The International Information & Library Review (2010) 42, 137e142

ava i lab le at www.sc ienced i rec t . com

journa l homepage : www.e lsev ie r . com/ loca te / i i l r

Social networking and Web 2.0 ininformation literacy

Amanda Click a,*, Joan Petit b

a Instruction and Reference Librarian, The American University in Cairo, AUC Library, Post Office Box 74, New Cairo 11835,EgyptbHumanities and Social Sciences Librarian, Portland State University, PSU Library e LIBW, Post Office Box 1151, Portland,OR 97207-1151, USA

Abstract This paper discusses free online and Internet tools that can be adapted by librarians

for use with library instruction and information literacy training, with a focus on social mediaand Web 2.0 technologies, including social networking websites Facebook and Twitter, blogs,RSS, wikis, and video sharing. Many students already use these technologies and are readilyengaged with the library when the technologies are incorporated into library websites andclasses. There are challenges in using these technologies, especially in countries with oppres-sive governments. This paper is based, in part, on a presentation the authors gave at the UN-ESCO Training the Trainers in Information Literacy Workshop at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina inAlexandria, Egypt in November 2008.ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

The Internet offers a range of free and sophisticated toolsthat can be adapted by libraries for use in multiple ways,including user services, library promotion, and informationliteracy training. These tools, including social networkingand other Web 2.0 technologies, provide effective ways forlibraries and librarians to engage students and communi-cate with them via the preferred methods of the Millennialgeneration. This paper, based on a presentation the authorsgave at the UNESCO Training the Trainers in InformationLiteracy Workshop at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Alex-andria, Egypt in November 2008, covers free social

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: aclick@aucegypt.edu (A. Click), jpetit@pdx.

edu (J. Petit).

1057-2317/$ - see front matter ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveddoi:10.1016/j.iilr.2010.04.007

networking websites like Facebook and Twitter, and otherWeb 2.0 websites and tools like blogs, wikis, video sharing,and social bookmarking.

First, we will define social networking and Web 2.0.Next, we will discuss the ways in which librarians can useWeb 2.0 to connect patrons to libraries, to market services,to make more information widely available, and to teachinformation literacy skills. Finally, we will briefly discussthe reasons that these tools and technologies are particu-larly appropriate for libraries and librarians in developingcountries, relevant to the relatively new use of socialmedia in social and political protests, including the protestsin Iran in the summer of 2009. Many different socialnetworking and Web 2.0 tools and technologies will becovered here. Not all of these technologies are appropriatefor all libraries or all librarians. Each library should work todetermine which technologies are most popular with theirusers and adapt these technologies accordinglydto meet

.

138 A. Click, J. Petit

our patrons where they are, and to help them becomebetter users of information.

Defining our terms

What exactly does the phrase ‘Web 2.0’ mean? The idea ofWeb 2.0 is “commonly associated with web applicationsthat facilitate interactive information sharing, interopera-bility, user-centered design, and collaboration on the WorldWide Web,” allowing users to interact with one another oredit or add to website content (“Web 2.0,” 2010). Ofcourse, this definition comes from that frontrunner of Web2.0 tools, Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia that can be editedby users, Wikipedia embodies the concept of 2.0. Websitesthat are now retroactively identified as Web 1.0 are static.The user can look at the website and take information fromit, but cannot interact with the creator, website, or infor-mation itself. In fact, the phrase ‘Web 1.0,’ was not evendeveloped until there was something to which it could becompared. Prior to 2004, when the phrase Web 2.0 becamepopular, the Web was just the Web. Web 2.0 applicationsallow users to share videos and links, find and stay incontact with friends, comment on each other’s photos, andmuch more.

In the most general sense, social networking is thebuilding of online communities. Online social networkingservices provide a variety of ways for members to inter-actdfrom emailing to instant messaging to photo tagging.The most popular sites provide a way to connect withfriends through multiple interaction methods. EncyclopediaBritannica Online defines a social network as “an onlinecommunity of individuals who exchange messages, shareinformation, and, in some cases, cooperate on joint activ-ities” (“Social Network,” 2010). Social networking appli-cations and websites “support the maintenance of personalrelationships” (van Zyl, 2009). Note that Wikipedia andEncyclopedia Britannica are representative, respectively,of Web 2.0 and Web 1.0. Any user could interact with theWikipedia entry on Web 2.0 by editing the information inthe article. However, the Encyclopedia Britannica articleon social networking is static; a user can consume theinformation but not respond to or change it.

Literature review

For libraries to remain relevant, librarians must becomeproficient with the newest information technologies andcomfortable using them to communicate with patrons.Fortunately, academic librarians have generally shown tobe amongst the early adopters of technology (Xu, Ouyang,& Chu, 2009). Libraries are using Web 2.0 technologies,including wikis, blogs, and social networks, to the extentthat the term “Library 2.0” has become popular. In Library2.0, the user is called upon to participate in and providefeedback on library services, so that these services areconstantly evaluated and improved (Peltier-Davis, 2009).Users may comment on the library’s blog or tag books in thecatalog. The most important aspect of these technologies,however, is that they are open, interactive, collaborative,and participatory, and this is what defines Web 2.0 tech-nologies (Xu et al., 2009).

It is important to proceed with caution when imple-menting these technologies, however. A study by Burhanna,Seeholzer and Salem showed that university undergraduatestudents may not be as comfortable with Web 2.0 aspresumed. These students also “expressed a clear sense ofseparation between educational and social spaces in theonline environment” (Burhanna, Seeholzer, & Salem Jr.,2009). These attitudes are not universal, of course, andassessing the needs of library patrons and trying new modesof communication are encouraged.

Godwin suggests that Web 2.0 technologies are best usedto teach information literacy concepts. For example,a librarian might utilize the tagging feature of Flickr to“help students understand keywords, subject searching,and make comparisons between tags and controlledvocabulary” (Godwin, 2009); indeed, some librarians at theAmerican University in Cairo experimented with Flickr inthe university’s required information literacy course(Bussert, Brown, & Armstrong, 2008). Sokoloff (2009)identifies libraries all around the world, from the UnitedKingdom to Serbia, that have created Facebook groups andpages to share information and interact with patrons.

Librarians have cultivated an online presence, and DeVoeoffers advice for increasing the effectiveness of this pres-ence. Sheadvises librarians tobecognizant of privacy settingsandwho can view content, and to “utilize a consistent profilename across multiple social networking sites” (DeVoe, 2009).

The professional literature from the last year illustratesthe currency of Web 2.0 and social networking in libraries,and international librarians would be wise to investigateand consider the experiences of others and adapt thesetechnologies accordingly.

Facebook and Twitter

Facebook and Twitter are two of the most popular socialnetworking sites. Over 400 million people in the worldactively use Facebook (Stross, 2010), while Twitter claimsover 106 million registered users (Miller, 2010). The authorsfound, anecdotally, that Facebook was just as popularamongst Egyptian students at the American University inCairo as it was with American students at institutions in theUnited States, if not more so. Indeed, Egyptian studentsseemed particularly responsive to efforts to reach out tothem through Facebook, perhaps because it is one area ofEgyptian life that offers (relatively) free speech. Whileoriginally Facebookwas popular with young adults, currentlyover 50% of users are over the age of 35 (Stross, 2010).

On Facebook, individuals establish profiles with detailedpersonal information, from birthday and religion to rela-tionship status and family members. Facebook users then“friend” other Facebook users, and their social networkbegins. Institutions have become a huge force in Facebookas well. Facebook users can “like” their favorite magazines,television shows, authors, non-profit organizations, corpo-rations, food products, and more. These companies, inturn, use Facebook to promote their products and theirbrand.

Different teachers, librarians, and faculty use Facebookin different ways. Some friend their patrons and students;the authors prefer to use Facebook as primarily a personal

Social networking and Web 2.0 in information literacy 139

social network, and generally do not connect with theirstudents here.

However, librarians can capitalize on our patrons’enthusiasm for Facebook by creating a formal institutionalprofile, or “page” (in Facebook vernacular). These pagesfunction similarly to individual profiles: they have roughlythe same appearance and same limitations on custom-ization. Users can choose to like our library pages, and thenour status updates will appear in their news feeds. Face-book Page administrators choose how interactive theirpages will bedfor example, whether users can postcomments or links on the organization’s wall.

There are many excellent examples of how libraries canengage with their users through Facebook pages. In Port-land, Oregon, in the United States, the Multnomah CountyPublic Library has a busy, vibrant Facebook presence. Thelibrary regularly posts events and information, and Fansoften respond. Some patrons also post questions to thelibrary, which the library answers. Most notably, the pagealso hosts asynchronous discussions about issuessurrounding the library and books; for example, the libraryposted information about a new language learning data-base, and patrons responded with gratitude and questionsabout how to use and locate the database. The questionswere answered both by other Facebook users and thelibrary itself (“Multnomah County Library,” 2010).

The Facebook page of the AUC Library (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cairo-Egypt/AUC-Main-Library/23630215857) is another example of a place where patronsexchange information. Joan Petit created and publishedthe library’s page (which is now administered by AmandaClick) in December 2007, and, with relatively little effort topromote it, the page gained fans quickly, and now has over1300. Most of the AUC fans are students and alumni of theuniversity. The authors left relatively few restrictions onwhat users can post to the page, and fans now use the pageto talk to each other and promote their own events andissues, as well as to engage with the library. Our users alsohave uploaded their own photos of the library to ourlibrary’s Facebook Page. We feel that the page’s opennessis worth the occasional marketing posts our Fans leavethere (American University in Cairo, 2010).

Both authors have used Facebook in their teaching.Amanda Click has found it helpful to explain weblogs interms of “notes” Facebook users can write on their profiles.Because AUC students already are familiar with Facebook,it can function as a bridge to understanding other Web 2.0technologies. Joan Petit uses the photo feature on Face-book to explain controlled vocabulary and subject headingsin library catalogs. On Facebook, users can upload photosand “tag” their friends in the pictures, which is thenavailable in the friend’s profile. However, you have to usethe person’s name as they use it on Facebook. For example,if your friend Mick Smith is on Facebook, but you write hisname as “Michael Smith,” people will be able to identifyhim in the caption but will not be able to locate that photoof him through his profile. While this is complicated to non-users of Facebook, students understand this readily andlearn that the use of subject headings in OPACs requiresprecise language.

Twitter is seeing similarly explosive growth. On Face-book, people generally use their real names and identities,

whereas on Twitter, however, people choose names thatmay obscure their real identities. Indeed, the phenomenonof Twitter users impersonating celebrities became sowidespread that the company now provides verification forcelebrity accounts. Twitter also is populated by companiesand institutions of all sorts; there is an excellent chancethat the producers of your favorite products are on Twitter,tweeting news designed to entice you to spend more.

Libraries are using Twitter in different ways, some asa broadcast mechanism, to share news about the library.Others are engaging with users heredactively participatingin Twitter by responding to questions from other Twitterersand responding to their questions. The New York City PublicLibrary (http://twitter.com/nypl) in the United States isa great example of an active, engaged library using Twitterto its potential. The library’s Twitter content includesevent promotion, commentary, links, and trivia questions,and, most significantly, they actively engage with users.Anyone can address a tweet to the New York Public Libraryby including “@nypl” in their 140 characters. Twitter usersoften refer to the library as a place (for example: “Stoppingby @nypl to pick up a book on my way home”), so they arenot specifically addressing the library, but many users doaddress the library directly, with reference and otherquestions (New York Public Library, 2010).

When librarian Brian Matthews first experimented withTwitter in 2008, he found that the students at his universityalready were talking about the library, at times as a locationand other times expressing research frustration. Creatinga library Twitter account, then, seemed like an obvious wayto connect with these students and “to monitor actual usageof librarian services” (Matthews, 2008). By searching Twitterfor mentions of his library, he was able to find complaintsand concerns and address them directlydand clearly thesewere not students who were approaching the library’sReference Desk with their questions. Matthews said Twitterallowed for “conversational reference,” when students postresearch needs, such as wanting to find the full text of anarticle not available in the library. Matthews (2008) was ableto reach a user group that was otherwise silent and toprovide service to “students with defined needs”.

Libraries are also using Twitter, and a similar work-focused microblogging service, Yammer (yammer.com),for internal communication and professional development.Yammer was designed to be used in the workplace, asa way to facilitate asynchronous communication and avoidclogging up email inboxes. Twitter hosts a rich communityof international librarians discussing their work andprofession.

Video sharing

Video and photo sharing are important aspects of Web 2.0,especially at popular sites like YouTube (youtube.com) andFlickr (flickr.com). Almost everyone with Internet access isfamiliar with YouTube; it has become quite a sensationaround the world as it creates temporary fame around themost popular videos. People use it to watch TV, commer-cials, and homemade videos. Some people load their ownvideos to share, but plenty of people watch videos withoutever loading one to the website or even creating anaccount.

140 A. Click, J. Petit

Some libraries are using YouTube to promote theirservices. The most important thing to remember isthat these videos must be something students will actu-ally watch. Harper Library, at Harper College in theUnited States, made a short video and posted it to You-Tube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?vZJHljR4LYmOA). Since it was posted just over 2 years ago, thevideo has been viewed almost 30,000 times. It uses humorto engage students and keep their attentiondand ulti-mately to teach students about library services andresources (Harper Library, 2007).

YouTube can also be part of information literacyprogramming. In fact, some libraries load tutorials ontoYouTube. At the American University in Cairo, we teacha one hour per week required information literacy lab, andwe often use videos to teach difficult concepts.For example, the video “Web Search Strategies in PlainEnglish” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?vZB8aYoVpdz8o) explains via simple illustration and narration basicsearch strategies for the Internet. Other tutorials from thesame company, Common Craft, are excellent as well. Thebeauty of Web 2.0, particularly for teaching librarians, isthe focus on sharing resources. If a librarian in Texas makesa great video, she wants people to see it and use it. You-Tube even hosts a channel devoted to library instruction:http://www.youtube.com/user/libvidawards.

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking allows users to store, organize, search,manage, and share webpage bookmarks. Think about yourlist of favorites or bookmarked sites that you have on yourown computer. A social bookmarking website makes this listavailable anywhere that you can connect to the Internet, sothe user can access these bookmarks from home, work, oreven a public computer. Bookmarks can be saved privately,made available to other Internet users, or shared withfriends or colleagues.

Delicious (delicious.com) is the most popular socialbookmarking site. Delicious account holders create tags ewords, or phrases that categorize a piece of informationlike a blog entry or website. For example, if we saved thewebpage for this article to Delicious, we might tag it with“information literacy,” “Web 2.0,” “ILLR article,” or even“my article.” These tags can be searched or browsed,allowing the information to be retrieved more easily andfacilitating discovery; though the tags are user-defined,many account holders use the same tags for the same kindsof items, thus linking information between various users.Delicious account holders click on tags, often in tag clouds,to find out what others are reading and discussing. A tagcloud is a list of tags in which the popularity is indicated bysize; for example the tag ‘music’ would appear in a largerfont size than ‘architecture’ if more bookmarks have beentagged with ‘music’ than with ‘architecture.’ Scanninga user’s tag cloud offers a glimpse into that person’s most-tagged concepts, and thus their interests.

Many libraries have been using Delicious, especially forreference work. For example, the MIT Libraries’ VirtualReference Collection includes a link to their tag cloud as wellas their list of bookmarks in Delicious (MIT Libraries, 2009).

Zotero (zotero.org) also facilitates social bookmarking,though Zotero functions as a Firefox add-on that is intendedprimarily for researchers to bookmark and share references.For example, researchers can manage and share libraries ofsources, including citations, the PDF of an article, an elec-tronic encyclopedia entry, or even a book page on Amazon.com. Zotero scrapes website data and attempts to auto-matically populate bibliographic information about eachsaved source. References can be shared easily withcolleagues, making it simpler to collaborate on research orsimply share an interesting reference with a coworker.Information is kept both on the user’s computer and on theZotero server, accessible via the Zotero website; when userssync their account, the documents and citations can beaccessed from any computer with Internet access.

Wikis

Wikipedia is the pioneer, the wiki that created the notion ofwikis and, indeed, ushered in the 2.0 era. It seems appro-priate, then, to offer Wikipedia’s definition: “A wiki isa page or collection of Web pages designed to enableanyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content.Wikis are often used to create collaborative websites and topower community websites” (“Wiki,” 2010). Several web-sites offer no-cost wiki hosting, including Wetpaint, Wiki-dot, and PBworks. Many professors have found various waysto employ wikis in their teaching, as a syllabus and coursemanagement system updated throughout the semester, oras a virtual classroom, where students can create,comment on, and edit discussions. Some proprietary coursemanagement systems, including Blackboard, provide a wikiwithin them.

At the American University in Cairo, we implementeda wiki to host the curriculum, syllabus, assignments, andlesson plans for LALT 101, the university’s required infor-mation literacy course, in large part to pull the coursecontent out of Blackboard. The wiki content is open toediting by all LALT 101 instructor librarians, though typicallyonly one or two people are actively involved in thework eachsemester. Students cannot edit the wiki, though they cancreate accounts and make comments. The wiki, hosted byWetpaint and available at http://lalt.wetpaint.com, allowsus to modify our course and weekly lesson plansdwhich arecommon to all instructorsdwithout emails and meetings.We feel it has greatly improved our efficiency by allowinginstructors to make last minute changes as needed. Studentsquickly learn to visit the LALT wiki for course information,including weekly assignments (LALT 101, 2010).

Librarians are using wikis for all sorts of information-sharing purposes. For example, a conference wiki can be aninformal complement to the official event website, andattendees may use the wiki to post requests for sharedtransportation from the airport to the conference locale orto offer suggestions on good local restaurants. Otherconference organizers run their entire event through thewiki; this is particularly popular amongst “unconferences”and “barcamps.” Some professional wikis support profes-sional development by sharing blogs, articles, and links.The possibilities are vast because wikis make creating,editing, and collaborating easy and seamless.

Social networking and Web 2.0 in information literacy 141

Blogs and RSS feeds

Weblogs, or blogs, have been part of the Web 2.0 landscapefor quite a few years now. Many libraries host blogs withnews, events, and other information; many librarians blogto report conference presentations, ruminate on theprofession, or to share news. The most popular blogs tendto embody the concept of Web 2.0: the blogger writes andpublishes an entry, and readers respond in the blog’scommentsdor even on their own blog. The blogger mayreact to comments in the comments or in a new blog entry.Blogs, then, can host extensive conversations betweenpeople who may or may not know each other in real life. Wehave found the best uses of blogs to be for professionaldevelopment and as a teaching tool.

We implemented blogging in Fall 2008 at the AmericanUniversity in Cairo Library, as part of a curriculum update,related to concerns that our students were not engagedfully with the course content. While many students passedthe class, some students’ final research projects indicateda lack of understanding of basic search concepts for librarydatabases. We hoped that, via blogging with WordPress.com, students would be inspired to work harder sincetheir blogs would be published online and read by both theirinstructor and classmates. Class, then, became focused onshort discussions and lectures followed by extensive indi-vidual work, as students practiced new skills and bloggedthe results.

Student feedback ultimately convinced all the librarianinstructors of the value of blogging. Testing revealed thesame score increase, while students’ work throughout thesemester indicated a deeper understanding of the mate-rial. And, finally, students were enthusiastic about a classthat had previously engendered disdain. Our first semesterpresented real challenges, and we recognize that blogswill not work for every student in every class. Still, it hasbeen remarkably effective for library instruction at theAUC.

RSS, which may stand for “Really Simple Syndication,”makes many things possible and helps various social mediainteract with each other. An excellent overview of RSS isavailable through Common Craft on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?vZ0klgLsSxGsU. The authorsuse RSS professionally to track student blogs, as well aslibrary and technology blogs. RSS means a Twitter user canupdate their Twitter feed and have that content alsoappear on Facebook. Some libraries use RSS to pull theirTwitter feed onto their library website. The beauty of RSSis that one need not understand the technology of the toolto use it well. RSS means that we do not need to visit eachwebsite to track changes, but, rather, an RSS reader(like Google Reader or Bloglines) will alert us when one ofour tracked blogs or sites has been updated. RSSgreatly facilitates almost every Web 2.0 technology. It isan excellent tool for filtering and keeping up withinformation.

Social media networking and social movements

Web 2.0 technologies open the world to many people andfacilitate communication and conversation. This can be

threatening to governments that limit the speech of theircitizens. Some governments have attempted to block thesetechnologies with varying success. Ethiopia, for example,blocks blogging website Blogger.com. Saudi Arabia blockssites it considers “immoral.” China limits information aboutTaiwan (“Internet Censorship”, 2010).

We saw an example of the reach and power of Facebookin the spring of 2008 in Egypt, where criticism of thepresident and political protests are illegal. With growingconcern about rising bread prices and government corrup-tion, some Egyptians began a call for a national strike onApril 6, not coincidentally the birthday of President HosniMubarak. Facebook was already a popular social network inEgypt, especially amongst young people, and one youngwoman, Esraa Rashid, and a friend started a Facebookgroup for the strike, and it quickly gained over 70,000members. April 6 saw riot police swarming Tahrir Square,a central gathering area in downtown Cairo, as well asuniversities, factories, and other areas where the govern-ment anticipated political activity, which had a chillingeffect on most potential strikers. Rashid was arrested andjailed for two weeks because she started the Facebookgroup promoting the strike (Shapiro, 2009).

AUC graduate student Philip Rizk, an Egyptian-Germandual national, was arrested in Egypt in the spring of 2009for political activities protesting Egypt’s actions (orperceived lack of actions) in Gaza, as discussed on his blog.Rizk was jailed for more than four days after the policeknocked on his door late one night (Slackman, 2009). Afterrelease, Rizk reported that the police hacked into many ofhis various online accounts, including for his blog (Rizk,2009).

The summer of 2009 showed Twitter to be a powerfultool of communication in Iran’s green revolution, whenprotestors used the social media service to share news witheach other and with those internationally, withoutgovernment filters (“Twitter,” 2010a).

Twitter users and other social media users have foundways around government filtering and blocks of certaintechnologies. For example, people can update their Twitterstatus from their mobile phones. In Cuba, political bloggerYoani Sanchez emails text for her blog, “Generation Y,” tofriends in other countries, who then post her entries andreply with comments made to previous blog entries (Miroff,2010). Some bloggers post updates to their blogs directlyfrom their mobile phones. As these technologies becomemore ubiquitous, it becomes easier and easier to communi-cate with them, and more difficult for governments to limitthem.

The future of social media in libraries

The biggest technological change for libraries will likely bein the form of applications accessed via mobile phone,because of the rise of smart phones, which function morelike miniature computers, and the widespread use ofmobile phonesdeven in the poorest countries, mobilephones are essential communication devices.

Many libraries already offer text reference, and we arelikely to see continued growth in this area, whether ourusers have smart phones or basic mobile phones.

142 A. Click, J. Petit

Conclusion

At times the biggest resistance to these technologies can beinternal; indeed, if a library’s administration is concernedabout implementation of these technologies, the authorsencourage you to share with them some of the websites wehave mentioned in this article. We do take risks with socialmedia: we risk unsuccessful implementations where ourusers do not find us; we risk opening up to more patronfeedback. But the authors believe that the benefits of thesetechnologies strongly outweigh the concerns. Our experi-ence shows that our patrons already are engaged in thesetechnologies and may well be talking about our librariesalready. The most compelling reasons for libraries to usethese technologies, then, are two-fold: our users arealready there and may be talking about us; and by usingthese technologies, we better understand our users andhelp them become savvier consumers and creators ofinformation. These technologies also facilitate professionaldevelopment, a trait particularly important for interna-tional librarians geographically isolated from manycolleagues and home countries.

Social media is removing profound communicationbarriers, and even when used not for political activities,the import and value of these technologies must not beunderestimated.

References

American University in Cairo. (2010). Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cairo-Egypt/AUC-Main-Library/23630215857.

Burhanna, Kenneth J., Seeholzer, Jamie, & Salem, Joseph, Jr.(2009). No natives here: a focus group study of studentperceptions of Web 2.0 and the academic library. The Journalof Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 523e532.

Bussert, Kaila, Brown, Nicole H., & Armstrong, Alison (2008). IL 2.0at the American University in Cairo: Flickr in the classroom.Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(1), 1e13.

DeVoe, Kristina M. (2009). Constructing who we are online: oneword, one friend at a time. Reference Librarian, 50(4),419e421. doi:10.1080/02763870903130127.

Godwin, Peter (2009). Information literacy and Web 2.0: is it justhype? Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 43(3), 264e274.

Harper Library. (2007). Tour the library. http://www.youtube.com/watch?vZJHljR4LYmOA.

Internet Censorship. (2010, April 14). Wikipedia, the free ency-clopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org.

LALT 101. (2010). http://lalt.wetpaint.com/.Matthews, Brian (2008). Twitter & the library: thoughts on the

syndicated lifestyle. Pre-print for Journal of Web Librarianship2(4). Retrieved from http://bit.ly/9NhADO.

Miller, Claire Cain (2010, April 15). Twitter loses its scrappy start-upstatus. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/technology/16twitter.html.

Miroff, Nick (2010, April 9). Spreading digital revolution in a Cubanliving room. In NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdZ124288271.

MIT Libraries. (2009). Virtual reference collection. http://libraries.mit.edu/help/virtualref/.

Multnomah County Library. (2010, April 17). Facebook page.http://www.facebook.com/multcolib.

New York Public Library. (2010). Twitter page. http://twitter.com/nypl.

Peltier-Davis, Cheryl (2009). Web 2.0, Library 2.0, Library User 2.0,Librarian 2.0: innovative services. Computers in Libraries, 29(10), 16e21.

Rizk, Philip (2009, March 5). Tabula Gaza back up. Tabula Gaza.http://tabulagaza.blogspot.com/2009/03/tabulagaza-back-up.html.

Shapiro, Samantha M. (2009, January 22). Revolution, Facebookstyle. New York Times Sunday Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25bloggers-t.html.

Slackman, Michael. (2009, February 11). Freed Egyptian protesterdescribes ordeal, but fate of seized blogger is unknown. TheNew York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12egypt.html.

Social Network. (2010). Encyclopædia britannica. http://search.eb.com.

Sokoloff, Jason (2009). International libraries on Facebook. Journalof Web Librarianship, 3(1), 75e80. doi:10.1080/19322900802683328.

Stross, Randall (2010, March 5). Getting older without getting old.The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/business/07digi.html.

Twitter. (2010a). The New York Times. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/twitter/index.html.

Web 2.0. (2010). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org Accessed 12.03.2010.

Wiki. (2010). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org.

Xu, Chen, Ouyang, Fenfei, & Chu, Heting (2009). The academiclibrary meets Web 2.0: applications and implications. TheJournal of Academic Librarianship, 35(4), 324e331.

van Zyl, Anria Sophia (2009). The impact of Social Networking 2.0on organisations. The Electronic Library, 27(6), 906e918.

Further reading

Bloglines. (2010). http://bloglines.com/.Common Craft. (2007). RSS in plain English. http://www.youtube.

com/watch?vZ0klgLsSxGsU.CommonCraft. (2008).Websearch strategies inplainEnglish.http://

www.youtube.com/watch?vZAo9_DzBmBtw.Delicious. (2010). http://delicious.com/.Facebook. (2010). http://www.facebook.com/.Flickr. (2010). http://www.flickr.com/.Google Reader. (2010). http://www.google.com/reader/.LibVid Awards. (2009). http://www.youtube.com/user/

libvidawards.PBworks. (2010). http://pbworks.com/.Twitter. (2010b). http://twitter.com/.Wetpaint. (2010). http://www.wetpaint.com/.Wikidot. (2010). http://www.wikidot.com/.Wikipedia. (2010). http://www.wikipedia.org/.WordPress. (2010). http://wordpress.com/.Yammer. (2010). https://www.yammer.com/.YouTube. (2010). http://www.youtube.com/.Zotero. (2010). http://www.zotero.org/.