Canadian Archaeology Association AGM Presentation, 18th May 2013, Whistler Nicole ‘likes’ Archaeology. Evaluating the potential of social media for community archaeology

- Nicole Beale, University of Southampton

nicole.beale@soton.ac.uk

THIS IS A DRAFT PRESENTATION. UN-PUBLISHED. PLEASE DO NOT REFERENCE THESE NOTES.

Abstract This paper will give an overview of research into the potential for using social media platforms and tools

to extend the reach of community archaeology. Social media has had an exponential uptake by internet

users, and its use is increasing at a high rate. The typical social media user is aged between 18-29, and

this demographic, although there are few reliable statistics about participation in archaeology, is that

which is considered to be most challenging to engage in archaeology. There is a challenge for

community-oriented archaeology, to identify ways to present scientific and therefore difficult to access

information. Although there are obvious gaps in access to the web, these are ever shrinking. Simon’s

recent publication, The Participatory Museum, (2010) describes the future for museum exhibition design

lies in co-creative community projects that can give voice to local community members and provide a

place for community dialogue. The same is true for archaeology. The web, and in particular social media

platforms and tools, can provide a mechanism for staging co-creative community-oriented archaeology.

I plan to discuss ways to ensure successful implementation of social media use that is aligned closely to

aims of the community-oriented archaeology and embedded in strategies for web adoption. There is an

opportunity to learn from participative media, to create opportunities for heritage creation by

communities rather than authorities, as discussed by Fairclough (2011). This paper will introduce and

critically analyse a selection of case studies of community-oriented archaeology projects, implemented

by authorities, but engaged with by communities through social media.

Presentation Script The yellow highlighted portions of this script were not presented in Whistler due to time restrictions.

But I have included them here for your interest.

1. Good morning everyone, my name is Nicole, and as I am sure my accent is giving away, I am

here from the UK. The University of Southampton in fact; Where I am studying a PhD

looking at the potential use of the web for local authority museums with stored collections.

I’m going to be talking today about a very small part of my research, focussing on the

potential for social media for community archaeology. These slides and this presentation

are on my blog, the address of which I’ll put up at the end of the presentation.

2. This presentation is going to cover the following:

a. Brief intro to the differences between the internet and the web, and a quick

introduction to social media.

b. Followed by a discussion of one potential model for adoption within community

archaeology projects.

c. Next, some thoughts about the ways that the social web is challenging traditional

relationships in archaeology.

d. Then I’ll end with a consideration of crowdsourcing. What it is, and how it works, with a

few examples of crowdsourcing use for heritage, framed by that model for adoption.

3. I’m focussing this talk on the potential of social media for community archaeology, but I’m

actually beginning with a visualisation of the internet. I’m starting with the internet, because,

like all archaeologists, I’m interested in people. In how we’ve changed, and how we’re the

same. And I believe that exploring what the internet means to us, could help us to think

about other things happening away from the internet. I’m going to be talking about the idea

of the web as a social machine, and I think there’s potential there that archaeology could

harness.

So we’re starting with the internet.

This is a network diagram of the internet. It’s a snapshot of part of the internet from 2005,

and shows the connections between servers, or computers. You can see from the lines

joining other lines that the internet is made up of lots of networks. It is in fact a big network

of networks. Just like us.

Produced as part of the OPTE project, this mass of lines shows the relationships between

nodes (servers). The edges are differently coloured based on the domain names of the

different sites. These are class C networks, there are a few different classes, but essentially,

this is a part of the internet, represented through its networks.

4. And then we have the web. The web is one way that we interact with the internet. Other

ways are email. Or apps. If you are using apps on your iPhone, you are not accessing the

same content that you would do if you looked for that particular information using the web.

Apps are actually a pretty locked down, limiting experience of the information that is

available on the internet.

The web is also a huge network of networks, and can be represented in exactly the same

way.

When we look at the web, it looks similar to the internet. It is a mass of interconnected hubs.

This image shows the blogosphere, it’s a snapshot from 2007. The interesting thing about

thinking about the internet and the web as a network, is that we can see the shape of it, and

we can then begin to look at how it is changing. Barabasi published work in 1999 that

described the web as a scale-free network (Barabasi, 1999).

So if we zoom in …

5. Some of these nodes (in the case of the web; these are websites) are connected to lots of

other websites, and some are little islands, all by themselves. There are very big important

nodes, and then ones that do not really connect to anything else.

Experts are interested in this kind of way of visualising the internet and the web as it can

help to predict future problems. For instance, a highly connected node (or website) is very

important for the web to continue working.

Just as a highly connected network is important to keep the internet accessible to people. If

one node is taken away, and these visualisations can model this, what will happen to the

other nodes. Do they become totally isolated and therefore inaccessible to everyone? These

kinds of network analyses are being used to research into protecting the internet from

terrorist attacks or government shutdown.

So this is touching on the major theme of the reason why I have started a presentation

about community archaeology and social media with a slide of the internet. The internet

and the web is actually not a homogenous resource that we can all get to. Everyone

experiences a different internet and everyone experiences a different web.

Our web experience is actually incredibly local. This huge network of networks actually

works just like the real world. Except that there are opportunities here that have not been

easy to implement in the real world, that the social web could support. And this is what I

want to discuss today.

Today I am going to be focussing on one small aspect of one small part of one particular way

to use the web. I am going to look at the potential for community archaeology to use

crowdsourcing, which is a type of social media. I’m going to talk about crowdsourcing in a

moment. It’s a buzzword that we hear a lot now in the media, but it’s actually a really great

way of thinking about the potential of the web for community archaeology.

6. So, we’ve looked at the internet, and then at the web, and now we’re going to drill down

even further to social media. Of all the people who use the internet, 67% of those users, are

using social media (Duggan & Brenner, 2012). So it makes up a huge part of our web

experience. You probably recognise some, if not all, of these logos. This is the social media

that we think of. Things like Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and Wikipedia. But there is much more

to social media than just media sharing and social platforms.

7. This is a diagram showing the different types of social media (or the social web) that exist.

There are the expected forms, such as file sharing, platforms for talking to one another and

sharing things, and blogging, sharing written text in a time bound diary fashion through a

web log. But there are also lots of other forms of social media. Social media is a bit of a

misleading title. Not all of social media is actually social. For example, studies have found

that many bloggers don’t blog for others, but for themselves. So social media is actually

‘interactive’ rather than ‘social’ in many instances (Ruiz de Querol et al., 2011).

Writing reviews of restaurants for TripAdvisor is social media, using a bookmarking system

like Reddit that finds content for you and lets you push it out again is also a form of social

media, I’d argue that participating in virtual worlds, like massive online gaming

environments is very firmly within the social media camp.

So how is this all relevant to archaeology?

Well, in the cultural heritage sector, for the past few years, there have been some great

things happening around the development of ideas about community involvement in

museums. One of the key things that has come out in the last 7 years or so, is the notion of

the public participation model of the museum. This is something that my PhD research

focusses on.

I am interested in better understanding this phenomenon. What came first, the idea of

social media and participation online, or the new forms of participation that we are seeing

in the real world, that often have a social media component to support what is happening?

Such as the Occupy movement. There isn’t time to cover this this morning, but this is what I

am looking at exploring for part of my dissertation. The networks between people that the

web is made up of, and these many webs within the internet can result in social capital

(Coleman, 1998).

8. There are also lots of different ways to participate with archaeology. And I’m going to just

talk very briefly about the idea of co-participation. Nina Simon’s model, from her excellent

book the Participatory Museum, looks at the use of this kind of model for exhibitions design

(Simon, 2010). But I’d like to consider this from the perspective of community archaeology

this morning. So, in Simon’s example, there are four manifestations of the co-participative

model. The first is an institutionally controlled process. We all know about those! Story-

sharing facilities, opportunities for contributory activities, are provided but access to

information and also knowledge is controlled by the organisation.

For many of us here today, that is the university or the provincial department or the

commercial body we work for.

The second manifestation is collaborative projects. We’ve been hearing that word a lot over

the past few days. Particularly during Thursday’s plenary. In Simon’s version, visitors to the

museum are invited to serve as active partners, but the projects are institutional, originating

and ultimately controlled by that institution. In the third version, co-creative projects allow

community members and organisation members to work together from the outset to define

project goals, based on community interests.

This is pretty difficult to pull off in the real world, but I’d like to think in a moment about

how social media could perhaps contribute. And finally, there are hosted projects, where

the institution turns over a portion of its resources to present projects developed by public

groups, or even casual visitors. In Simon’s book about museum exhibitions, this is space in

the museum, or tools. Within community archaeology, this could be expertise or access to

data or knowledge. Handing over an empty room for exhibition design is very different to

handing over a bunch of GIS data, or giving someone a spectrometer to use, I’m not

suggesting that! But access to expertise could be a part of this model.

The thing with the idea of the public participation model, is that it looks very similar to social

media, and how this is made up. Social media could possibly be a tool that could support the

ideas of the participation model. It’s not the answer totally, and lots of other things need to

be in place for participation to occur, but what I’d like to think about here is whether social

media could be a supporting feature.

9. So, after all that, we go back to the different social media forms.

10. And we pick crowdsourcing.

11. Crowdsourcing is a manifestation of this network of networks of people that I was talking

about earlier in the presentation. It’s a way to use the power of the crowd to get work done.

For archaeology there’s real potential here. But for community archaeology, I believe that

there’s something there too. Crowdsourcing is human computation. Humans doing

something that computers cannot do. This might be because the task is conceptually too

hard for a computer to deal with, or it might be because it needs a human eye to recognise

a particular detail that a computer would not understand and would miss.

Computation is improving exponentially, but they still can’t do everything. In fact in the

grand scheme of things, they can do very little.

Crowdsourcing can be institutionally led, but more importantly for community archaeology,

it can be grassroots-led. Bottom-up. It harnesses the latent energy of the networks of

people using the internet in its many forms, including apps and the web. And it’s being used

by heritage. We can use it more, I think, but I think in order to do this, we need to

understand better what it actually is. And that’s what much of this talk has been about:

Thinking about the actual nature of the web and what it means for society.

12. This is an example of crowdsourcing. The Victoria and Albert Museum in the UK has a huge

database with an online component that you can search. They have 120,000 objects with

accompanying images. From each image, their system automatically creates five thumbnail

options. Then humans use their sense of composition and notions of usefulness to select

(and crop) the best option. As you can see from the bar along the top, they’re over halfway

there. This is a simple implementation. No real skills are required. The V&A needs people to

do something that a computer cannot do. This has immediate obvious potential for

archaeology projects.

13. The National Geographic have realised this in an archaeological setting and are using human

computation to do desk-based preliminary research into sites identification. Here you can

see users select from five options and move flags to locations on aerial photographs.

Computers couldn’t do this task. But anyone, anywhere with reasonable eyesight and a

mouse can contribute to this mammoth task of mapping sites in Mongolia. The skills

required are a little more complex than the V&A Search the Collections task, as a certain

amount of identification is required, but the task is simple and repetitive.

14. And this is the Transcribe Bentham project, where users trawl through scanned documents

from the Bentham collection, transcribing English and Latin notes for interpretation. This is

an interesting example as the skill level is a little higher than the Mongolian Expedition

requirements. But still within the grasp of most unskilled armchair web users.

15. Next we have the Old Weather Project. The National Maritime Museum worked with

Zooniverse team to create a crowdsourcing ‘game’ like experience to get old ships logbooks

transcribed. The project is completed, with huge amounts of data being processed. But here

is the interesting thing.

16. This is an image of the user participation from the Old Weather project. The boxes represent

users, and the larger the box, the more inputs a user made to the project. The work involved

looking at a log book record page and reading various pieces of information, including Lat-

Long info and weather descriptions. A higher level of interpretation was required as not all

entries were standardised. These few super users on the left hand side of this image must

have been logbook reading experts when they reached the end of this project. The game

component of the crowdsourcing gave participants recognition badges, based on their

numbers of entries completed, rising incrementally through the ranks of a ship’s crew,

ending in Captain. Thinking about the current situation of archaeological qualifications,

couldn’t a system like this skill-up amateur archaeologists with research skills. These super

user guys have more documentation analysis skills than many of our first year

undergraduate archaeology students, but none of the officially recognised qualifications.

Isn’t that a familiar story?

17. And skills and expertise brings me neatly onto my next point. Relating to social media.

Another thing that is happening, that many have attributed to the social web, but again that

I think should lead to a chicken-and-egg debate, is the shifting of traditional roles and

relationships. I’ve attempted to represent a simplified version of a portion of this shift. Here

you have two axes. Experience and recognition, and along these lines, we see that there is

no longer a nice neat box for the expert and a nice neat box for the amateur.

This has happened many times before. In the UK the example of the increase in popularity in

the 1970s of industrial archaeology, which was historical archaeology and not popular at all

within the academic world. The first serious studies were carried out in association with

adult learning classes through a university, and much of the first years of research were

carried out predominately by amateur enthusiasts. But over time, those amateurs became

the experts, and wrote books, and taught the subject at university, and the idea of industrial

archaeology became as established as other archaeological themes.

Not only is the line between amateur and expert blurring, the line between novice and

professional is becoming less clear (Shaefer, 2011; Lovink, 2011). And there are

permutations in-between. And social media is a proponent in this happening. People have

access to information. There is much talk about the web being the next shift in society

following on from the Gutenberg press, and the research does indeed seem to be

supporting this idea.

Just as access to King Johns Bible was empowering to people, the increasing levels of access

to the internet is providing opportunities for academic advancement and increases in

cultural awareness that is having a visible impact on the world around us.

Just a few weeks ago, one of our most TV-friendly philosophers, introduced on the BBC

radio the idea that the recently released figures of reduction in violent crime numbers,

despite the recession and increases in poverty and unemployment, could well be related to

social media and the web. Increased access to the internet means that we can see more

from our own homes. Facebook means that we are connected by other connections to

people that we might not necessarily have met in our local area, and so there are more

opportunities to gain understanding and tolerance of one another’s cultural and lifestyle

origins and choices. So the very nature of relationships is changing.

There’s lots of discussion about this at the moment with the sudden rise in popularity within

higher education of the idea of massive online open courses (Google MOOCs to find out

more) which make education free and easy to access. What does this mean for university

applications? What is ‘free’ really? Time and effort are still involved. Massive is a misnomer

as we’re all only able to maintain a certain size of network. There may be 10,000 people

registered onto Khan Academy’s Archaeology 101 course, but a student will only

communicate with 30 individuals. What’s different there from a university module?

The interesting thing about the internet, and the web, and social media, that I mentioned

earlier in my presentation. The web may be massive (over 1 trillion instances of content at

last count), but our experience is essentially local. Once we accept this idea, a consideration

of the potential of social media for community archaeology becomes a totally different thing.

Homophily is the idea that we all look for the same people online as we do offline

(McPherson et al., 2001). We all look and form relationships that are similar to relationships

that we have already had experience of. So if we represented web use on a map of the

world, wed’ see that relationships that are formed online mirror relationships that we have

in the real world. For example, in massive multiplayer online games, such as World of

Warcraft, where users can travel in fantasy worlds, and meet whoever they like, studies

have shown that the majority of players, play with people located within 50 miles of them

(Ahmed et al., 2011). They could have just gone to the pub!

But the web does remove one barrier. Geography. The space of the internet is virtual, we

can experience things away from our geographical location. Within reason. Were still

bounded by language. And by actual internet access.

Many countries have locked down, or filtered access to online content.

But still, those barriers are lessened with the online world. And this has a huge potential for

archaeology.

The social web allows potentially for the creation of new communities. It allows for the

creation of new tools and for new models of social intercourse. And this is useful for

community archaeology.

One of the major messages that came out of the plenary was that of communication.

Passing on the message. Telling people things. That’s what can contribute to the protection

of many of the archaeological sites that are being talked about at the CAA, and that’s what

can help to protect the history of the communities speaking here today. But social media

isn’t just a tool for projection. There are more opportunities that just broadcasting. And

that’s what I’d like to spend a few minutes talking about now. Thinking back to that

participatory model for engaging with community archaeology using the web. Social media

can support the different levels of engagement, and can support different types of

relationships.

Heritage is a result of interactions between people (Byrne, 2008). If we think about how

local heritage knowledge production (Graham et al., 2011) is not necessarily geographically

bounded, we can begin to think about lots of potential uses of social media for archaeology.

There is evidence of this elsewhere. Political activism has risen modestly, but steadily,

through the use of digital media. There are studies to support this (Bouilanne, 2009).

As this is the area of social media implementation most commonly researched. As is political

participation (particularly in the lead up to the Obama elections. Those sponsors want to

know what their money is paying for, and so lots of work has been done on translating

online trends to real world effects. Does saying you support a particular political notion on

Twitter, changing your profile picture with a politically themed badge for instance, actually

relate to a real world change in behaviours? Studies results have been varied. But what is

certain is that social media can lower transaction costs (Breuer & Farooq, 2012). ‘Liking’ a

community archaeology project’s Facebook page, is much less effort than turning up at a

summer excavation and holding your thumbs up to the guy counting visitors to the site for

the funding research council’s impact part of the project reporting form. But clicking ‘Like’ is

still an action, and still has meaning to it.

18. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum illustrates to us how social media can be

used to crowdsource data, but in very different ways. One department within the museum

has implemented a few totally different crowdsourcing projects. I just want to spend a

moment looking at a couple of these as they illustrate beautifully the different potential for

working with communities and individuals for the creation of archaeological knowledge.

This first project is the Remember Me? project work. Over 1,000 photographs of lost

individuals, children displaced between 1933-1945, are put online and any available

information as to their identification provided alongside the image. In most cases this is

nothing. Then a simple frame is put into the webpage that brings a comments box from

Facebook. This links to a Facebook page, managed by one member of staff based at the

Museum. This method of letting people use a platform that they are already familiar with,

Facebook, to communicate any information about individuals in photographs, has helped to

identify many, many lost people. And the key to this is using something that is already

working for people, and research into internet use is at the heart of this. But this system is

time consuming.

19. Within the same department, a member of staff has set up a way for people to undertake

research into the re-identification of over 13,000 children from the Lodz Ghetto, using as a

basis an album, gifted to the Jewish Council for News Year’s Eve, 1940, in which each child

contributed a hand-drawn picture, with an accompanying name. Each record must be

meticulously researched, using records made available online by the museum, including

genealogy records, labour camp records, and ghetto data. Throughout the entire process,

the staff member checks up on the researcher, comments on their progress and offers tips.

At the end of the process, the user has learned something about researching using historical

records, and the museum has an augmented record. The first few gos take time, and staff

support is required, but after the initial training, users can crack on with assignments.

Crowdsourcing that gives back skills. The site is popular with lecturers delivering Jewish

history undergraduate courses, and many students get hooked and continue using the

system after their compulsory time has finished.

20. The third and final of this museum’s examples is an interesting blend of professional and

amateur. The museum has teamed up with Ancestry.com a subscription based service for

geneaology research. Users can access the museum’s records for labour camps, through the

Ancestry.com software, and make links between data about individuals through transcribing

documents. Combining a commercial model, with an academic/public institution is an

interesting way to ensure that silos of commonly separated data sets can be combined to

achieve amazing results.

21. Thinking about these examples, it is clear that there are definitely different types of

crowdsourcing, just as there are different types of community archaeology. And

crowdsourcing can manifest in the different forms of that participatory model that I was

talking about earlier on.

Crowdsourcing can be used for reconfiguration or creation, and this is what is great for

community archaeology. We’ve all heard examples of crowdsourcing initiatives that have

added to, or improved, data, but there are also ways to use it to create new information and

knowledge. That matches nicely to that participation model we were looking way back 10

minutes ago. And the opportunities for archaeology are varied also. This has been a few

thoughts, based on Oomen and Aroyo’s idea that crowdsourcing can help to curate, revise,

locate data. But can also be used to document personal life, or histories of communities,

and can also be used to augment knowledge (Oomen & Aroyo, 2011).

22. So in the last few minutes, here a couple more examples of crowdsourcing to end on. This is

crowdsourcing as a tool for contributing to overcoming real world problems. These are

nicely representative of the ideas I was talking about before, this shift in the social

landscape, the exciting movements between and around expert and amateur, and the

creation of knowledge that challenges the traditional dichotomies of organiser and

participant. This example shows how the collection of data can be crowdsourced by locally

based users. The Scotland’s Coastal Heritage at Risk project is an excellent example of using

local knowledge, or local expertise, to contribute to the protection of archaeology.

23. An associated free mobile phone app allows users to add detailed information about coastal

archaeological sites at risk of erosion. Dog walkers becoming archaeologists. Cleverly

designed forms collect archaeologically structured data from novices.

24. And anyone can set-up and manage crowdsourcing projects. Crowdcrafting is a recent Open

Knowledge Foundation open source package that can be downloaded free and used to any

end. This is an example of an implementation that is crowdsourcing urban park locations,

asking users to identify on a map of a random city any urban parks.

25. This installation takes a huge collection of photographs of lichen, and asks users to provide

characteristic and size information from that photo, contributing to research around climate

change.

26. This is the Your Paintings project. Only a couple of years old, this website is a portal into

images of paintings held in storage by organisations in the UK. This joint BBC and Public

Catalogue Initiative project digitised over 200,000 paintings are available to view, and the

project crowdsources various content from users across the world. The basic task is the

tagging of content. But there is a complexity to this project. Upon registration, your level of

knowledge of art history is recorded, and the tasks you are assigned can be completed at a

basic or advanced level. So that idea of there being more than just novices and professionals,

amateurs and experts is seen here in action. The information collected during the task

include tagging with subject matter, style, colour, location, theme and actual painting

content. There must be something here for community archaeology. Your Paintings takes

disparate collections, presents them centrally and then requires users from all over the

world to contribute data.

27. The DigVentures project, is the first fully crowdfunded archaeological project. Users pledge

amounts from £10 upwards, receiving rewards that increase in coolness incrementally as

money pledged rises. £10 gets you access to behind the scenes blog whilst the dig takes

place, £1000 and above gets you access to the entire dig, as a field school participant. The

dig’s funding, and some staff, have been entirely crowdsourced!

28. So I guess a final point to make in the last few seconds is that social media is a more

accessible form of the web than many other modes of internet access, and I think, and I

hope that I’ve fairly represented in these 18 (-ish!) minutes, that it offers a new way to think

about models of participation in community archaeology. The possibilities are really quite

exciting. Thank-you.

References Ahmad, M. A., Srivastava, J., Ahmed, I., Poole, M.A. (2011). Trust me, I’m an Expert: Trust, Homophily

and Expertise in MMOs, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and Trust, and

IEEE International Conference on Social Computing: 882-87,

http://www.academia.edu/2875098/Trust_Me_Im_an_Expert_Trust_Homophily_and_Expertise_in_M

MOs

Barabasi, A-L., Albert, A. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science, 286: 509-512,

http://www.barabasilab.com/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/199910-15_Science-Emergence/199910-

15_Science-Emergence.pdf

Bouilanne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political

Communication, 26(2): 193-211

Breuer, A. Farooq, B. (2012). Online Political Participation: Slacktivism or Efficiency Increase Activism?

Evidence from the Brazilian Ficha Limpa Campaign. 2012 ISA Annual Convention San Diego, 1-4 April

2012. Panel: Social Media and Political Mobilization

Byrne, D. (2008). Heritage as Social Action, in Fairclough, G., Harrison, R., Schonfield, J., and Jameson,

J.H., (eds.), The Heritage Reader, Routledge: London

Coleman, J.S. (1998). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,

supplement: organisations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of

Social Structure, 94: 95-120

Duggan, M., Brenner, J. (2012). The Demographics of Social Media Users — 2012, Feb 14, 2013, Pew

Internet and American Life Project, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Social-media-users/The-State-

of-Social-Media-Users.aspx

Graham, S., Massie, G. Feuerherm, N. (2011). The HeritageCrowd Project: A Case Study in

Crowdsourcing Pulbic History (Spring 2012 Version), Writing History in the Digital Age, eds. Dougherty,

Jack, Nawrotzki, Nadine, Spring 2012, http://writinghistory.trincoll.edu/public-history/graham-etal-

2012-spring/#fn-3063-3

Lovink, G. (2011). Networks Without a Cause. A Critique of Social Media, Polity Press: Cambridge

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks,

Annual Review of Sociology, 2001, 27: 415–44,

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Oomen, J., Aroyo, L. (2011). Crowdsourcing in the cultural heritage domain: opportunities and

challenges, C&T’11, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Communities and Technologies ,

ACM; New York, 2011: 138-149, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2103373

Ruiz de Querol, R., Kappler, K., Kaltenbrunner, A., Vokovich, Y., Laniado, D. (2011). Social Innovation

Meets Social Media: A Framework Proposal. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social

Media, North America, July 2011,

http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/view/3856

Shaefer, M.T. (2011). Bastard Culture! How User Participation Transforms Cultural Production, Media

Matters, Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam.

http://mtschaefer.net/media/uploads/docs/Schaefer_Bastard-Culture_2011.pdf

Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum, Museum 2.0, http://www.participatorymuseum.org/