Social Software and Community Learning: Leveling the Playing Field

Social Software and Community Learning:  Leveling the Playing Field Joel C. Yuvienco De La Salle-Canlubang Philippines Tel: (+632)6700.1111 email: joel.yuvienco@gmail.com Abstract This paper is a broad stroke attempt to weave together the theories, tools and techniques underlying the popularity of Social Software and how it can be used to enable collaborative learning and community knowledge management.  Following a review of prior studies focusing on broad features and functionalities of Social Software Applications, we take a look at current practices in formal education environment. A case is made of the application of social software in undergraduate college courses. In the process, essential learner skill sets that are emerging vis-à-vis the Social Software toolsets will be identified. An evaluation of emerging features of Social Software that enhances the user-empowerment will be discussed. Finally, implications for the informal learning environment, particularly for civic engagement, will be explored. Keywords: Social Software, Education, Community Learning Introduction Social Software means different things to different people. A Google search on February 5, 2007, returned 709 entries on the keywords "definition of social software". In 2003, Clay Shirky defined it simply as “software that supports group interaction”. Allen (2004) traced the earliest reference to the term in 1990, although recognition of its existence in the form of communication/collaborative tools go back to the 1940s. Current terms also include Web 2.0, Social Network/ing Sites, Social Web Applications, Social Media, the latter focusing on the interpersonal nature of the New World Wide Web. Implicit in the term Web 2.0 is a toolset for collaboration, like blogs, wikis, rss, podcasting, etc. Wikipedia, which in itself is a Social Software defines it like so: “Social software enables people to rendezvous, connect or collaborate through computer-mediated communication. Many advocates of using these tools believe (and actively argue or assume) that these create actual community, and have adopted the term ‘online communities’ to describe the social structures that they claim result.” “The more specific term collaborative software applies to cooperative work systems and is usually narrowly applied to software that enables work functions. Distinctions between usage of the terms "social" and "collaborative" is in the applications not the tools, although there are some tools that are only rarely used for work collaboration” Tom Coates (2005) offers a simplified version, to wit: “Social Software can be loosely defined as software which supports, extends, or derives added value from, human social behaviour - message-boards, musical taste-sharing, photo-sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking.” From the above, it thus appears that the emphasis on the social over the collaborative tends to take the tedium out of tasks. Now since all these pieces of social software are underpinned by the Internet, particularly on websites or sites, we would like to consider Danah Boyd’s (2006b) definition as something as close as one could get to capturing the social nature of this phenomenon. A "social network site" is a category of websites with profiles, semi-persistent public commentary on the profile, and a traversable publicly articulated social network displayed in relation to the profile. Danah Boyd elaborates: Profile. A profile includes an identifiable handle (either the person's name or nick), information about that person (e.g. age, sex, location, interests, etc.). Most profiles also include a photograph and information about last login. Profiles have unique URLs that can be visited directly. Traversable, publicly articulated social network. Participants have the ability to list other profiles as "friends" or "contacts" or some equivalent. This generates a social network graph which may be directed ("attention network" type of social network where friendship does not have to be confirmed) or undirected (where the other person must accept friendship). This articulated social network is displayed on an individual's profile for all other users to view. Each node contains a link to the profile of the other person so that individuals can traverse the network through friends of friends of friends.... Semi-persistent public comments. Participants can leave comments (or testimonials, guestbook messages, etc.) on others' profiles for everyone to see. These comments are semi-persistent in that they are not ephemeral but they may disappear over some period of time or upon removal. These comments are typically reverse-chronological in display. Because of these comments, profiles are a combination of individuals' self-expression and what others say about that individual. Websites such as MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Bebo, Orkut, are only a few of the more popular sites. Boyd’s definition could extend indirectly to sites such as YouTube and Flickr, LastFM, del.icio.us via the modalities of video, photos, music, and bookmarks. Wikis are “virtual white boards” that anyone can collaboratively edit. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia is a continuing demonstration of the broad success of wikis. But while they are not standard feature in popular social network sites, they can enhance the collaborative power of group members. Two other features which are not inherently social, deserve some discussion as they have contributed immensely to the enrichment of the participatory nature of social software. Blogs which is shorthand for Web blogs are nothing more than online journals. But once the journal owner opens a blog item to public comments and gives it the ability to be referenced (Trackbacks) via another blogger’s online journal, effectively clothes blogging with a social feature. Tagging is a functionality that allows the user to freely label or categorize any blog, video, photo, audio, bookmark or any other digital artifact. This allows the user to build meta data thereby building knowledge around digital objects. The task of tagging becomes social, deliberately or otherwise, when the software algorithms of the social networking site provide a mechanism to aggregate the diverse tags and make them visible as “tag clouds”. Tag clouds are visual representations of relative weight or significance of particular tags in a given instance of Social Software. Thus, the bigger the font size of the keyword, the more popular it is in discussions. Figure 1. Social Software Trends The popularity of Social Software as a phenomenon has steadily grown in the past two years. A search of the keyword Social Software using Google Trends would show the following: Figure 2 Notice that outside of the US, the Philippines enjoys the 7th spot in “Social Software” keyword search popularity. This suggests an opportunity for those in the top 10 countries to play into the interest of the searching public. As early as 2005, it had already become clear that Social Network sites were becoming a hugely popular concept. Meanwhile, the younger generation of learners was flocking in droves to sites such as MySpace, Friendster and Bebo. In the CNN Business website, Kevin Kelleher wrote that “MySpace logged 5.34 billion pageviews, according to ComScore Media Metrix, compared with just 169 million at Friendster.” The BBC reports that “The Pew American and Internet Life Project research suggested that 12 to 17-year-olds look to web tools to share what they think and do online. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4403574.stm] Ben Werdmuller (2005) notes: “52% of teenagers online keep a weblog, of their own volition, in order to reflect on their lives. These will be your higher education students soon”. This appears as a globally continuing phenomenon as ICT penetration steadily bridges the digital divide. At the very minimum there seems to be enough interest in Social Software for it to be taken to a more meaningful level, i.e. purposive use in community learning. This is a compelling argument, notwithstanding the current “moral panic” around Social Technologies. Boyd (2006a) weighed in on the matter in an incisive analysis of the decline of Friendster and the issue on whether MySpace was a fad by making the following points: Social technologies succeed when they fit into the social lives and practices of those who engage with the technology. People use the social technologies that all of their friends are using. Social technologies need benevolent dictators who love their constituents. It's not all about productivity. (emphasis supplied) It is not about technological perfection. The bottom line is that “MySpace is not the same as Friendster - it will not fade in the same way. Friendster was a fad; MySpace has become far more than that. If it doesn't evolve, it will fade, but MySpace is far better positioned to evolve than Friendster was. That said, i think we're seeing a huge shift in social life - negotiating super publics. I kinda suspect that MySpace teens are going to lead the way in figuring this out, just as teens in the 60s and 70s paved the way to figuring out globalized life with TV. I just hope law doesn't try to stop culture.” Social Software in an Educational Environment I began using Social Software in 2003 with the advent of Friendster. In a web design class, students were required to aggregate 20 “testimonials” or comments from their respective friends and cast them into a website frames. That exercise allowed the students and the teacher – as facilitator, to creatively weave what is now commonly called technically as “user-generated content” into the platform that is Friendster. Within the succeeding years, different Web features or functionalities were incrementally employed to complement regular classroom learning. In particular, the collaborative sharing of college students’ ideas, inventions and processes was harnessed in websites such as Whynot.net and Instructables.com in a course on Creativity and Innovation (Yuvienco, 2006). From September to December 2006, a course on Business Systems Simulation was conducted on blended (online/offline) learning mode with the use of a Social Software hosted at Ning.com. Ning is as a free hosted Social Software that allows people to create their own smaller versions of MySpace, Youtube, Flickr. Key to its power is the ability to set up a community in a few minutes especially for those with little or no knowledge of computer programming. The site charges for premium features such as customized domain name and additional bandwidth. It is template driven and any existing free site within Ning can be cloned. A webgroup template with a Google map was set up for class communication and management of knowledge. Its basic features are: Messaging Member Profiles Photos Event Postings How-to repository (originally Recipes section) Friend Invitation Privacy/Public Management Discussion/Forum For purposes of management and tracking of class members’ output, the Discussion section can be browsed according to topics, recent postings, topic initiators, date of posting, number of comments, latest comments. Beginning in January 2007, a course in Strategic Management was set up with an online layer of a hosted elgg installation on elggspace.com. Elgg is an open source networking platform which alternatively can be installed and administered on a school server. The main features of the application are the following: File uploads Community creation Activity tracking Tagging/Labelling Rss, Aggregation/Publication Profile Group creation (fine tuning the sub-community building) Friends Oneway /Two-Way Network Dashboard for personalized learning enhancements or widgets Configurable Theme (Look and feel) Personal/Community Blogs (Levels of privacy/public profile) Rich Text Editing via buttons (e.g. image/link insertions, boldface/italics) HTML editing Objectionable/Interesting item Flagging Alongside a user/community search capability, management of participation is available via a browsing functionality that shows the following fields: Name, Short Personal Description, Connection Count, Blog Posting Count, Account Type (person/community) It also features a tag cloud that gives a quick visual view of popular tags. This helps the user track the “zeitgeist” of the larger community. What this means as far as enabling a new learning paradigm is reduced into metaphor shift from a mirror to an amplifier. David Warlick (2007) explains it like so: “Students stop being mirrors, and instead become amplifiers.  Their job is not merely to reflect what they encounter, but to add value to it.  Content and skills are no longer the end product, but they become raw materials, with which students learn to work and play and share.  Information is captured by the learner, processed, added to, remixed, and then shared back, to be captured by another learner/teacher and reprocessed.  Each exchange and improvement not only runs on the energy of students (learner/teacher) curiosity and intrinsic need to play, work, and communicate information, but it also generates energy, which the teacher (teacher/learner) channels.” Some findings Part of the main requirements of the participants in the hybrid online/offline classes was to read assigned topical articles and respond via blogging to the corresponding discussion questions posted at the end of each week. The ideal progression of Web 2.0 skill set could then be mapped and tested against Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives according to the following: Knowledge - rss/atom (news feeds) Understanding - blogs Application - wikis Analysis - Google trends Synthesis - evolutionary mash-ups of diverse digital objects Evaluation - poll Innovation - revolutionary mash-ups (blending elements from totally novel dimensional sources) While the initial uptake was not spontaneous as would have been expected with the younger set of students who by the way comprise what could be called the Friendster generation, compliance with the requirements became more a matter of motivation rather than ability. The experience demonstrated that a Social Software-enabled learning environment allowed more effective tracking of participants’ performance. The tagging mechanism provided a way for the teacher and students to mutually engage in continuous assessment of learning. Considering that the learning landscape blended online and offline modes, the teacher had to employ the “Show and Tell” approach to monitoring progress at key stages, like midterms and finals. Thus those who were naturally disposed to learn managed to bring their personal learning journey more meaningfully to higher levels of achievement. Indeed, high performers did a lot of self-reflection and sharing of their learning outcomes. At the same time, the other types of participants demonstrated their inability and apparent lack of motivation in varying degrees. Thus those who failed to comply with the blog postings, for example, were technically “invisible”. The whole Social Software-supported experience therefore operated as a collaborative knowledge management system. Perhaps the Social Software-enabled learning would be more effective if done on a younger set of learners. The Hole in the Wall Experiment Bruno Giussani (2007) wrote down some notes on Sugata Mitra’s presentation on how children possess the natural ability to self-organize. I quote liberally: “The Hole in the Wall experiment started in 1999 in New Dehli. I have an office which borders a urban slum. We put a PC in a hole in the wall, high-speed Internet, a browser, and just left it there. And what we saw (he shows a video) are kids from the slum teaching each-other how to browse. Sugata took the experiment out of Dehli, to other cities. Other kids discovered the computer in the wall and they started teaching each-other (in one city, the first kid figured out how to move the trackpad and click within 8 minutes, and by that evening 70 kids had used the computer, with no teacher, no manual, just self-teaching and passing on the information). I took the experiment to a village where kids had not learned English. Left the computer there, with CDs inside (no Internet connection). Came back weeks later, and found kids there playing and the first thing they told me is "we need a faster processor and a better mouse". And: "you left this machine that speaks only English so we had to learn English" -- and noticed that they were using English words among themselves. Finally I tried the experiment on a bigger scale, choosing a cross-section of society, in all regions of the country. We found that 6 to 13 year old can self-instruct in a networked environment irrespective of what we measure (educational background, English literacy, economic level, etc), if you lift the adult intervention. What would they learn to do? Basic functions, browsing, painting, chatting and e-mail, games and educational material, playing videos. And they do this in groups: one child uses the computer and two or three others are "advising" him/her, and all of them are learning.” That simple experiment demonstrates the 21st century skills which digital natives (or the Friendster generation) ought to possess according to studies of the Project New Media Literacies, as summarized below: Preliminary Skills: Basic Literacy -- 'the ability to read and write.' Technical Skills -- 'the ability to operate core technologies and tools desired for specific projects.' Multimodal Literacy -- 'the ability to process information across multiple systems of representation.' Emerging Skills include: Play -- "a process of exploration and experimentation." Performance-- "trying on and playing different identities." Navigation -- "the ability to move across the media landscape in a purposeful manner, choosing the media that best serves a specific purpose or need, or that might best." Resourcefulness -- "the ability to identify and capitalize on existing resources." Networking -- "the ability to identify a community of others who share common goals and interests." Negotiation -- "the ability to communicate across differences as you move through a multicultural and global media landscape." Synthesis -- "pulling together information from multiple sources, evaluating its reliability and use value, and constructing a new picture of the world." Sampling -- "mastering and transforming existing media content for the purposes of self and collective expression." Collaboration -- "sharing information, pooling knowledge, comparing notes, evaluating evidence, and solving large-scale problem." Teamwork -- "the ability to identify specific functions for each member of the team based on their expertise and then to interact with the team members in an appropriate fashion." Judgment -- "the ability to make aesthetic and ethical evaluations of media practices and to reflect on your own choices and their consequences." Discernment -- "the ability to assess the accuracy and appropriateness of available information." Continuing Evolution of Social Software The next incarnation of Social Software is moving towards more user involvement. The search functionality itself underwent a shakeup with the emergence of collaborative search. Yahoo Answers is a case in point. Its dominance over Google Answers and MSN Q&A showed the power of the community. As Liz Gannes (2006) explained “Yahoo Answers is the simplest way out there to ask “the internet” for help, in natural language. This is an acknowledgement which tells us that the “Internet is people”. Karma points or badges show a lot of promise in enhancing deeper and broader user involvement in Social Software spaces. The following discussion thread demonstrates the potential. In reply to my post on Knosos, a Content Management System (CMS), where I noted that I like the ‘karmic’ feature (attached to participants’ profiles) of Knosos because it “[m]akes me reflect on my ability to participate” Wouter Van den Bosch (2007) stated: The "karmic" feature as you describe it, started out as just a toy, since it is a simple module you can download for Drupal, the CMS KnoSoS is running on. Very soon we noted that there were a lot of other and better ways such a feature could look like, but it has simply not been one of our priorities so far. Fact is that we couldn't get ourselves to switch it off as some people in the team had gotten very attached to their ranking and hence, lacking in detail or features as it may be, it does inspire you to contribute. Amongst the things we were envisioning was a system where you would be able to freely tag someone (or someone's contribution) and then give a rating on that particular tag as well. The result would be that profiles would show that some people get high rates for their knowledge of say Biotechnology, but low rates on their knowledge regarding cooking. Needless to say there's a lot of different directions one could go in and if the project proposal we handed in a few weeks back for a follow up project, gets accepted, we can put some work into this, as 'motivation' is one of the main pillars of that proposed project. I then concluded that “[t]his ‘karmic’ (actually more like dharmic) thing is getting more interesting. My limited understanding of collaborative spaces like Knosos, elggspaces or even MySpace or Friendster, leads me to the conclusion that motivation indeed is key to co-creation. ‘Toys’ like karma/dharma points might just cut it. Just don't know how far it would go.” [http://www.knosos.be/node/2254#comment-1687] Widgets or snippets of programming code which can be inserted in users’ personal profiles represent another area that will grow along with the learners ability to navigate their online personal spaces. Widgets take the form of subscription feeds of anything, like videos, photos, cartoons, texts and other forms of information that reflect the personality of the user. They support the need to disclose more about one’s online identity and demonstrates the growing legions of Prosumers which Wikipedia defines as referring “to one of two possible portmanteaus formed by contracting either the word producer or professional with the word consumer.” Now although, “prosumer has taken on conflicting spins, with the business sector see[ing] the prosumer as a means of offering a wider range of products and services whereas activists see[ing] the prosumer as having greater independence from the mainstream economy”, that translates to increased user empowerment. In particular, user empowerment can further be enhanced in any learning environment by a widget that gives the user the ability to focus on to-dos, a feature that is inherently purposive. 43things.com is a Social Software that turns to-dos items into visible tags that is traversable across the social networks in the site. Thus, similarity of to-do items provides an opportunity and even incentive for collaborative pursuit of common goals. Conclusions and Implications A great deal of progress has happened since Tim O’Reilly coined Web 2.0 in 2005. Meanwhile, Social Software continues to capture the imagination of tech-aware individuals and institutions. To date there are upwards of 1,200 Social Software/Web 2.0 Applications. In allusion to YouTube, Time Magazine even named “You” the Person of the Year in 2006. That recognition by mainstream media seems to be a powerful argument to allay fears of an Internet meltdown similar to that at the turn of the last century. In reference to the toolset-centric concept of Web 2.0, Paul Anderson (2007) identifies six underlying elements in the context of education: Individual production and User Generated Content Harnessing the power of the crowd Data on an epic scale Architecture of Participation Network effects, power laws and the Long Tail Open-ness In the business setting, Tapscott and Williams (2006) describe the phenomenon simply as supported by Openness, Peering, Sharing and Acting Globally. At the bottom of this is user empowerment plus community building. We are thus in the midst of a New Web that is more purposeful because it has gone beyond a web of objects or nouns into what Ross Mayfield calls a “Web of Verbs”. Examples are: Photobucket: Create Link Share; YahooAnswers: Ask Answer Discover; Elgg: Create Connect Discover. The New Web is indeed a Social Web of To-dos. Again in the context of learning, it has become more purposeful because it starts with the self with the ability to make immediate reference to meaningful learning or what educators may call reflective learning. The learning is purposeful because the tasks and activities happen in the ecosystem of consumption and production. The core verbs thus appear to be: Discover. Disclose. Connect. Co-create. In the physical world, individuals move through stages: Discovery happens in the realm of personal knowledge. Disclosure operates in the reality of the self. Connection takes place when an individual reaches out to another. Co-creation results from mutual help. In the online world, these seem to map nicely onto Ross Mayfield’s Power Law of Participation Figure 3: Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ross/135959002/ But in the actual online dynamics, all four mutually intersect in an engagement cloud or ecosystem where anyone can discover and disclose both at the same time. Or start co-creating even without any intention of making any personal disclosure (using aliases). But there is better value in co-creation if that is anchored on the symmetry of truth and trust which should be mutually negotiated within an online/offline global village. We can pick up a few lessons from the practices in IBM. Part of their core blogging principles for example contain the following: Know and follow IBM's internal conduct guidelines. Be mindful of what you write. You are personally responsible for your posts. Use your real name and state your role at IBM when writing about IBM-related matters. Use a disclaimer stating that your postings do not necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. Respect copyright, fair use and financial disclosure laws. Do not leak confidential or other proprietary information. Do not talk about clients, partners or suppliers without their approval. Respect your audience. Do not use profanity or ethnic slurs. Find out who else is blogging about your topic and site them. Do not pick fights, and correct your own mistakes. Try to add value. Provide worthwhile information and perspective. Now moving on to implications for civic engagement, and borrowing yet again Mayfield’s concept of the Power Law, we can see a pattern of involvement below: Figure 4: Source: http://static.flickr.com/66/183113166_c7047fa036_m.jpg A couple of questions come to mind: Isn't this derivative model culture-bound? In the Philippines, one might argue, for example, that the mass of people who "vote" does not necessarily pay [direct] taxes. Are they involved in civic engagement any more than the tax-paying (at the income source) non-voting citizens? In response that post Mayfield concedes: “more than fair point” [https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6891626&postID=115498834194525866] As that blog exchange demonstrated, in the offline world, civic engagement by itself is already subject to various factors and cultural constraints. This suggests the utter difficulty if not impossibility of enhancing civic engagement in online terms. Trebor Scholz’ (2006) model identifying the diverse elements of Motivation for Participation in Social Media makes it even more challenging. Figure 5: Source: http://www.slideshare.net/molodiez/motivation-for-participation-in-sociable-media/3 This brings us to the following point. Perhaps leveling the playing field is not a simple matter of turning the hierarchy on its head. Perhaps the power model and the economic model that is its natural extension need to be mutually negotiated by all parties concerned. In the formal school environment it may be easy to navigate. In the informal environment, it might be a bit more complicated to handle. In reply to a post whether the movement from Hierarchy to “Wirearchy” is just a pipe dream, Jon Husband responded assuredly: “i think we are getting there, buit (sic) by bit, so to speak ;-) Like electronic grains of sand driven by the social wind of linked minds and hearts, eroding the giant pillars of traditional power-driven hierarchies.” [http://joelogs.blogspot.com/2006/11/word-of-day-wirearchy.html] References: Allen , Christopher. 2004. “Tracing the Evolution of Social Software” (October 13), http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html (accessed February 5, 2007). Allison, Kevin. 2005. “Who’s afraid of the big, bad blog?” (November 3), http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5bf3007c-4c98-11da-89df-0000779e2340.html (accessed March 14, 2007). Anderson, Paul. 2007. What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch (February) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/services_techwatch/techwatch/techwatch_ic_reports2005_published.aspx (accessed March 15, 2007). BBC News Online. 2005. “US youths use internet to create”. (November 4), http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4403574.stm (accessed March 15, 2007). boyd, danah. 2006a. "Friendster lost steam. Is MySpace just a fad?" Apophenia Blog. (March 21), http://www.danah.org/papers/FriendsterMySpaceEssay.html (accessed February 6, 2007). boyd, danah. 2006b. “Social Network Sites: My definition”. (November 10), http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2006/11/10/social_network_1.html (accessed February 6, 2007). Coates, Tom. 2005. “An Addendum to a Definition of Social Software” (January 5), http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_software/ (accessed February 6, 2007). Instructables Website [http://instructables.com] Gannes, Liz. 2006. “Google Answers Closes Shop (Extended Version)”. (November 29), http://gigaom.com/2006/11/29/google-answers-closes-shop-extended-version/ (accessed March 15, 2007). Gilbert, Allorie. 2005. “Friendster perks up”. (January 11), http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/musicplay/printerfriendly.htm?AT=39287050-39050075t-39000841c-39000420q-1 (accessed March 15, 2007). Giusanni, Bruno. 2007. “LIFT07: Sugata Mitra and outdoctrination” February 8), http://www.lunchoverip.com/2007/02/lift07_sugata_m.html (accessed March 14, 2007). Kelleher, Kevin. 2005. “A Site Stickier than a Barroom Floor: Tiny MySpace made a business out of social networking by giving its music-loving crowd reason to come back”. (June 1), http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/06/01/8263464/ (accessed March 15, 2007). Mayfield, Ross. 2005. “Web of Verbs”. (August 27), http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2005/08/web_of_verbs.html (accessed February 2, 2007). Mayfield, Ross. 2006. “Power Law of Participation”. (April 27), http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/power_law_of_pa.html (accessed March 14, 2007). O’Reilly, Tim. 2005. “What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software”. Available Online. (September 30), http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html] (accessed March 15, 2007). Project: New Media Literacies “Training Kids With Skills For Participatory Culture” Available Online. http://www.projectnml.org/node/308 (accessed March 14, 2007). Rheingold, Howard. 2003. “Historical Roots of Social Software”. Available online. (May 8), http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2003/05/08/historical_root.html(accessed February 6, 2007). Scholz, Trebor. 2006. “Motivation for Participation in Sociable Media” Available Online http://www.slideshare.net/molodiez/motivation-for-participation-in-sociable-media (accessed March 14, 2007). Shirky, Clay. 2003. A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy. A speech at ETech, April, 2003. Published July 1, 2003 on the "Networks, Economics, and Culture" mailing list. http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html (accessed February 5, 2007). Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams. 2006. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York City: Portfolio Time Magazine Online. 2006. “Person of the Year: You” (December 25), http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html?aid=434&from=o&to=http%3A//www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C1569514%2C00.html (accessed March 14, 2007). Werdmuller, Ben. 2005. “It's not just teenagers” Available online. (November 4), http://elgg.net/bwerdmuller/weblog/3621.html (accessed March 12, 2007). Wikipedia.org [http://wikipedia.org] Yuvienco, Joel. 2005. "Knowledge Management And Folk Knowledge: Lessons From Social Software". Available online. http://joelogs.tripod.com/JoelYuvienco1.htm (accessed February 7, 2007). Yuvienco, Joel. 2006."Web 2.0 As A Teaching Toolset For Creativity And Innovation". (June), http://joelogs.tripod.com/JoelYuvienco2.htm (accessed on February 7, 2007). Warlick, David. 2007. “More on School 2.0” (February 27), http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/2007/02/27/more-on-school-20/] February 27, (accessed March 15, 2007), Web 2.0 Directory [phttp://www.econsultant.com/web2/] Wirerarchy Blog [http://blog.wirearchy.com/] WhyNot Website [http://whynot.net] 15