DOCSLIB.ORG

Commodifying Usenet and the Usenet Archive Or Continuing the Online Cooperative Usenet Culture?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commodifying Usenet and the Usenet Archive Or Continuing the Online Cooperative Usenet Culture? Science Studies 1/2002 Discussion Commodifying Usenet and the Usenet Archive or Continuing the Online Cooperative Usenet Culture? Ronda Hauben This article explores the conflict between the cooperative online culture of users who have created Usenet and the corporate commodification of Usenet posts by companies archiving the posts. The clash of decision-making processes is presented through the details of how Usenet users choose to petition a company to provide protection for the public archives it had collected. The company disregarded the petition and the archives were sold to another company. The new company has be- gun to put its own copyright symbol on the posts in its archives. How will such a commodification affect the cooperative nature of Usenet itself and the continuing vitality of Usenet’s cooperative culture? The article explores this culture clash and considers possible consequences. Keywords: commodification, electronic communication, usenet Commodification of knowledge is a ration has made it possible to create the trend in modern societies (Suarez-Villa, Internet and Usenet. Researchers creat- 2001). A close look at individual cases ing these important online developments shows, however, that this process is con- needed the input and contributions from tentious. The transformation of a public as many people as possible. A recent ex- into a private good provokes resistance ample from the Usenet world illustrates by those who contributed to the produc- the tensions and conflicts which result tion of that good. If they are now pre- when corporations become involved and vented from using it free of charge and begin to commodify a public good. from having free access to that good, they Usenet is a worldwide distributed on- may even regard commodification as ex- line newsgroup and discussion forum. propriation. The collaboration that pro- Contributions to it consist of short or long duces a public good in science or tech- opinions, comments, articles, questions, nical research is an important process to or answers typed into the system through understand and to protect. Such collabo- computers and then distributed from Science Studies, Vol. 15(2002) No.1, 61–68 Science Studies 1/2002 host site to host site until they have been collecting on its own. An article traversed all sites that subscribe to the appeared in “The Register”, a British newsgroup to which they are directed. online publication on February 13, 2001. Each such contribution is called a “post”. The article expressed concern that (Hauben & Hauben, 1997) Contributors Google had not maintained the Deja are sometime called posters. This article interface and the online availability of examines the corporate archiving of the archive until they perfected their Usenet posts, which then become subject own interface. Subsequent articles on to commodification. These posts are February 14 and February 15, 2001 contributed freely by Usenet users. included comments by the then chief Recently a corporation doing the ar- executive officer (CEO) of Google, Larry chiving has put its copyright notice on the Page, promising that some of the archive posts in this archive. It is unlikely that would be back online in a month and the most contributors have agreed to have rest in three months. their posts archived or to have the copy- There were other concerns expressed right of a company appear on the posts. both by users online and in the online press during this period. Among these A Public Good in Corporate Hands were references to a petition that even- tually contained almost 4000 signatures On February 12, 2001, those accessing and many comments. The petition had the archive of Usenet posts collected and been initiated a few months earlier to archived by the company Deja.com appeal to Deja to safeguard the Usenet (Deja), learned the archive had been archive. After collecting Usenet posts transferred to another company, Google, from 1995 to 2000 and making them Inc. (Google). In a press release an- available online, Deja cut back access nouncing the acquisition, Google indi- from five years of posts to only the past cated that the archive would be made year. Included in the petition were available to the public in a few months. several comments describing the ar- Google said it “bought” the archive but chive as a public good that had some- the price was not indicated. It is likely how fallen into private hands. One that Google expected acclaim for acquir- comment in the petition urged that the, ing the archive from Deja. The archive “USENET archive... should *never* have had many users and Deja was going been in private/ corporate hands... give bankrupt at the time and either selling it to an appropriate educational esta- or auctioning off its assets. blishment” (comment by Brian McNeil). Among those in the online Internet To understand the controversy around community, some users welcomed the the corporate archiving and copyrighting Google purchase and urged patience to of Usenet posts, it is necessary to know see what would develop. There was also something about the origins of Usenet and another response. A number of people of archiving Usenet. The collaborative online were concerned that Google had process was crucial for the origins and taken offline the five years of Usenet posts development of Usenet. A distributed that Deja had collected and substituted form of archiving was developing as a much smaller archive that Google had Usenet developed. The open and collab- 62 Ronda Hauben orative process that marked the develop- Holtgrewe & Werle, 2001). Researchers ment of both Usenet and the Google Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, search engine, which was originally among others at Bell Labs had been part developed as a research project, is a of a broader research project working process that facilitates the development with Project MAC at the Massachusetts and implementation of new concepts in Institute of Technology (MIT). They ex- technology. Cooperation and collabo- perienced the close communication that ration are the processes that generate was possible through the new form of new knowledge and ways of developing programming environment being devel- technical processes. The give and take oped at MIT known as time-sharing. At among researchers in the open process MIT this was originally the Compatible where they share knowledge and prob- Time Sharing System (CTSS), and subse- lems, makes possible ever new devel- quently research was begun to create a opments and improvements. more advanced system called MULTICS. A proprietary process, is the opposite. AT&T, however, withdrew from the It limits the source of input. This tends to MULTICS collaboration at MIT. Its Bell narrow the development and change to Labs researchers set out to create their incremental changes, rather than quali- own version of a time-sharing system to tative leaps. Eventually a proprietary be used at AT&T. They called their system process freezes what is developed for Unix (Hauben & Hauben, 1997: 131-134). various reasons, amongst which is the Dennis Ritchie, one of the creators of need to realize the profit to pay for Unix, wrote that Unix was created at previous development. When technical Bell Labs by programmers hoping that pioneers are forging a brand new process a “fellowship would form” (Hauben & or technology, they need the input and Hauben, 1997: 51). AT&T (the home of support of all who can contribute to the Bell Labs) was a government-regulated new development. This article will not corporation subject to the 1956 Consent only explore the collaborative process Decree that restricted it to the telephone essential to the development of quali- business. It was therefore not allowed to tatively new technologies like Usenet and commercialise software. The researchers the Internet, but it will also consider the at Bell Labs who created Unix were able nature of the efforts to commodify these to make it available to other researchers new developments, such as the archiving and academic institutions for a minimal of Usenet posts by corporations or the fee for the tape. There was, however, no transformation of a publicly funded technical support from AT&T. Unix us- search engine research project into a ers were on their own to solve any prob- private company, like Google. lems. From this situation a community grew up to support each other. They Unix, Usenet, Internet formed an association of academic and research users of Unix called Usenix. Usenet grew up as part of the Unix com- By 1979, UUCP (Unix to Unix CoPy munity. Unix was created in 1969 at Bell Program) was being distributed with the Labs, the research arm of the US publicly Unix code. UUCP allowed computers regulated phone company, AT&T (cf. using Unix to communicate with each 63 Science Studies 1/2002 other over telephone lines. From this maintained an archive of most Usenet context Usenet evolved. Usenet was con- posts through the 1980s. The earliest two ceived in 1979 by Duke University gradu- or three years of these posts were made ate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis. available online on certain occasions. They were active in the Unix community Increasingly, Usenet was being trans- and wanted to contribute a means to ported via the Internet rather than pre- create an online Usenix newsletter. In dominantly via UUCP and phone lines. collaboration with others, they devel- For a period in the 1980s and into the oped early versions of the Usenet soft- early 1990s, the U.S. National Science ware and explored its capability. In the Foundation (NSF) provided support for January 1980 Usenix meeting, the soft- an NSF backbone for the U.S. portion of ware was made available to those who the Internet. Traffic on this backbone were interested. was required to adhere to the NSF’s Ac- Usenet was a grassroots network.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNIX and Computer Science Spreading UNIX Around the World: by Ronda Hauben an Interview with John Lions
    Winter/Spring 1994 Celebrating 25 Years of UNIX Volume 6 No 1 "I believe all significant software movements start at the grassroots level. UNIX, after all, was not developed by the President of AT&T." Kouichi Kishida, UNIX Review, Feb., 1987 UNIX and Computer Science Spreading UNIX Around the World: by Ronda Hauben An Interview with John Lions [Editor's Note: This year, 1994, is the 25th anniversary of the [Editor's Note: Looking through some magazines in a local invention of UNIX in 1969 at Bell Labs. The following is university library, I came upon back issues of UNIX Review from a "Work In Progress" introduced at the USENIX from the mid 1980's. In these issues were articles by or inter- Summer 1993 Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. This article is views with several of the pioneers who developed UNIX. As intended as a contribution to a discussion about the sig- part of my research for a paper about the history and devel- nificance of the UNIX breakthrough and the lessons to be opment of the early days of UNIX, I felt it would be helpful learned from it for making the next step forward.] to be able to ask some of these pioneers additional questions The Multics collaboration (1964-1968) had been created to based on the events and developments described in the UNIX "show that general-purpose, multiuser, timesharing systems Review Interviews. were viable." Based on the results of research gained at MIT Following is an interview conducted via E-mail with John using the MIT Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS), Lions, who wrote A Commentary on the UNIX Operating AT&T and GE agreed to work with MIT to build a "new System describing Version 6 UNIX to accompany the "UNIX hardware, a new operating system, a new file system, and a Operating System Source Code Level 6" for the students in new user interface." Though the project proceeded slowly his operating systems class at the University of New South and it took years to develop Multics, Doug Comer, a Profes- Wales in Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Ifdef Considered Harmful, Or Portability Experience with C News Henry Spencer – Zoology Computer Systems, University of Toronto Geoff Collyer – Software Tool & Die
    #ifdef Considered Harmful, or Portability Experience With C News Henry Spencer – Zoology Computer Systems, University of Toronto Geoff Collyer – Software Tool & Die ABSTRACT We believe that a C programmer’s impulse to use #ifdef in an attempt at portability is usually a mistake. Portability is generally the result of advance planning rather than trench warfare involving #ifdef. In the course of developing C News on different systems, we evolved various tactics for dealing with differences among systems without producing a welter of #ifdefs at points of difference. We discuss the alternatives to, and occasional proper use of, #ifdef. Introduction portability problems are repeatedly worked around rather than solved. The result is a tangled and often With UNIX running on many different comput- impenetrable web. Here’s a noteworthy example ers, vaguely UNIX-like systems running on still more, from a popular newsreader.1 See Figure 1. Observe and C running on practically everything, many peo- that, not content with merely nesting #ifdefs, the ple are suddenly finding it necessary to port C author has #ifdef and ordinary if statements (plus the software from one machine to another. When differ- mysterious IF macros) interweaving. This makes ences among systems cause trouble, the usual first the structure almost impossible to follow without impulse is to write two different versions of the going over it repeatedly, one case at a time. code—one per system—and use #ifdef to choose the appropriate one. This is usually a mistake. Furthermore, given worst case elaboration and nesting (each #ifdef always has a matching #else), Simple use of #ifdef works acceptably well the number of alternative code paths doubles with when differences are localized and only two versions each extra level of #ifdef.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyber-Synchronicity: the Concurrence of the Virtual
    Cyber-Synchronicity: The Concurrence of the Virtual and the Material via Text-Based Virtual Reality A dissertation presented to the faculty of the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Jeffrey S. Smith March 2010 © 2010 Jeffrey S. Smith. All Rights Reserved. This dissertation titled Cyber-Synchronicity: The Concurrence of the Virtual and the Material Via Text-Based Virtual Reality by JEFFREY S. SMITH has been approved for the School of Media Arts and Studies and the Scripps College of Communication by Joseph W. Slade III Professor of Media Arts and Studies Gregory J. Shepherd Dean, Scripps College of Communication ii ABSTRACT SMITH, JEFFREY S., Ph.D., March 2010, Mass Communication Cyber-Synchronicity: The Concurrence of the Virtual and the Material Via Text-Based Virtual Reality (384 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Joseph W. Slade III This dissertation investigates the experiences of participants in a text-based virtual reality known as a Multi-User Domain, or MUD. Through in-depth electronic interviews, staff members and players of Aurealan Realms MUD were queried regarding the impact of their participation in the MUD on their perceived sense of self, community, and culture. Second, the interviews were subjected to a qualitative thematic analysis through which the nature of the participant’s phenomenological lived experience is explored with a specific eye toward any significant over or interconnection between each participant’s virtual and material experiences. An extended analysis of the experiences of respondents, combined with supporting material from other academic investigators, provides a map with which to chart the synchronous and synonymous relationship between a participant’s perceived sense of material identity, community, and culture, and her perceived sense of virtual identity, community, and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Liminality and Communitas in Social Media: the Case of Twitter Jana Herwig, M.A., [email protected] Dept
    Liminality and Communitas in Social Media: The Case of Twitter Jana Herwig, M.A., [email protected] Dept. of Theatre, Film and Media Studies, University of Vienna 1. Introduction “What’s the most amazing thing you’ve ever found?” Mac (Peter Riegert) asks Ben, the beachcomber (Fulton Mackay), in the 1983 film Local Hero. ”Impossible to say,” Ben replies. “There’s something amazing every two or three weeks.” Substitute minutes for weeks, and you have Twitter. On a good day, something amazing washes up every two or three minutes. On a bad one, you irritably wonder why all these idiots are wasting your time with their stupid babble and wish they would go somewhere else. Then you remember: there’s a simple solution, and it’s to go offline. Never works. The second part of this quote has been altered: Instead of “Twitter”, the original text referred to “the Net“, and instead of suggesting to “go offline”, author Wendy M. Grossman in her 1997 (free and online) publication net.wars suggested to “unplug your modem”. Rereading net.wars, I noticed a striking similarity between Grossman’s description of the social experience of information sharing in the late Usenet era and the form of exchanges that can currently be observed on micro-blogging platform Twitter. Furthermore, many challenges such as Twitter Spam or ‘Gain more followers’ re-tweets (see section 5) that have emerged in the context of Twitter’s gradual ‘going mainstream’, commonly held to have begun in fall 2008, are reminiscent of the phenomenon of ‘Eternal September’ first witnessed on Usenet which Grossman reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Usenet News HOWTO
    Usenet News HOWTO Shuvam Misra (usenet at starcomsoftware dot com) Revision History Revision 2.1 2002−08−20 Revised by: sm New sections on Security and Software History, lots of other small additions and cleanup Revision 2.0 2002−07−30 Revised by: sm Rewritten by new authors at Starcom Software Revision 1.4 1995−11−29 Revised by: vs Original document; authored by Vince Skahan. Usenet News HOWTO Table of Contents 1. What is the Usenet?........................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Discussion groups.............................................................................................................................1 1.2. How it works, loosely speaking........................................................................................................1 1.3. About sizes, volumes, and so on.......................................................................................................2 2. Principles of Operation...................................................................................................................................4 2.1. Newsgroups and articles...................................................................................................................4 2.2. Of readers and servers.......................................................................................................................6 2.3. Newsfeeds.........................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Sending Newsgroup and Instant Messages
    7.1 LESSON 7 Sending Newsgroup and Instant Messages After completing this lesson, you will be able to: Send and receive newsgroup messages Create and send instant messages Microsoft Outlook offers some alternatives to communicating via e-mail. With instant messages, you can connect with a client who is also using instant messaging to ask a simple question and get the answer immediately. On the other hand, Newsgroups allow you to communicate with a larger audience. When considering the purchase of a new graphics program, for example, you can solicit advice and recommendations by posting a message to a newsgroup for people interested in graphics. You don’t need any practice files to work through the exercises in this lesson. Sending and Receiving Newsgroup Messages A newsgroup is a collection of messages related to a particular topic that are posted by individuals to a news server . Newsgroups are generally focused on discussion of a particular topic, like a sports team, a hobby, or a type of software. Anyone with access to the group can post to the group and read all posted messages. Some newsgroups have a moderator who monitors their use, but most newsgroups are not overseen in this way. A newsgroup can be private, such as an internal company newsgroup, but there are newsgroups open to the public for practically every topic. You gain access to newsgroups through a news server maintained either on your organization’s network or by your Internet service provider (ISP). You use a newsreader program to download, read, and reply to news messages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Paper Was Originally Published in the Proceedings of the Eleventh Systems Administration Conference (LISA ’97) San Diego, California, October 1997
    The following paper was originally published in the Proceedings of the Eleventh Systems Administration Conference (LISA ’97) San Diego, California, October 1997 For more information about USENIX Association contact: 1. Phone: 510 528-8649 2. FAX: 510 548-5738 3. Email: [email protected] 4. WWW URL:http://www.usenix.org Shuse At Two: Multi-Host Account Administration Henry Spencer – SP Systems ABSTRACT The Shuse multi-host account administration system [1] is now two years old, and clearly a success. It is managing a user population of 20,000+ at Sheridan College, and a smaller but more demanding population at a local ‘‘wholesaler ’’ ISP, Cancom. This paper reviews some of the experiences along the way, and attempts to draw some lessons from them. Shuse: Outline and Status After some trying moments early on, Shuse is very clearly a success. In mid-autumn 1996, Sheridan Shuse [1] is a multi-host account administration College’s queue of outstanding help-desk requests was system designed for large user communities (tens of two orders of magnitude shorter than it had been in thousands) on possibly-heterogeneous networks. It previous years, despite reductions in support man- adds, deletes, moves, renames, and otherwise adminis- power. Favorable comments were heard from faculty ters user accounts on multiple servers, with functional- who had never previously had anything good to say ity generally similar to that of Project Athena’s Ser- about computing support. However, there was natu- vice Management System [2]. rally still a wishlist of desirable improvements. Shuse uses a fairly centralized architecture. All At around the same time, ex-Sheridan people user/sysadmin requests go to a central daemon were involved in getting Canadian Satellite Communi- (shused) on a central server host, via gatekeeper pro- cations Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Tcl E D
    PART II I I . A d v a n c Advanced Tcl e d T c l Part II describes advanced programming techniques that support sophisticated applications. The Tcl interfaces remain simple, so you can quickly construct pow- erful applications. Chapter 10 describes eval, which lets you create Tcl programs on the fly. There are tricks with using eval correctly, and a few rules of thumb to make your life easier. Chapter 11 describes regular expressions. This is the most powerful string processing facility in Tcl. This chapter includes a cookbook of useful regular expressions. Chapter 12 describes the library and package facility used to organize your code into reusable modules. Chapter 13 describes introspection and debugging. Introspection provides information about the state of the Tcl interpreter. Chapter 14 describes namespaces that partition the global scope for vari- ables and procedures. Namespaces help you structure large Tcl applications. Chapter 15 describes the features that support Internationalization, includ- ing Unicode, other character set encodings, and message catalogs. Chapter 16 describes event-driven I/O programming. This lets you run pro- cess pipelines in the background. It is also very useful with network socket pro- gramming, which is the topic of Chapter 17. Chapter 18 describes TclHttpd, a Web server built entirely in Tcl. You can build applications on top of TclHttpd, or integrate the server into existing appli- cations to give them a web interface. TclHttpd also supports regular Web sites. Chapter 19 describes Safe-Tcl and using multiple Tcl interpreters. You can create multiple Tcl interpreters for your application. If an interpreter is safe, then you can grant it restricted functionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Feed Your ‘Need to Read’ – an Explanation of RSS
    by Jen Sharp, jensharp.com Feed your ‘Need To Read’ – an explanation of RSS here exists a useful informational tool so powerful that provides feeds. For example, USA Today has separate that the government of China has completely feeds in its different sections. You know that a page has the banned its use since 2007. Yet many people have capabilities for RSS subscriptions by looking for the orange Tnot even heard about it, despite its juxtaposition in chicklet in the toolbar of your browser. Clicking on the logo front of our attention during our experiences on the web. will start you in the process of seeing what the feed for that Recently I was visiting with my dad, who is well-informed page looks like. Then you can choose how to subscribe. and somewhat technically savvy. I asked him if he had ever Choosing a reader can seem overwhelming, as there are heard of RSS feeds. He hadn’t, so when I pointed out the thousands of readers available, most of them for free. To ever-present orange “chicklet,” he remarked, “Oh! I thought start, decide how you what to view the information. RSS that was the logo for Home Depot!” feeds can be displayed in many ways, including: Very simply, RSS feeds are akin to picking up your ■ sent to your email inbox favorite newspaper and scanning the headlines for a story ■ as a personal browser start page like igoogle.com or you are interested in. Items are displayed with a synopsis and my.yahoo.com links to the full page of information.
    [Show full text]
  • RE-SONANCE---Inov-Em---Be-R-1-9
    GENERAL I ARTICLE Web Search Engines How to Get What You Want from the World Wide Web T B Rajashekar The world wide web is emerging as an all-in-one infonnation source. Tools for searching web-based information includes search engines, subject directories and meta search tools. We take a look at the key features of these tools and suggest-practical hints for effective web searching. Introduction T B Rajashekar is with the National Centre for We have seen phenomenal growth in the quantity of published Science Information information (books, journals, conferences, etc.) since the (NCSI), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. industrial revolution. Varieties of print and electronicindices His interests include text have been developed to retain control over this growth and to retrieval, networked facilitate quick identification of relevant information. These information systems and include library catalogues (manual and computerised), services, digital collection development abstracting and indexing journals, directories and bibliographic and managment and databases. Bibliographic databases emerged in the 1970's as an electronic publishing. outcome ofcomputerised production of abstracting and indexing journals like Chemical Abstracts, Biological Abstracts and Physics Abstracts. They grew very rapidly, both in numbers and coverage (e.g. news, commercial, business, financial and technology information) and have been available for online access from database host companies like Dialog and STN International, and also delivered on electronic media like tapes, diskettes and CD-ROMs. These databases range in volume from a few thousand to several million records. Generally, content of these databases is of high quality, authoritative and edited. By employing specially developed search and retrieval programs, these databases could be rapidly scanned and relevant records extracted.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsreaders.Com: Getting Started: Netiquette
    Usenet Netiquette NewsReaders.com: Getting Started: Netiquette I hope you will try Giganews or UsenetServer for your news subscription -- especially as a holiday present for your friends, family, or yourself! Getting Started (Netiquette) Consult various Netiquette links The Seven Don'ts of Usenet Google Groups Posting Style Guide Introduction to Usenet and Netiquette from NewsWatcher manual Quoting Style by Richard Kettlewell Other languages: o Voila! Francois. o Usenet News German o Netiquette auf Deutsch! Some notes from me: Read a newsgroup for a while before posting o By reading the group without posting (known as "lurking") for a while, or by reading the group archives on Google, you get a sense of the scope and tone of the group. Consult the FAQ before posting. o See Newsgroups page to find the FAQ for a particular group o FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions o a FAQ has not only the questions, but the answers! o Thus by reading the FAQ you don't post questions that have been asked (and answered) ad infinitum See the configuring software section regarding test posts (only post tests to groups with name ending in ".test") and not posting a duplicate post in the mistaken belief that your initial post did not go through. Don't do "drive through" posts. o Frequently someone who has an urgent question will post to a group he/she does not usually read, and then add something like "Please reply to me directly since I don't normally read this group." o Newsgroups are meant to be a shared experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Back to the Future: Tracing the Roots and Learning Affordances of Social Software
    1 Chapter 1 Back to the Future: Tracing the Roots and Learning Affordances of Social Software Nada Dabbagh George Mason University, USA Rick Reo George Mason University, USA ABSTRACT This chapter provides a developmental perspective on Web 2.0 and social software by tracing the historical, theoretical, and technological events of the last century that led to the emergence—or re- emergence, rather—of these powerful and transformative tools in a big way. The specific goals of the chapter are firstly, to describe the evolution ofsocial software and related pedagogical constructs from pre- and early Internet networked learning environments to current Web 2.0 applications, and secondly, to discuss the theoretical underpinnings of social learning environments and the pedagogical implica- tions and affordances of social software in e-learning contexts. The chapter ends with a social software use framework that can be used to facilitate the application of customized and personalized e-learning experiences in higher education. INTRODUCTION with their use to augment computational and com- munication capabilities and foster collaboration Is social software merely a continuation of a broad and social interaction, and progressing to their class of older computer-mediated communica- Web 2.0-enabled information aggregation capa- tion (CMC) and collaboration tools, or does it bilities. Throughout this chronological depiction, represent a significant transformation of social we emphasize the socio-pedagogic affordances interaction capabilities? In this chapter, we trace and implications of social software. We conclude the evolution of social software tools, beginning the chapter with a social software use continuum to guide the design of e-learning experiences in academic contexts.
    [Show full text]