Module 1.

Reflection on how social media creates a new life for information, generating flows and conversations between businesses and customers, governments and citizens, even teachers and students.

Gary Hayes (2008) reiterates the importance in creating a social media campaign in engaging with a community, by conversing and being  consistent with responses, confirming renown “influencer” Charlene Li’s (2010) podcast, where she provided a good angle from the workplace environment in how to engage and to create a culture of sharing and to “repeat, repeat, repeat.” I also appreciated Li’s opinion on how an organisation must be prepared to "have a dialogue and not just be a promotional page!" It was heartening that she too still reads a lot of traditional media, which I thought I was guilty of in this web 2.0 world and that it is okay to decide on the limits of how much social media you need to be involved with.gue and not just be a promotional page”.  I have come across many Facebook accounts such as this where content and conversation is lacking by the community.  Even if the persistent and imaginative manager of the social media medium is creating questions and trying to engage their community by asking questions to stimulate usage.  My workplace university Facebook page is an example of this and maybe it is early days but where is the community? Are students just still conversing with their friends and don’t want to seem a little exposed by engaging with the frontline university Facebook account. How light should the conversation be and how heavy?  Gary Hayes’s (2008) presentation touches on how effective social network marketing can come from understanding a particular community, knowing how they operate and the need to motivate them by not just throwing them the latest cool technology application, but to “learn the culture and language” before involvement.

In Li’s (2010) podcast it was heartening to hear that she still reads traditional media because that is what her customer base mainly reads.  I have guilt still reading papers such as The Australian and the Financial Review in this Web 2.0 world!  Li also admits that she sticks to a strict social media diet that it is okay to decide on the limits of how much social media you need to be involved withand that it is okay to decide on what social media you don’t need to be involved with, admitting she uses Twitter for certain followers and reads only a few blogs. Now I don’t feel so bad in even filtering my Facebook account! Please excuse me while I now do some spring cleaning in my Twitter, and Bloglovin accounts!

In searching for more meaning for what social media creates between people I looked up both well known and respected human “Brands” on the subject Tim Berners-Lee and Don Tapscott.  The latter  expressed how social media is not about just going online but that it has become a “social production”.  He says that social networking has opened up collaboration and the capability for people and organisations to innovate and produce. However he stresses that first comes integrity and trust before we collaborate, stating that “openness is about collaboration.”   After reading his transcript I was heartened by the direction he thinks social media is going. Tapscott (2012) holds hope that “this smaller, networked, open world that our kids inherit might be a better one, and that this new age of networked intelligence could be an age of promise fulfilled.”

Tim Berners-Lee (2009) simply described social networking sites as taking data (our lives, knowledge and experiences) and using it, or “re-purposing it” or adding it to other data to make data more interesting. He explains that “that is what linked data is all about, it’s about people doing their bit to product a little bit, and it all connects.”

Evan Williams (2009) one of the founders of Twitter states that when you give people easier ways to share information, more good things happen. From these readings it seems possible that through social networking a new way of revealing data can give new life to information.

It was very hard to extract myself away from the TED website, I kept digging deeper and deeper.  Very addictive!

References:

Berners-Lee, T. (Presenter). (2009, February). TedGlobal. Retreived from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/tim_berners_lee_on_the_next_web.html

Gary Hayes. 2008. The Future of Social Media Entertainment. Retrieved  from http://www.personalizemedia.com/the-future-of-social-media-entertainment-slides/

Schwartzman, E. (Producer). (2010, September 14). Selling Social Media Strategy to Leadership with Charlene Li [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://ontherecordpodcast.com/pr/otro/selling-social-media-boss.aspx

Tapscott, D. 2012. (Presenter). Four principles for the open world. TedGlobal. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html

Williams, E. (Presenter). (2009, February). Evan Williams on listening to Twitter users. TedGlobal. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evan_williams_on_listening_to_twitter_users.html

Module one... Web 2.0 terminology


O'Reilly.com founder Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty first coined the term web 2.0.  Five years on from this original label they confirm that it is web network platform made up of many different software applications mechanised by the amount of people using them and their contributions.  The other web 2.0 labeller Darcy DiNucci in the Wikipedia site described Web 2.0 as a fragmented future.

Tim O'Reilly says....
Technologies have a social dimension beyond their mere mechanical performance.  We adopt new technologies largely because of what they do for us, but also in part because of what they mean to us. Often we refuse to adopt technology for the same reason: because of how the avoidance reinforces, or crafts our identity. 

In the modernized west, our decisions about technology are not made by the group, but by individuals. We choose what we want to adopt, and what we don’t. So on top of the ethnic choice of technologies a community endorses, we must add the individual layer of preference. We announce our identity by what stuff we use or refuse. Do you twitter? Have a big car? Own a motorcycle? Use GPS? Take supplements? Listen to vinyl? By means of these tiny technological choices we signal our identity

In the modernized west, our decisions about technology are not made by the group, but by individuals. We choose what we want to adopt, and what we don’t. So on top of the ethnic choice of technologies a community endorses, we must add the individual layer of preference. We announce our identity by what stuff we use or refuse. Do you twitter?

Sourced from:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/03/ethnic_technolo.php  10 March 2009





The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:<sup>[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0</sup>
As quoted in O'Reilly.com 2009 http://www.web2summit.com/web2009/public/schedule/detail/10194
Chief among our insights was that "the network as platform" means far more than just offering old applications via the network ("software as a service"); it means building applications that literally get better the more people use them, harnessing network effects not only to acquire users, but also to learn from them and build on their contributions.
From Google and Amazon to Wikipedia, eBay, and craigslist, we saw that the value was facilitated by the software, but was co-created by and for the community of connected users. Since then, powerful new platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter have demonstrated that same insight in new ways. Web 2.0 is all about harnessing collective intelligence.

Module 1

Module 1.  Summary

Social media is a rich ecosystem with perpetual evolution. A very good thing for users who can benefits from a large array of online services and social platforms, but a jigsaw for brands and marketers which have to face audience fragmentation. “Audience fragmentation”.

Facebook can be seen as the mall of social media: a convenient place where one can find every services offered elsewhere but in a single location.

It is interesting however that he says not to rely on Facebook as it would be a reductivist approach and suggests to research into other more subtle online social mechanisms that can help understand how social media works.

This was quoted in Fred Cavazza.net 14 December 2010 http://www.fredcavazza.net/2010/12/14/social-media-landscape-2011/

Starting to work through modules and understanding Assignment 3!

Check out stumbleupon for a new site sharing platform http://www.stumbleupon.com/

This quote was interesting.....http://www.personalizemedia.com/the-future-of-social-media-entertainment-slides/ Gary Hayes 26 October 2008

I was keen on trying to get under the skin of what new forms are being developed by the audience themselves ......

First posting for Assignment 3

To successfully meet the requirements of Assignment 3, students must create an online learning journal (OLJ) using a social networking site (e.g., a blog, wiki, ning, etc.), and complete the first entry for their OLJ. In this first entry, briefly:

(a) define what social networking is (in your own words);
(b) list what social networking technologies and sites you already use (for personal, work and study purposes); and
(c) describe what you expect to learn from completing INF506.

Social networking is a web platform that creates communities where participants stimulate and share discussion via text, photos or video.  CSU students in their introduction have said they use facebook to connect with family and friends. This is the community they participate within.  In an enterprise level it is used for marketing by stimulating discussion or for employees or colleagues to have their voice heard.


The technologies I currently use on a personal level are Facebook to keep in contact with good friends I don't see much due to distance and Twitter to read comments by my favourite music personalities or writers.  However I am guilty of being reluctant to give any of my ideas or post information frequently.  My contacts are people I know well.    I admire the "Like" button on Facebook, responding without fanfare! Within my library workplace it is not a platform that we communicate with or even view frequently, using email still to communicate between colleagues.  However the liaison librarians for each faculty do promote their facebook pages which are becoming more popular in keeping staff and students in the loop on new texts and electronic publications. Student Services use facebook to stimulate discussion and post events and photos.   I did start using Delicious and Bloglovin to bookmark favourite sites for study but interest faded or was forgotten over time.  I feel that there is so much information stored in these sites that I prefer to mostly go directly to a handful of favourite blogs or websites.


In regards to this subject I hope to grow more comfortable in using the social networking platform to properly promote an organisation in a professional application by scratching more than just the surface with technologies such twitter, facebook, youtube and flickr by interchangeably integrating them within each tool.

‘All that Glisters is Not Gold’ – Web 2.0 And the Librarian by Paul Anderson

Introduction

Anderson’s article aims to create a framework within the list of new technologies originally outlined and formulated in Tim O’Reilly’s (2005) paper, and questions how the development of Web 2.0 applications and ideas will work, “in the context of librarianship” (Anderson, 2007, p.195). He also touches on the need for an agreed direction and definition of the concept of ‘Library 2.0’.

Amsterdam Central Library    Photo. Saskia Ruijs

The purpose

In our review, Anderson confirms a number of important themes within the heading of Library 2.0 that will be highlighted and further developed. Firstly the impact Web 2.0 technologies have on librarians and the library community, and secondly how the library must utilise its perception as a ‘trusted’ institution in terms of ethics, privacy and copyright.

Web 2.0 and Library Information Services

Anderson’s comment that “librarians need to start to mobilise their skills and to deploy them in new directions and take risks” (Anderson, 2007, p.196), is actually being actioned in today’s libraries. Web 2.0 is a technical evolution of the web, yet there has been a new creation of services and behaviour patterns (Barbry, 2007, p. 91). Today, the use of Web 2.0 interface applications are both user and receiver friendly with librarians creating information specific blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, podcasts and tweets (Twitter) as a further add-on tool for information participation.  Due to the ease of user interfaces, libraries are using Web 2.0 tools as their own such as the:

• Instant Messaging service Meebo -   Library members can converse in a virtual environment in regards to their information needs with Librarians.
• Facebook – the State Library of South Australia has a presence,  providing links to educational resources.
• Blogs – Like a live web page, blogs alert users to new developments within a library and provide feedback. Cornell University Library Blog

• Twitter – a ‘micro-blogging’service, used for peer support, engagement with librarians and library users. National Library Australia on Twitter @nlagovau

(Kelly, 2010)

The phasing in of Web 2.0 tools and ideas into libraries are a “step along the historical path that illustrates the continual expansion of information that libraries have been able to offer to their users, and sheds light on the opportunities and challenges we will face in the future” (Breeding, 2004, p.42). Breeding (2004) also states that the main task for librarians now are “dealing with information overload and providing users with tools to effectively search a vast array of information resources” (p.44).

Web 2.0 and Web Standards

Anderson in his outline delivered on his promise to provide information and ideas for “the visible surface” of web 2.0, and the “six big ideas” framework even though the headings and summaries were somewhat disjointed and confusing.  However he failed to elaborate at all on the third aspect of the framework, being “web standards”. We have provided in this case some relative recommendations.

The security of our digital identity via Web 2.0 applications and the importance of ethical usage needed to be understood and developed in this article if information institutions such as libraries are to bare some of  the responsibility of information exchange. (Pearlson & Saunders 2005, as cited in Houghton & Berryman 2007) found that “the four aspects raising most ethical issues are privacy, accuracy, property (or ownership and accessibility” (p.17). Anderson’s article also fails to mention the legal concerns relating to the production of web service content, being the ownership of information and the impact of new media on both the production and dissemination of information (Houghton & Berryman, 200, p.14).

The library acts as a ‘filter’ and a trusted institution for the academic, education or public library user.  This was confirmed by the founder of the Internet, Tim Berners-Lee who recently at a keynote address said that Web 2.0 information should come as a stream of trusted things such as links and URL’s from a trusted source such as the BBC or a library (Berners-Lee, 2009).

There are a number of organisations and services providing assistance for users and institutions in accessing the correct form of information via the Web; Creative Commons providing open access to content, the Government’s Cyber Security Strategy (icode), developed by the Internet Industry Association (IIA) to improve the cyber security culture and trusted third party SSL encryption and digital certificates such as Verisign.

Conclusion

If we can borrow the phrase from Anderson in saying that Web 2.0 and the Library is “the new front door”, coupled with the “library’s public sector ethos”, we can say that it is gradually being opened.  As more working examples of Web 2.0 services are being authored and analysed we hope that it will only justify the importance of information services staff and libraries, which now require further investment in network application skills in teaching, updating, responding and securing Web 2.0 tools for their user base.

References

Barbry, E. (2007), Web 2.0: Nothing Changes…but Everything is Different. Communications & Strategies, No. 65, 1^st Quarter, 91-103. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1009136

Berners-Lee, T. (2009, July 10).  Web at 20. Digital Revolution [Video file]. Retrieved from  http://wn.com/Tim_Berners-Lee's_keynote_speech_at_'Web_at_20'_event__Digital_Revolution__BBC_Two

Breeding, M. (2004). Platform evolution: from dumb Terminals to PCs to the Web and

Beyond. Computers in Libraries. 24(6), 42-44. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Apr. 2011

Koltay, T. (2010). The Web 2.0 contradiction: commercial and library use. Library Philosophy and Practice, Retrieved 2 April 2010 from http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/koltay.pdfGale

Kelly, B. (2010). Web 2.0 and Libraries: Impacts, technologies and trends. Oxford, UK:

     Chandos.



Houghton, J., & Berryman, J. (2007). Ethics and law for information practice. In S.Ferguson (Ed.), Libraries
      in the twenty-first century: charting new directions in information services (pp. 267-288). Wagga Wagga, NSW.:Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University. Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au/division/library/ereserve/pdf/houghton-j.pdf 









Documenting the Global Conversation: Relevancy of Libraries in a Digital World

By Fred Heath

Introduction

Heath’s article gives a colloquial yet articulate account on the relevancy of communicative and information institutions in the digital economy. It is commonly discussed that research libraries will become obsolete due to the fast paced evolution of the networked era, however Heath points out survival strategies for decision making, to tailor current collections towards the current directions of the digital environment.

The purpose

Amongst Heath’s list of library asset headings, we will highlight ‘collection building’, ‘open repositories’ and the ‘physical plant’ as some of the main attributes forming the library environment, and their purpose and value in the future, so that libraries can take action now (Staley and Malenfant, 2010, p.58).

Collection Building & Repositories

Heath’s pro-activity within his library of controlling the capacity of collections and storing resources in common by partnering with other institutions are examples of library longevity.  As Horova (2010) confirms, “we reformulate our practices of selecting, acquiring, and disseminating a collection as one of the most difficult issues we face” (p.143). The Web presence through institutional repositories and collections give libraries a new life to connect to current and new populations. Horova (2010) explains that by “focusing on remote access, active stewardship, a heightened awareness of learning outcomes for the researcher’s agenda, and a carefully sustainable approach to acquisition activity, we can enhance the value and use of our collections” (p.149).

Digitising Collections

Interestingly Heath only touched briefly on the Google Book digitization project, where libraries have digitized a major part of their collection with the ability for full-text searches (Duderstadt, 2009).  Google Books have partnered with 19 major university and public library systems in the Americas and Europe. Duderstadt (2009) enthuses that “these massive digitisation efforts will be able to provide full text search access to a significant fraction of the world’s written materials to scholars and students throughout the world within a decade” (p. 221). 

On the Google website,  Heath’s University of Texas library is actually one of those major universities, (The Google Books Library Project which started in December 2004), and it is uncertain why he did not promote the alliance further in his paper. He says on the Google Books website that “our libraries are also responsible for effectively preserving this knowledge and ensuring access to it over vast periods of time…..we believe that participating in this venture will help ensure our ability to meet those commitments far into the future." 

With the commercial power that Google Books will have on the world of publishing, it raises a profound challenge to the future of libraries and to our collection activities.  The issue is not one of competing with the Google digital library but of demonstrating how we can offer unique value and services that allows students to achieve their learning goals and researchers to further their programs. (Horova, 2010, p. 149)

Some positive outcomes by using the Google Book project:

• reducing library collection budgets and student text book costs,
• sustainability in the library - paying per chapter (pay for only what you need),
• providing statistics for library staff on preferred or popular texts
• Eradicating the increasing collection of superseded text books on shelves and offsite storage

Rearranging the Library Furniture

An interesting observation made from Heath’s ‘physical plant’ posit, is that he lacks definition on the re-badging of the library from a “storage facility” to being an “interactive meeting place”.  When did the university library start being an interactive meeting place?  My suggestion is, as more technologies have become available, more students have entered the library.  Heath needs to promote more the positive alliances that are taking placing within the library walls rather than what has diminished.

From this author’s experience working in a university library, students enjoy utilising the ‘physical plant’ of a library:

• to use free wireless access
• to learn how to access the latest technologies from information staff
• to configure their iPhone with their student webmail and wireless printing
• to socialise, drink coffee and feel part of a student community
• to collaborate and practice their group assignment work using assistive technologies
• as a quiet place to study.
• as a type of community centre and for international students to enhance their language skills
 
• A place to print out assignments and scan documents, or in the future to “pay for print” the virtual chapters provided by Google.

Conclusion

Heath has detailed that the future direction of specialist research libraries in the digital age can only happen by coordinating and sharing collections and knowledge with other university communities, ensuring a broad access to it using institutional depositories and open access companies. Breeding (2009) confirms that “libraries that fail to integrate into the environment of their broader organisation risk a dwindling relevancy and may miss out on the benefits of sharing institutionally” (p.35). Or as in Google’s case, users universally sharing.

References

Breeding, M. (2009). Libraries Thrive Through Enterprise Computing. Computers in

Libraries, 29(6), 34-36. Academic OneFile. Web. 2 Apr. 2011.

Duderstadt, J.J. (2009). Possible Futures for the Research Library in the 21^st Century.

Journal of Library Administration, 49, 217-225. doi:10.1080/0190820902784770

Google. (2011). Googlebook/partners.Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html

Horova, T. (2010). Challenges and Possibilities for Collection Management in a Digital

Age. LRTS, 54(3), 142-152. Ebscohost. Web. 29 Mar 2010.

Kniffel, L., & Bailey, C.W. (2009). Cuts, Freezes Widespread in Academic Libraries.

American Libraries, 40.6-7 (June-July 2009): 28-29.  Academic Onefile. Web 2 Apr. 2011

Staley, D.J., &  Malenfant, K.J.(2010) Futures thinking for academic librarians: Higher

Education in 2025. Information Services & Use, 30. 57-90.

doi:10.3233/ISU-2010-0614

 





Web 2.0 Implications on Knowledge Management

By Moira Levy

Introduction

Levy’s article questions the participatory success of Web 2.0; “so many people are sharing knowledge so actively” in comparison to the “struggling knowledge management community” in getting people to share.   She identifies that there is an opportunity to use Web 2.0 tools such as Wikis and blogs, because of their recreational popularity with users and its participation rates. Levy offers a detailed collection of feedback from a number of knowledge management scholars confirming mostly the attributes of Web 2.0 to organisations.  Levy structures the paper into three segments highlighting the effects of Web 2.0 being intertwined through both enterprise and knowledge management organisations, which provides a clear understanding to readers new to web 2.0 and the knowledge management community.

The purpose

Levy, an experienced knowledge management solutions provider, seems disenchanted by the current status and direction of her profession and asks whether the participatory popularity of Web 2.0 be included within knowledge management organisations.  The purpose for her research questions; why is it difficult for people in organisations to share and extract knowledge within its enterprise domain, when they use Web 2.0 tools such as blogs and wikis and other social networking tools more freely? 

Due to their success on an individual user level, Levy promotes the controlled use of wikis and blogs, which could be a way to capture and store content in knowledge management enterprises.  We will further analyse the two Web 2.0 tools that Levy suggests and comment on their popularity due to the rise of the net generation now in the workforce.

Importantly, let us summarise what knowledge management is within a community. Reilly & Mcbrearty (2010) explain that it is “a way to capture and share existing individual knowledge and to collect it in order to create distributed knowledge” (p.237). Davenport & Prusak (1998) as cited in Galloway Seiling (2010), state “if opportunities arise, people must be motivated to share and combine knowledge with others” (p. 99).

Wikis within knowledge management systems

The opportunity of a wiki used in an organisation is that “they allow anyone to contribute information or edit others’ contributions” (Valacich & Schneider, 2010, p. 273).  In a knowledge management environment both a public wiki (anyone can contribute), and a private wiki, (only authorised staff contribute) can be a tool for an organisation to openly collaborate.  A number of organisations are currently using the wiki technology to “create internal knowledge repositories” (Valacich & Schneider, 2010, p. 274).  This idea also links with Stacey (2010) who states “it is usually individuals who learn and create knowledge, and the principal concern from an organisation perspective is how that individual learning and knowledge might be shared across an organisation, and how it may be captured, stored, and retained” (p.42).

Levy in her summary of wikis promotes the “most successful one”, Wikipedia, and its usefulness in being constantly updated, although some argue that “in allowing anyone to edit and create, a systematic bias in the content can occur” (Valacich & Schneider, 2010, p. 273).  This author agrees with Levy in that wikis are an important assistive technology tool that can encourage an enterprise with fresh information, however in knowledge management, “inter-communicative sharing of knowledge in digital environments raises issues of legitimacy, credibility and authority” (Widen-Wulff, G., & Ginman, M. 2004, p.454).

Blogs within knowledge management Systems



                    Photo.   Saskia Ruijs

 Levy also encourages the use of blogs as a Web 2.0 tool, however she does not confirm how or with any authority in mind, only that it should be “enlarged”. This author likes to think of a blog as a moving intranet web service replacing the often stagnant website that has not shared fresh data to its community for a time. As Keenan (2011) explains, “in the business world, where information is constantly changing, use of an extranet to keep all parties updated can be invaluable”.

                                     Photo. Saskia Ruijs

However in an enterprise or a knowledge management environment who should conduct the blog?  Tapscott (2009), states that the Net Generation and learned Web users are “moving beyond e-mail; they use wikis, blogs, social networks, and digital brainstorms to engage their employees or customers” (p. 261).  However Richardson & Tait (2010) question whether our “contemporary notions of ‘experience,’ ‘knowledge,’ ‘authority,’ and therefore ‘expertise’ and ‘expert’ are out-dated and inappropriate for these globalised and connected times” (p.24). Newstex, a website that offers real-time authoritative content from new sources such as blogs, Twitter, and podcasts to the end-user professional believe, “authoritative content is useful, meaningful and continual, and readers can depend on it and trust it.” http://www.newstex.com/about/what-we-do/   By using blogs in the knowledge management environment, only editorially selected authoritative content should be maintained.

Conclusion

Levy provides a plethora of justifiable quotes and statements by her knowledge management peers who promote the use of Web 2.0 with a softly but surely approach.  Levy does tread quietly in promoting Web 2.0 within knowledge management by concluding that adopting ‘it’ (Web 2.0) on a conceptual level will be slow, whilst confirming that the use of applications such as wikis and blogs are to be enlarged.  Hart (2010) confirms this and suggests “trying small incremental implementations, which improve on existing services in new and more proactive ways, as a potential way forward” (p.182).

References

Galloway Seiling, J. (2010). Knowledge Generation as a Complex Relational Process. In

A.Tait & K.A.Richardson (Eds.), Complexity and Knowledge Management, Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks (pp.93-108). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Hart, L. (2010). Meeting the Challenge. In D.Parkes & G. Walton (Eds.), Web 2.0 and

Libraries: Impacts, technologies and trends (pp171-182). Oxford, UK: Chandos.

Keenan, M.A. (2011). Digital Collections [INF405 Module 3.2]. Retrieved April 2, 2011,

from Charles Sturt University website: http://interact.csu.edu.au/portal/site/INF405_201130_W_D/page/660abe97-3a3c-463d-00d3-ed5cd40955a5

Newstex. (2009). Newstex – What we do. Retrieved from  

http://www.newstex.com/about/what-we-do/

Reilly, C., & Mcbrearty, M. (2010). Getting there is not a very neat circle or process. In

Tait & K.A Richardson (Eds.), Complexity and Knowledge Management, Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks (pp.237-265). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Richardson, K.A., & Tait, A. (2010). The Death of the Expert? In A.Tait &

K.A.Richardson (Eds.), Complexity and Knowledge Management, Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks (pp.23-39). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Stacey, R. (2010). The Emergence of Knowledge in Organisations. In A.Tait &

K.A.Richardson (Eds.), Complexity and Knowledge Management, Understanding the Role of Knowledge in the Management of Social Networks, (pp.93-108). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown Up Digital. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Valacich, J., & Schneider, C. (2010). Information Systems Today (4^th ed.). New Jersey,

NY:Pearson. 

Widen-Wulff,G., & Ginman, M., (2004). Explaining knowledge sharing in organisations

through the dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information Science, 30(5), 448-458. doi: 10.1177/0165551504046997