June 17, 2006

Social Bookmarking, Folksonomies, and Web 2.0 Tools

By Gordon-Murnane, Laura

How do we find information that can help us do our jobs, pursue our interests and hobbies, or answer any other needs we may have? How do we keep track of information that we have already found, vetted, and deemed useful?

The Web has made it both easier to discover new information and more difficult to manage older collections of resources, links, documents, podcasts, video files, and graphics. How often have you had to redo a search for something that you had seen previously? How hard is it to find again the Web site that was so helpful to you 6 months ago? Take a look at your bookmarks/favorites. Have you spent any time organizing your favorite Web sites into useful categories? If you are like me, you have an unorganized collection of sites that offers little in the way of findability and functionality. New social software tools are launched daily to help us find the links, Web sites, documents, books, magazine articles, and, lately, the people who share our interests.

Over the last few years, social bookmarking tools have taken the Web by storm. These tools allow users to tag Web sites and links and to share their finds with other communities of users. Tools like del.icio.us, Furl, Spurl, Shadows, Scuttle, Yahoo! MyWeb 2.0, Ma.gnolia, and many more all offer social bookmarking tools designed to help us keep things found, identify new communities, discover new Web sites, make us more productive, and allow us to create new tools to push the frontiers of the Web's utility. A lot of hype and hyperbole? Sure. But there is something to the social software, Web 2.0 chatter.

This article has two goals: first, to define social bookmarking and its related concepts of tagging and folksonomy, and second, to identify some of the tools currently available and the features these tools have to offer.

Tagging Et Al.

What is tagging? Social bookmarking? Folksonomy? How are they related? Wikipedia defines tags or tagging as such:

A tag acts like a subject or category. A keyword is used to organize Web pages and objects on the Internet. Each user "tags" a Web page or image using his/her own unique tag. An image or Web page may have multiple tags that identify it. Web pages and images with identical tags are then linked together and users may use the tag to search for similar Web pages and images

[http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tags], viewed March 12,2006.

Wikipedia defines social bookmarking as "an increasingly popular way to locate, classify, rank, and share Internet resources through the use of shared lists of user-created Internet bookmarks, the practice of tagging, and inferences drawn from grouping and use of such tags" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Book marking, viewed March 12, 2006]. Another definition comes from the Educause Learning Initiative: "Social bookmarking is the practice of saving bookmarks to a public Web site and 'tagging' them with keywords. To create a collection of social bookmarks, you register with a social bookmarking site, which lets you store bookmarks, add tags of your choice, and designate individual bookmarks as public or private" ("7 Things you Should Know about... Social Bookmarking," Educause Learning Initiative, May 2005 [http://www.edu cause.edu/ir/library/ pdf/ELI7001.pdf]).

Folksonomy, a term coined by information architect Thomas Vander Wal, combines the people or "folks-y" approach to building a taxonomy. In their D-Lib article of January 2006, Marike Guy and Emma Tonkin define folksonomy as "a type of distributed classification system. It is usually created by a group of individuals, typically the resource users. Users add tags to online items, such as images, videos, bookmarks, and text. These tags are then shared and sometimes refined."1 Looked at another way, folksonomy is "a naturally created classification system which arises as a result of user-based tagging. A user tags an object such as a bookmark in order to remember it later; that information is then added to the global tag cloud and helps to create a folksonomy."2

Look at the definitions for tagging, social bookmarking, and folksonomy and you can easily see that these classification methods are all interrelated. Social bookmarking tools such as deli.cio.us, Simpy, or Furl allow you to tag your links/bookmarks/favorites with keywords, terms, and concepts. Once you have saved these links, the social bookmarking software will organize all the tags so you can search and browse the tags to find not only Web pages, pictures/ photos, documents, news stories, audio and video files, but also communities of people who share your interests - thus the development of folksonomies.

Social bookmarking tools have also begun serving academic and scientific interests with the creation of CiteULike [http:// www.citeulike.org/] and Connotea [http://www.connotea.org/]. CiteULike is a free service designed for academics to "share, store, and organise the academic papers they are reading" [http:/ /www. citeulike.org/faq/all.adp]. The software "automatically extracts the citation details" - a very nice feature, indeed. Faculty can use this and other tools to simplify the "distribution of reference lists, bibliographies, papers, and other resources among peers or students."3 Connotea is designed for the scientific community; it too pulls in bibliographic information from scientific articles and journals. Enhancements to the software will eventually allow users to search their "Connotea libraries by bibliographic information as well" [http:// www.connotea.org/faq#what]. These features go well beyond the tool set of many of the social bookmarking tools currently available, including del.icio.us, but demonstrate the applicability of the techniques for creating specialized data sets and specialized/professional online communities.

But what is tagging and social bookmarking really? In my mind, at least initially, it really has to do with retaining information that you, I, or anyone else has found and organizing it in a way so that people can re-find that information at some later date. Tagging bookmarks is really another way of trying to keep sources (Web sites, documents, pictures, podcasts, and video/graphics) once found on the Internet permanently found. The bookmarks/favorites features in browsers have always let users save links to Web sites, Web pages, etc. with the idea that you could return to them at a later date. Harry Bruce, William Jones, and Susan Dumais, authors of "Information Behaviour that Keeps Found Things Found," and "Keeping and Re-Finding Information on the Web: What Do People Do and What Do they Need?," studied the behavior of Internet users and the strategies they employed to save good sources. The practice of individual bookmarking of Web sites and URLs, though commonplace, was not really enough. As Jones remarked in a January 2004 article in The New York Times, "Bookmark lists have become 'information closets' that hold a jumble of sites people never return to. Only hyperorganized users sort sites into folders, clean out dead links or click on inscrutable addresses to figure out why they were bookmarked in the first place."4 The functionality of the bookmark feature in Netscape/ Firefox and the Favorites feature in Internet Explore have not adjusted to the changes and growth of the Internet and its Web. The functionality of the feature in browsers has not kept up with users' needs.

Joshua Schachter, the developer/creator behind del.icio.us, one of the first, if not the first, social bookmarking tools, created del.icio.us [http://del.icio.us/] because he needed a more sophisticated bookmarking tool to handle his large and growing collection of links. He needed a better tool that offered greater functionality and scalability and allowed him to retrieve both his favorite and most frequently used links, as well as information less frequently used, but important to him when he needed it. Anyone familiar with Internet Explorer, Netscape, and Firefox readily understands the weakness of the bookmarking/favorite tools - these tools do not provide a way to annotate the bookmarks/favorites in a way that facilitates easy retrieval.

Since the launch of del.icio.us in late 2003, there has been an explosion of social bookmarking tools, now referred to as social software Web services, with producers trying to develop tools sets that address the weaknesses of the bookmarks/favorites features and allow end users to create better ways to store, organize, and retrieve the vast collections of content on the Web today.5

What Do They Do?

Let's take a look at some of the services offered by these new Web tools. Social bookmarking tools provide at least four useful services:

* Help to organize and categorize both large and small collections of information, data, and content by allowing the end user to tag the content. Tagging content presumably should enhance the retrieval of the information at a later date.

* Allows the end user to share sources (Web sites, blog posts, comments, pictures, podcasts, etc.) that they like and find interesting with others who share jobrelated information needs, personal interests, and/or passions. This sharing feature-"the social" in social bookmarking-allows for discovery and serendipity.

* Links become portable. Users are no longer tied to their desks or even their laptops to access their links. As long as you have access to the Web, you have access to the links and sites you consider valuable. N\ot only can you access your links, you can also easily update, add, and edit new links while away from your main computer.

* New tools or mashups (a Web site or Web application that combines content from more than one source) facilitate mobility by allowing access to bookmarks through cell phones, BlackBerries, and PDAs.6

Social bookmarking tools and RSS tag feeds make it possible to learn about new things more efficiently. The sharing feature enables users to conduct a vertical search/browse on specific tags/topics/ concepts. Searching or browsing specific tags enables you to retrieve all the items tagged with a specific term or keyword. A targeted search should yield better search results than general search engines such as Google or Ask.com - or at least that is the idea.

One caveat, however: Currently, many social bookmarking tools are limited to a single term. Attempts to solve this problem include making compound tags by running words together (socialbookmarking) or using punctuation or symbols such the underscore to combine terms (social_bookmarking). These attempts try to give more precision to the tags, but it would be much better if multiple word terms were possible.

Improved vertical search possibilities help create niche audiences and speak to the concept of "the long tail," coined in 2004 by Wired's editor-in-chief, Chris Anderson. The "long tail""refer[s] to the large number of specialized offerings that in themselves appeal to a small number of people, but cumulatively represent a large market that can be easily aggregated on the Internet. Plotted on a graph along with best sellers, these specialized products trail off like a long tail that never reaches zero."7 Allowing users to search and browse specific bookmarks can support the creation of smaller, tighter niche communities that share interests and passions.

Features of Social Bookmarking Web Services

* Keeping found things found (individual collections)

* Sharing collaboration (folksonomy)

* Vertical search

* Discovery/serendipity

*Portability/mobility - Web accessibility (multiple access points)

Social bookmarking tools have been touted as examples of the Web 2.0 services currently all the rage in the O'Reilly tech world. What is Web 2.0? Dale Dougherty of MediaLive coined the term in a brainstorming session with Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly Media, Inc. as a way to capture the next phase of development for the Web in terms of Web architecture, the development of new software applications, and new business models for the Web.8 Some argue that Web 2.0 is nothing more than a marketing term with absolutely no useful meaning.

In his "What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software," O'Reilly identifies several key features of what he means by Web 2.0. Software developers need to see "the Web as Platform." New applications need to be developed that do not require the end user to install software on their work or home computers-rather these new applications will be available on the Web accessible through a browser interface. The Web application can be provided as a service or made available on a subscription basis. The service can be used by anyone and accessed by anyone as long as they have access to the Net. Web 2.0 services are based on an "architecture of participation" in which the user of the service adds value to the service. The "service acts primarily as an intelligent broker, connecting the edges to each other and harnessing the power of the users themselves."9

The development of folksonomies can be seen as a value-added feature of social bookmarking tools. Tools including Furl or del.icio.us connect different groups of people together, and the more people that use them, the better the services become.

Web 2.0 tools harness the collective intelligence of the Web and, by tapping into that intelligence, make the services better and more powerful. Blogs, wikis, and social bookmarking tools are all examples of Web 2.0 tools that encourage collaboration and make use of the collective knowledge of those who use the tools. Wikipedia, user reviews on Amazon, and folksonomies are more examples of the collective intelligence ofWeb users. The more people who contribute, the more valuable the services become.

Web 2.0 tools rely on user-generated content. O'Reilly refers to this as "Data is the Next Intel." User-generated content may consist of blog posts and comments, podcasts, contributions to Wikipedia and other wikis, folksonomies and tagging of content, auction listings from eBay, or user reviews on Amazon. Expect to see more and more creative uses of existing tools to combine new data sets and merge them into new, useful tools made meaningful and useful for large and small audiences. Mashups such as KeoTag [http://www.keotag.com/], Squidoo [http://www.squidoo.com/browse/homepage], Digg [http:// www.digg.com/], and HousingMaps [http:// www.housingmaps.com/] all tap into user-generated content and remake and remix it to create new tools.

Web 2.0 tools are services and, as with most services, these tools evolve and respond to the needs of users. New features and enhancements of existing features evolve from user suggestions and user feedback. Web applications "have a development cycle that is radically unlike anything from the PC or client-server area."10 Web 2.0 applications are seen as "the 'perpetual beta' because the application is constantly being monitored and tested for usability and improved accordingly. There is never a 'finished' version or product."11

To make it work, developers need "Lightweight Programming Models" to build simple and efficient tools that end users can learn easily, tools that do not require large investments of capital. These tools share and reuse data and information. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) allows for distribution and redistribution of content. Then this content can be reused or remixed with Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to make new Web applications, as we have seen in Craigslist [http://www. craigslist.com], YouTube [http:/ /www.youtube.com/], and FeedYes [http://www.feedyes.com/].

Many Web 2.0 tools are being created for many other devices besides the computer, such as cell phones, MP3 players (iPods), PDAs, etc. Creating Web 2.0 applications for multiple devices and platforms has enhanced their reach, functionality, and interactivity. The tools allow for a rich user experience that hooks up e-mail, bookmarks, RSS feeds, and delivers input to the user on whatever device the user has at hand.

Lastly, Web 2.0 applications serve not only the popular but also the fringe user - those at the tails of distribution. These tools do not reach only a finite group but can reach all who use the Internet and its Web.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Bookmarking

A passionate debate has developed over the issue of social bookmarking and whether it is really as useful as its supporters believe. The pro-folksonomy crowd believes that user-generated metadata is the future of search. They passionately believe that users are "adding metadata and using tags to organize their own digital collections, categorize the content of others and build bottom-up classification systems. [These end users] are doing what heretofore only expert catalogers, information architects and Web site authors have done. No longer do the experts have a monopoly on this domain; in the new age users have been empowered to determine their own cataloging needs. Metadata is now in the realm of the Everyman."12

Proponents of user-generated metadata argue that folksonomies are current and capture the rapid changes in the popular world when terms and concepts change and evolve. Traditional classification schemes take longer to adapt to changing trends, languages, fads, and daily news. Another benefit is discovery and serendipity. Traditional classification systems are better suited to finding a specific known item, whereas folksonomies and social bookmarking tools lend themselves to discovery, exploration, and finding materials otherwise un-locatable.

Folksonomies are both self-moderating and inclusive. Those who participate in the creation of a folksonomy pay attention to the terms, concepts, and conventions established by those who have previously tagged items and use the same or similar terms and conventions. The folksonomy will continue to grow and strengthen with the involvement of all who want to participate. Furthermore, folksonomies reflect the terms and concepts of the users of the information, rather than the creators. This reflects user needs and how they view the information. Folksonomies are a lower-cost alternative to expensive taxonomies and classification systems that require experts to develop controlled vocabularies and hierarchical systems. Lastly, folksonomies are social in nature and help to create communities and sharing among different groups, which is a good thing.13

In contrast, the pro-controlled vocabulary and classification crowd believes in the use of controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings, the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) from the National Library of Medicine, and professionally created classification schemes, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification System and the Library of Congress Classification Scheme. Critics of folksonomies and tagging believe that, even with its problems, classification and taxonomies are still useful in a digital world and should not be easily discarded for the latest hot new thing.14 Folksonomies, the pro-controlled vocabulary group argue, have some glaring weaknesses and problems that hinder their usefulness and widespread adoption. Without controlled vocabulary, they argue, folksonomies and tagging are imprecise, ambiguous, overly personal, and inexact.15 Furthermore, many tagging tools allow for only single-word tags, making it difficult to reach more complex concepts and ide\as. There is no synonym (different word, same meaning) and homonym (same word, different meaning) control. Folksonomies cannot even deal with plurals vs. singular terms, much less acronyms. "The result is an uncontrolled and chaotic set of tagging terms that do not support searching as effectively as more controlled vocabularies do."16

There are several other flaws - folksonomies lack hierarchy. The flat-system folksonomies lack parent-child relationships, categories, and subcategories. The lack of hierarchy can impact directly on searching and search results. Without hierarchy or synonym control, a search of a specific term will only yield results on that term and not provide the full body of related terms that might be relevant to the user's information needs and goals.17

While some believe social bookmarking will make searching on the Web easier and even replace the traditional classification and taxonomy systems that we as librarians have come to know, use, and embrace in our work, others do not feel that tagging and the rise of folksonomies will, can, or should replace traditional classification and taxonomy systems. We all know the power and precision available in commercial databases such as Dialog or LexisNexis and have probably wished we had some of the same tools in search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, and Ask. If you are interested, Walt Crawford has provided a short reading list of those who support social bookmarking, tagging, and folksonomies and those critical of the social bookmarking trend.18

How should we look at the folksonomy/classification debate? I think Crawford has the right take on the whole issue of tagging, social bookmarking, and its usefulness now and in the future. He basically concludes that user-generated tags and formal classification systems are not an either/or proposition. Rather, "more interesting questions are how tagging can be used effectively, and how tagging and formal systems can best complement one another."19 Let's not throw out the collective knowledge that has been created by expert catalogers and information professionals, but try to take advantage of what has been done. Instead, we should concentrate on how to leverage it to make better, more accessible tools that make it easier to find new materials, help us locate older materials, and allow us to reuse and remix content and data to produce new and exciting data collections and online tools. Look at new tools such as CiteULike [http: / /www.citeulike.org], Connotea [http://www.connotea.org], PennTags [http:// tags.library.upenn.edu/ ], andLibraryThing [http://www. librarything.com/index.php] to see how more formal tools could be applied to the more general types of media available on the Internet.


Social Bookmarking

About a year ago, I set up a couple of e-mail alerts on the terms social bookmarking, folksonomy, and del.icio.us. Over the course of the year, I have received almost daily alerts on the launch of new tools such Digg [http: / /www. digg.org], Edgeio [http:// www.edgeio.com/], and 43 Things [http://www.43things.com/].20 Whether any of the new tools will have legs is anyone's guess. But Rod Boothby of Innovation Creators has an interesting white paper, "The Next Wave of Productivity Tools: Web Office,"21 where he muses that the next generation of knowledge workers will use Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, wikis, social networking tools, project management tools, and current awareness tools to get their work done. He predicts that these tools will become common features of next- generation office workspace.

Academic/Scientific/Book/Magazine/ Library Bookmarking Tools

Before we move to the next-generation office though, let's look at some tools that have gained a great deal of attention. The first social bookmarking tool to gain widespread acceptance is del.icio.us, the brainchild of Joshua Schachter. In December 2005, Yahoo! acquired del.icio.us and another popular social software tool - Flickr [http: / /www.flickr.com]-a photo management tool that allows people to post their pictures on the Web and allows tagging of the photos. Since Schachter's launch of del.icio.us, social bookmarking tools have really taken off, but del.icio.us remains the most popular and best known.

In reviewing a small group of social bookmarking tools, I have identified some of the key features available in many of these tools. see the "Features of Social Bookmarking Tools" chart, beginning on page 34, that identifies which social bookmarking tools have which features. Take a look at the "Social Bookmarking Tools" sidebar on page 32 as well as some of the others mentioned at 3 Spots "All Social Can Bookmark" list of bookmarking tools.22 Pick the service that best serves your needs and requirements. If you want to reach the largest possibly community, then you should probably use del.icio.us. If you want additional features, including categories and the saving of the full text of pages, you might like Furl, Ma.gnolia, or Simpy. All of the tools are free, but require registration. Go see what works for you.

Features of Social Bookmarking Tools

Features of Social Bookmarking Tools

Features of Social Bookmarking Tools

Features of Social Bookmarking Tools


What is the goal of social bookmarking tools? If it is a way to keep found things found, then it will help individuals organize, store, and manage all types of content that they might want to retrieve now and in the future. This is one of the most valuable aspects of social bookmarking tools. Another goal is to aid in the search for content. Marrying search engine technology and tagging is not a new goal. Metadata tools have been around for a while now, but are not well used or implemented. Most search engines do not use the metadata in Web pages, but if one could combine metadata or tags with the power of search, then you could have very powerful and rewarding search tools that really would enable better searching and location of new and old resources. This is the ultimate goal of the semantic Web.

Tagging and social bookmarking is also intended to help both discovery and keeping current on new trends, popular topics, and things of interest to individual users and user communities. This aspect of tagging and social bookmarking particularly attracts me, because I love the discovery of new ideas, tools, and innovations. Tagging can also lead to the creation of vertical communities, such as those developed in such sites as Memeorandum [http:// www.memeorandum. com/], Flickr [http://www.flickr.com], and TailRank [http://tailrank.com/]. Whether these communities gain traction and become valuable, only time will tell, but the creativity and excitement generated by the possibility is very appealing.

Lastly, those who create these tools will hopefully continue to develop new features to push the envelope and to make better products. If we really want to make tagging as easy as going to Google, then we will need new features to capture context and meaning. Making it easy and painless to tag pages or other media and merging the collaborative tagging with more formal systems could really add power to search. Think of it this way: Combine the Library of Congress Subject Headings or the Dewey Decimal System with tagging and you could create both a hierarchical structure and a flat taxonomy search engines could use to give you a really rich user experience. Now how cool would that be?

Web 2.0 tools harness the collective intelligence of the Web and, by tapping into that intelligence, make the services better and more powerful.




LookSmart's Furl



BlinkList is a social bookmarkingsite launched in summer 2005. It has introduced some nice features that include easy tagging/ bookmarking, highlighted text on screen, and auto-fill in the description field. A quick blink feature uses a single click to bookmark sites. BlinkList also has a related tags feature.



Launched in late 2003 by Joshua Schachter of Memepool, del.icio.us was the first social bookmarking tool developed. The company was acquired by Yahoo! in December 2005. Recently del.icio.us introduced the ability to mark tag links as private, del.icio.us is the best known and most widely used of all social bookmarking tools.



Furl (File URL) was launched in January 2004 and is frequently compared to del.icio.us. One of Furl's really nice features is that it saves Web pages as well as links, which allows you to access the exact page or content you want saved, not only the link. We all know that content on Web pages can change, so this is a handy way to create a library of pages that contains content previously viewed. LookSmart acquired Furl, but the original developer, Mike Giles, remains on the development team.



Ma.gnolia is a newer social bookmarking tool with a very nice and unique look and feel to distinguish it from other social bookmarking tools. It too will allow you to save an entire Web page like Furl, but it also creates a groups section that allows users to participate in organized communities.

Raw Sugar


Raw Sugar offers hierarchical relationships to social bookmarking. Raw Sugar also has a nice look to it.





" [http://scuttle.org/]

Scuttle is another social bookmarking tool, one based on an open- source project licensed under the GNU General Public License. Users can set up watchlists with this tool.



Shadows is one of the newer social bookmarking tools; it looks good and has some new twists and features. If you install the Shadows toolbar, you can use what the developers of Shadows are calling "Shadow Pages." These pages contain "all the tags, comments and ratings that you, your friends and the entire community have contributedto that Web page. You can also create tags, comments and ratings on a Shadow Page if you haven't already done so through the toolbar or the bookmarklets."



Released in May 2004, Simpy is authored by Otis Gospodnetic. The service was originally designed as a bookmarking tool to organize links. It has evolved into a social bookmarking tool. In one unique feature, Simpy allows users to create lists of notes that can be tagged and searched or browsed in the same way as other tags.



Spurl (SPecial URL) was first released in February 2004 and is authored by Hjamar Gislason. Spurl combines a social bookmarking tool and a search engine service. The search engine is Zniff.

Yahoo! My Web 2.0


If you use Yahoo! tools - like e-mail or RSS feed reader - you might want to use Yahoo! My Web 2.0. It will keep all your tools together.


1 Marieke Guy and Emma Tonkin, "Folksonomies: Tidying Up Tags?," D-Lib Magazine, Volume 12, No. 1, January 2006 [http://www.dlib.org/ dlib/ january06/guy/01guy.html].

2 Kroski, Ellyssa, "The Hype and the Hullabaloo of Web 2.0," Jan. 13, 2006 [http://infotangle. blogsome.com/2006/01/13/the-hype-and- thehullabaloo-of-web-20/].

3 "7 Things You Should Know about ... Social Bookmarking," Educause Learning Initiative, May 2005, [http://www.educause.edu/ir/ library/ pdf/ELI7001.pdf].

4 Bruce, Harry, William Jones, and Susan Dumais, "Information Behaviour that Keeps Found Things Found," Information Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, October 2004 [http://informationr.net/ir/10-l/ paper207.html]; Bruce, H., Jones, W., Dumais, S. (2004). "Keeping and Re-Finding Information on the Web: What Do People Do and What Do They Need?," ASIST2004: Proceedings of the 67th ASISTAnnual Meeting, Chicago, IL, Information Today, Inc., October, 2004 [http:// kftf.ischool.washington.edu/re-findingjnforma tion_on_the_web3.pdf]; Lisa Guernsey, "What's Next; Now Where Was I? New Ways to Revisit Web Sites," The New York Times, Jan. 22,2004 [http:// www.nytimes.com/2004/01/22/tech nology/circuits/ 22next.html?ex=139019 4000&en=fc394945fOf548c6&ei=5007&part ner=USERLAND].

5 See "All Social that Can Bookmark" [http://3 spots.blogspot.com/ 2006/01/all-social-that-canbookmark.html]. Accessed March 12, 2006.

6 See Mobilicio.us, a "mashup" that combines the del.icio.us online bookmarking service with Google's Mobile Search tool. This allows you to browse through "mobilized" versions of your del.icio.us bookmarks from your phone browser or other limited- display browsers [http://mobi licio.us/about.php] (accessed March 12, 2006).

7 Hansell, Saul, "As Internet TV Aims at Niche Audiences, the Slivercast Is Born," The New York Times, March 12, 2006 [http:// www.ny times.com/2006/03/12/business/your money/12sliver.html]; see also Chris Anderson, "The Long Tail," Wired, October 2004 [http:// www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html].

8 O'Reilly, Tim. "What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software," Sept. 30, 2005 [http:// www. orei I lynet.com/l pt/a/6228].

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Kroski, Ellyssa, "The Hype and the Hullabaloo of Web 2.0."

12 Kroski, Ellyssa, "The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging," Dec. 7,2005 [http:// infotangle.blogsome.com/2005/12/07/ thehive-mind-folksonomies-and-user-basedtagging].

13 Kroski, "The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging"; see also Mathes, Adam, "Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata" December 2004 [http:// www.adam mathes.com/academic/computer-mediatedcommunication/ folksonomies.html], and Guy and Tonkin.

14 Gary Price, "A Controlled Vocabulary to Assist in Describing Images," Search Engine Watch, Jan. 18, 2005 [http:// blog.searchenginewatch. com/blog/050118-123400].

15 Guy and Tonkin.

16 Guy and Tonkin.

17 Kroski,"The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging."

18 See Walt Crawford's article, "Folksonomy and Dichotomy," Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large, Cites & Insights 6, Number 4, March 2006 [http://cites.boisestate.edu/v6i4a.htm].

19 Crawford.

20 For a list of Web 2.0 tools, take a look at "Ask the eConsultant" - Web 2.0 Directory: Top Web 2.0 Sites [http:// www.econsultant.com/ web2/index.html].

21 Boothby, Rod, "The Next Wave of Productivity Tools: Web Office," Innovation Creators, Feb. 8, 2006, [http:// www.innovationcreators.com/ Web%200ffice%20White%20Paper%20- %20Rod%20Boothby.pdf].

22 "All Social that Can Bookmark."

Copyright Information Today, Inc. Jun 2006

(c) 2006 Searcher. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.