used in [the] library” (74). To decide which option is best, user input is essential. Feedback provides accurate ideas of how users are reacting to the programs implemented by the library and helps librarians formulate plans for updating and improving the library‟s online presence. Changing a library‟s procedures, whether electronic or physical, is a process and “libraries must be willing to examine all their services and resources and see what might be discarded” (Sodt and Summey 108). Managing a library‟s online services requires consideration and deliberation. Patrons expect a certain level of innovative technology usage, but “if managers adopt technology too quickly…it can alienate staff and users” (Carpenter and Green 158-9). A library creates an online profile or begins a new blog, but doesn‟t update or regulate the information. This situation poses the problem in the reasoning of many libraries that “if we build it, they will come.” Simply having an online presence is no longer enough. Librarians need to participate in constant upkeep of social profiles or
• 6.
  blogs to provideusers with relevant information. A user won‟t visit a site if the site can‟t meet the user‟s needs. The extensive amount of sharing that is now part of the online experience raises the issues of privacy and confidentiality. Facebook is often criticized for its privacy policies, as the default setting is now the most public one for a user‟s information. In creating online communities where patrons can contribute by writing comments and sharing their personal library use, libraries need to be aware of and sensitive to the privacy of their users. The ALA demands in its Code of Ethics that libraries “protect each library user‟s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted” (ALA). The problem comes with the nature of social networks in that a social network “gains usefulness when you are identifiable…and share information about yourself” (Griffey 35). Libraries have clearly operated under the opposite principle: user information is private. To ensure patron privacy, a library can allow “anonymous comments and tagging within the catalog” and maintain the rule that “library users should not be required to identify themselves publicly in order to participate in virtual services” (Casey and Savastinuk). The most important aspect of bringing the library online is making participation possible for all users. If users don‟t wish to identify themselves, it shouldn‟t prevent them from utilizing all of the library‟s services. Another problem related to privacy is that of minors using online social networks. Serious issues that can result in emotional damage or lead to physical altercations and place a minor in danger,like peer pressure and bullying, have traveled online as well. Libraries have to maintain the safety of their young patrons. The solution of limiting
• 7.
  access to socialnetworks isn‟t a perfect one. It raises another issue in conflict with library principles, which promote free and open access to any information. There is a careful balance to maintain and libraries must use their discretion. V. Current Models Libraries and librarians have Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, blogs, wikis, and more. While still in a transitional phase, libraries are making their online presence known. Social networking sites are used to spread news about library events, inform patrons about important library details, and to communicate directly with patrons via their preferred medium. Facebook started with groups. Libraries could make a group that users could join and then messages could be sent to all the members. Though groups are still on Facebook, pages are now the most popular form of reaching many people at once. Libraries can create Facebook pages that users can like. Liking a page means updates appear in the user‟s daily newsfeed. Utilizing a Facebook page can be a great way to reach users directly with the updates they need to know about the library. Librarians can use their own personal profiles to reach out to users as well. They can use their wall to “answer questions, post items to talk about favorite books, albums to share pictures of library events, and events to share scheduled events like workshops or library classes” (Sodt and Summey 100). Using both a library page and librarians‟ profiles makes sure users have multiple ways to find what they need and contribute to the services of the library. Multiple librarians can manage one uniform library page, ensuring that the page has constant maintenance. Facebook also shows when a person is online, so a user can always know which librarian can be reached at the moment of need. Facebook can also help students with their academic career by “remind[ing] students of the library services
• 8.
  and resources availableto support their academic success – from expert research help to additional study hours” (Chu and Meulemans 81). Third-party programmers can create applications to use on Facebook, which some libraries have implemented. Application development has been mostly used to create catalog-searching apps. The library of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has an application that uses the library‟s search assistant. Patrons can find out what the library owns on Facebook (Sodt and Summey 100). Twitter use is on the rise. Twitter accounts are great ways for libraries to give brief statements about current happenings in the library. Followers aren‟t overwhelmed by information they don‟t need at the time; they just get an immediate idea of events they might be interested in. Both of these sites serve as promotional opportunities to “create awareness of library services and events” (Chu and Meulemans 82). Wikis can be great resources for students to consult when conducting research or writing papers. Librarians can fill wikis with “FAQs, hard-to-answer questions,…and possibly links to online reference resources” (Sodt and Summey 102). Wikis store answers to questions students may have during their academic careers in an easy to access location. Pitt‟s LibGuides are an implementation of the Wiki idea. LibGuides provide links to databases by subject for easy searching. It can become overwhelming to try and search through all of the databases Pitt subscribes to; subject-specific lists narrow the search pool to the sources most likely to be useful. There are also class-specific LibGuides that are resources to consult during the semester; these will definitely come in handy for that class‟s assignments. Currently there isn‟t a huge number of LibGuides, and
• 9.
  they certainly don‟tcover everything relevant to attending classes at Pitt, but librarians are working on improving and adding to these guides. Blogs are an informal way for librarians to collaborate to share information with their users. Users can get different points of view from multiple librarians who have diverse interests and writing styles. Users can also contribute with comments that can lead to intelligent discussions. Blogs often have space to include other features like calendars or widgets. Library blogs can be about anything: library news, book recommendations, or advertising for new library resources (Sodt and Summey 103). WordPress and Blogger are two completely free blog platforms that are extremely popular. Librarians can design the blog in almost any way they wish without needing to know HTML or other coding languages. RSS feeds are commonly used as well. RSS (Rich Site Summary) “allows people to subscribe to web sites, blogs, podcasts, or anything else that provides a feed” (Sodt and Summey 104). This is extremely convenient for users, who choose the information they want frequently and don‟t have to worry about visiting every site they like all the time. Social bookmarking is a similar idea. The most popular bookmarking site is del.icio.us, where users can save links to their favorite sites in one place. The best part of del.icio.us accounts is that they can be accessed from any device. Librarians can use a del.icio.us account to provide expert opinions on important and valuable sites. Libraries are also changing the way they handle requests and inter-library loans to include Library 2.0 principles. In-demand purchasing benefits libraries and users. Libraries don‟t need to waste money on items that no one uses and users get exactly what they want. This indicates a move towards “a more patron-driven selection process, using
• 10.
  interlibrary loan requestsas a collection development tool” (Sodt and Summey 106). Direct patron participation in collection development increases user satisfaction. Traditional reference services were provided by a reference librarian manning a physical desk in a (hopefully) convenient location in the library with limited hours. Reference services are making the move online with a virtual desk. IM programs like Meebo let libraries have a widget wherever they want on their webpage. Multiple IM sessions can be maintained at once. While synchronous communication is convenient and easy to follow when conducting research, librarians can also be reached by email for reference needs. IM lets patrons reach their librarians from the comfort of their home. Utilizing this service is key for libraries that want to appeal to the next generation; surveys indicate that “80% of young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 use IM on a daily basis” (Sodt and Summey 107). Virtual services aren‟t the only areas libraries are changing. Libraries are redefining their physical space so that patrons can better utilize it. Library 2.0 asserts that libraries should follow the wants and needs of patrons and physical space is a tool libraries can use to do so. The focus of the library is no longer the stacks, which are being moved or emptied to make room for communal spaces when patrons can interact. Computer workstations are now dominating the library, with tables and chairs near convenient outlet access. VI. Research A plethora of studies about social media and libraries exists, but three will be highlighted in this report: one from the perspective of librarians and two from the perspective of users. The first is a study concerned with Facebook and academic libraries.
• 11.
  244 academic librariansin the United States were surveyed to find out about “the practical effect Facebook has had on libraries, as well as librarians‟ perspectives, perceived roles associated with, and awareness of Internet social trends and their place in the library” (Charnigo and Barnett-Ellis 24). 126 librarians returned the survey. The results indicated that the majority knew about Facebook, didn‟t think that Facebook had an effect on other library services, and had no particular like or dislike of the website. A small number were enthusiastic about the potential of using Facebook for the library. As this survey was conducted in 2007, these opinions seem to be outdated. It would be interesting to see the results of the same study today. The awareness of Facebook would certainly be higher and the enthusiasm for utilizing Facebook to reach students would probably be as well. Another study was conducted at Sam Houston State University (SHSU) to aid library service development by determining student usage of various technologies. About 37% of the student body, including undergraduate and graduate students, was surveyed. The results were as follows: 97% had Internet access at home, 10.5% owned an e-reader, 98.8% owned a mobile device, 21% used Twitter, 16.4% used RSS feeds, 64% used IM services, and 36% listened to podcasts (Cassidy et al.). Interest in library presence on other sites, like Facebook, YouTube, or blogs, ranged from 34-48%. A major point that can be taken from this study is that libraries need to cater to their specific population rather than just following popular trends. Maintaining “excellent core services” must be a focus for libraries because without them, a “flashy library presence in the Web 2.0 world adds little value to the user experience” (Cassidy et al. 390). The authors also stress “what is true for one library may not be true for others” (Cassidy et al. 390).
• 12.
  The final studyexamined member satisfaction in The Commons on Flickr. The Commons consists of libraries, archives, and museums. The Commons has two main goals: “(1) to increase access to publicly held photography collections and (2) to provide a way for the general public to contribute information and knowledge” (Vaughan 186). The Commons “generally highlight archival, historical content…as opposed to contemporary photos” (Vaughan 187). The author surveyed all members of the Commons – twenty-seven at the time of the survey (summer 2009). Issues that were cited were loss of control and context of the photos and staff time needed to monitor the comments, tags, etc. On average, 4.2 people per institution were involved with the Commons with no activity requiring more than ten hours a week. Members chose user-interaction as a main reason for joining the Commons. The majority said that their photos in the Commons were available in another online source. The majority also indicated that the overall popularity of their photos exceeded their expectations. This survey reaffirms the mentality of Library 2.0. The institutions were using Flickr to reach their patrons and more importantly, get their patrons participating and discussing the institutions‟ digital materials. VII. Global View The main trend in international libraries is towards an interactive library experience. The new library utilizes a design “where printed, physical, and traditional materials are presented side by side with digitized, virtual services” (Niegaard 180). These libraries are designed around a common meeting place for users to read or work. Personal immersion in communal knowledge results from these new libraries. Libraries are also being combined with other buildings, like shops and cafés. Japan hosts the
• 13.
  Sendai Médiathèque, whichincludes the library with an “art gallery, cinema, auditorium, and cyber café” (Niegaard 180). The United Kingdom boasts the Idea Stores in London. The Idea Stores melds the library with shopping and social meeting centers. The Idea Store promotes adult education in disadvantaged areas in an informal way (Niegaard 182). Denmark libraries are making strides in interactive and intelligent space. By communicating with users to determine common behaviors, these libraries are combining space and technology through integration of new technologies like touch screens. The Interactive Children‟s Library is a project that “focus[es] on learning and interactivity” (Niegaard 180-1). Denmark is also changing from closed stacks to “open-storage areas with free access for the public” (Niegaard 181). This frees up staff from running back and forth in the stacks and allows users to get their information directly. Denmark libraries are also enthusiastic about 24/7 access. There is “a strong trend in Demark of converting branch libraries into all-day, open self-service local libraries with limited professional librarian assistance, access by magnetic card, and surveillance of activities via closed- circuit television” (Niegaard 182). In countries struggling to join the information age, libraries can be tools to disseminate information about government and allow citizens to become more connected globally. A study of hybrid libraries (libraries with more than one kind of material, i.e. print and digital) in Africa showed that libraries were helping to “bridge the digital divide between the haves and have-nots” (Uutoni et al.). The study focused on Namibia. The authors assert that libraries should be used more for e-governance and should assist in putting more government information online. Many problems exist for Namibian
• 14.
  libraries: building awarenessof e-governance materials, bandwidth issues, infrastructure development, and lack of funding (Uutoni et al.). In Australia, three public libraries of Victoria have implemented Web 2.0 services with success. The Casey-Cardinia Library Corporation (CCLC) created a number of blogs for news and library changes, local history, teens, and book reviews. They also use Flickr for photos of a new branch and a Google Maps mash-up to bring people into their physical locations. They also utilize del.icio.us to provide links to useful sites. The Eastern Regional Libraries (ERL), with thirteen branches, runs a successful events blog, uses LibraryThing for new books added to the catalog, and a user-generated reviews blog. The Frankston Library Service, with only two branches, ran into financial problems so they chose to create a free blog with a fun, informal feel to offset the boring one of their official website (Gosling et al.). VIII. Associations and Publications In the United States, the main authority lies with the American Library Association. The ALA promotes librarianship and has guidelines and codes for everyone involved with libraries to follow. The ALA utilizes Web 2.0 technologies to keep librarians informed of current trends in the library field. Librarians from all over the country can serve on committees and participate in educational discussions of relevant topics. The ALA also often hosts webinars to promote professional development. The Library & Information Technology Association (LITA), a division of the ALA, focuses on emerging technologies (ALA). Members can learn about applications for new technologies. The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) represents the library field worldwide (IFLA).
• 15.
  The ALA hastwo publications relevant to the issue of social media. Library Technology Reports and Smart Libraries Newsletter provide information about integrating new Web 2.0 technologies in libraries (ALA). The IFLA Journal and IFLA Publications Series both deal with how international libraries can promote their services and influence the world (IFLA). Library Trends would also be an authoritative source on current trends in librarianship through in-depth articles (JHU). IX. Conclusion Just as Web 2.0 is the next generation of the World Wide Web, Web 2.0 users are the next generation of library patrons. Libraries need to use these technologies to reach their users and stay relevant in the Information Age. The adaptation from a stacks-based library to a user-driven information center is a continuing process that requires careful decision-making. Libraries are in a crucial period where the decisions made today will affect the future of libraries everywhere. We need to guide a change in society‟s perception of what libraries can do for their communities. There are two major principles that libraries should follow in leading this change. In adopting new technologies, libraries must not rush into it and overwhelm themselves with too many programs. This spreads staff too thin and results in programs that aren‟t updated frequently. Stagnant online presence leads to virtual death with no users visiting the pages or using the services. Libraries need to deliberate and determine which programs best serve their user population. The other principle to follow is to adopt programs that allow user participation. Today‟s user demands the ability to build his or her online environment through customization and direct input. Libraries should consult their patrons through frequent surveys to gain an accurate knowledge of what their users need and desire. The
• 16.
  library field isin transition. New and exciting challenges await those willing to dedicate the effort to keeping libraries an integral part of society.
• 17.
  Works Cited American LibraryAssociation.American Library Association.ALA, n.d. Web. 12 October 2011. www.ala.org. Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko and ReijoSavolainen. “Towards Library 2.0: The Adoption of Web 2.0 Technologies in Public Libraries.” Libri 61.2 (2011): 87-99. Library Literature &Information Science. Web. 9 October 2011. Carpenter, Miranda and Ravonne A. Green. “Managing Library 2.0.” Journal of Access Services 6.1/2 (2009): 158-62. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 October 2011. Casey, Michael E. and Laura C. Savastinuk. “Service for the next-generation library.” Libraryjournal.com. Media Source, Inc. 1 September 2006. Web. 10 October 2011. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html. Cassidy, Erin Dorris, James Britsch, Glenda Griffin, Tyler Manolovitz, Lisa Shen, and Linda Turney. “Higher Education and Emerging Technologies: Student Usage, Preferences, and Lessons for Library Services.” Reference & User Services Quarterly50.4 (2011): 380-91. Library Literature &Information Science. Web. 9 October 2011. Charnigo, Laurie and Paula Barnett-Ellis. “Checking out Facebook.com: The Impact of a Digital Trend on Academic Libraries.” Information Technology & Libraries 26.1 (2007): 23-34. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 October 2011. Chu, Melanie and Yvonne NalaniMeulemans. “The Problems and Potential of MySpace and Facebook Usage in Academic Libraries.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 13.1 (2008): 69-85. Academic Search Premier. Web. 9 October 2011.
• 18.
  Elefant, Carolyn. “THE„POWER‟ OF SOCIAL MEDIA: LEGAL ISSUES & BEST PRACTICES FOR UTILITIES ENGAGING SOCIAL MEDIA.” Energy Law Journal 32.1 (2011): 1-56. Business Source Complete. Web. 12 October 2011. Facebook. Statistics. Facebook, 2011. Web. 9 October 2011. https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Gosling, Maryanne, Glenn Harper, and Michelle McLean. “Public library 2.0: some Australian experiences.” The Electronic Library 27.5 (2009): 846-55. Academic OneFile. Web. 11 October 2011. Griffey, Jason. “Social Networking and the Library.” Library Technology Reports 46.8 (2010): 34-7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 October 2011. Hilbun, Janet. “Using Social Networking to Connect Teens with Young Adult Literature.” Public Libraries 50.3 (2011): 42-9. Library Literature &Information Science. Web. 10 October 2011. Holmberg, Kim, IstoHuvila, Maria Kronqvist-Berg, and GunillaWidén-Wulff. “What is Library 2.0?” Journal of Documentation 65.4 (2009): 668-81. Web. 12 October 2011. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.IFLA. IFLA, n.d. Web. 12 October 2011. www.ifla.org. John Hopkins University. The John Hopkins University Press: Journals. JHU, n.d. Web. 12 October 2011. http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/library_trends/. Niegaard, Hellen. “Library Space and Digital Challenges.” Library Trends 60.1 (2011): 174-189. Project Muse. Web. 9 October 2011.
• 19.
  Sodt, Jill M.and Terri Pedersen Summey. “Beyond the Library‟s Walls: Using Library 2.0 Tools to Reach Out to All Users.” Journal of Library Administration 49.1/2 (2009): 97-109. Library Literature &Information Science. Web. 9 October 2011. Stephens, Michael and Maria Collins. “Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the Hyperlinked Library.” Serials Review 33.4 (2007): 253-6. ScienceDirect. Web. 9 October 2011. Uutoni, Wilhelm, Wilson Yule, and Cathrine T. Nengomasha. “Electronic governance and hybrid libraries in Namibia.” IFLA Journal 37.2 (2011): 118-25. Library Literature &Information Science. Web. 10 October 2011. Vaughan, Jason. “Insights in The Commons on Flickr.” Libraries and the Academy 10.2 (2010): 185-214. Project Muse. Web. 9 October 2011.
• 20.
  Bibliography Connaway, Lynn Silipigni,Timothy J. Dickey, and Marie L. Radford. “‟If It Is Too Inconvenient, I‟m Not Going After It‟: Convenience as a Critical Factor in Information-seeking Behaviors.” Library and Information Science Research 33 (2011): 179-190.Web. 31 August 2011. Cordova, Memo and Amy Vecchione. “SPLAT: Innovative Collaboration in Idaho‟s Libraries.” Journal of Library Innovation 2.1 (2011): 8-19. Academic OneFile. Web. 11 October 2011. Fischer, Gerhard. “End User Development and Meta-Design: Foundations for Cultures of Participation.” Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 22.1 (2010): 52-82.Academic OneFile. Web. 11 October 2011. Joint, Nicholas. “The Web 2.0 challenge to libraries.” Library Review 58.3 (2009): 167- 75. Academic OneFile. Web. 11 October 2011. King, David Lee and Stephanie Willen Brown. “Emerging Trends, 2.0, and Libraries.” The Serials Librarian 56.1-4 (2009): 32-43. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 October 2011. Maness, Jack M. “Library 2.0: The next generation of Web-based library services.” LOGOS: The Journal of the World Book Community 17.3 (2006): 139-45. Ingentaconnect. Web. 10 October 2011.