The Wolanski Foundation Project


Paper no 55









List of papers







Operating in a world of ornate variations and tipping points: the ALIA Information Online Conference 2011, Part 2

by Paul Bentley


Article originally published in Online Currents August 2011 and reprinted with kind permission of the publishers Thomson Reuters.



The keynote speakers at the ALIA 2011 Information Online Conference offered a fresh environmental scan for the library sector as discussed in the June issue.[1]  

Iarla Flynn mapped out the paths Google would be taking over the next few years. Michael Mace said 2011 would be a tipping point, when e-books would gain dominance over traditional p-books. Chris Winter drew attention to mind-blowing productivity questions associated with the use of social media. Sebastian Chan generated excitement by explaining how the internet and social media had elevated imagination and invention within his museum. And Jim McKerlie had described six new paradigms that are reshaping industries.  

Having taken in the thoughts of the keynote speakers, Online Currents navigates the 60 papers in the parallel sessions now available on the Information Online website.[2] What are we to make of the efforts of librarians over the past two years? And what’s in store for the years ahead?


Major libraries will lead the way. The title of five-year strategic plan of National and State Libraries Australasia (NSLA), Re-imagining Libraries, suggests that NSLA libraries are engaged with Jim McKerlie’s new paradigms. Wendy Quihampton reports NSLA progress on consortial purchasing, one-step discovery spaces, digitisation programs, access to subscription e-resources, copyright legislation, document delivery processes, and collaborative collecting, disposal and storage strategies.

Busting paradigms is one of the themes in Garry Conroy-Cooper’s paper on the development of LINC Tasmania, involving the integration of 500 personnel from 5 separate library, archive, adult education and community service agencies and ‘casting them into the melting pot of 21st century change.’

A number of presenters write about tools to guide future strategies. Steve O’Connor runs through the benefits of scenario planning. Two other presentations highlight the importance of the right data for decision-making when they tackle perceived shortcomings in the use of Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) statistics and client satisfaction surveys. Margaret Pembroke, based on work by Southern Cross University Library, proposes new measures that are more relevant for the digital environment. Dana McKay and Gary Hardy report on Swinburne University of Technology Library’s investigations into the differences between reported success and actual success. And Lisa Miller reminds us that good management of people is one of the best ways to move into the future.


Signs of change are reflected in the way libraries are changing their physical spaces.

Janine Schmidt (Mukurta Consulting) and Gülçin Cribb (Özyegin University, Turkey) give a global context. In their paper, they provide perspectives from their Australian, Canadian, European and Turkish experiences. Initial views that online technologies would reduce the use of library space, they write, have not come to pass. Much change has occurred but the physical space remains important. A number of common themes have come to the fore: the need for flexibility, the importance of technology, the emergence of self-service points, and the continuing need for human intervention. High tech still requires a high personal touch.

Annie Talvé focuses on developments in Australia and comes to much the same conclusions.  During the mid 1990s, she says, the buzz was that the library as physical place was doomed. A dualism emerged, persuaded by the hyperbole of the dot com revolutionaries. The virtual library emerged as ‘a disembodied space fuelled by an irrefutable supply-demand proposition.’ By contrast, the library-as-place scenario was less clearly defined and more uncertain. Fifteen years on, this dualism is less stark. A hybrid has emerged with digital and place-based notions of a library holding equal currency. Libraries are now ‘funky, layered, dynamic places that people are flocking to even when they don’t have to.’

An example of a funky space can be found in the paper of Rory McLeod, who describes the State Library of Queensland’s initiative, The Edge digital culture centre. Developed with funding of more than $10 million from the Queensland Government, the Edge opened in 2010 as a centre, with children and young people in mind, for ‘showcasing Queensland innovation, invention and imagination.’ The Edge’s first seven months of operation, when 100 programs and workshops across 7 content streams were presented, attracted 30,500 physical visits and 220, 000 page views to The Edge website. Visiting the website at is one good way of getting a feel for what’s in store. 

More modest manifestations of changing library spaces are explored by Alexander Sussman and Steve Richards on Ryde Council’s new central library, Andrew Finegan on changes at the Princes Hill Secondary College library and by Carmel O'Sullivan and Jill Benn on the University of Western Australia’s Science Library. These experiences have involved ideas such as the adoption of book shop design features, outsourcing traditional library functions, making the most of technology and broadening the nature of engagement with users.

Kim Allen Scott (Montana State University), in his paper, urges that more attention be given to developing national and regional facilities to house legacy collections and duplicate material, an issue that would reverberate in the media after the conference.


Moving the library furniture around has been accompanied by work on the shop window.

Trove (, a culmination of more than 60 years of collaborative discipline, is now bringing the richness of collections to a wider public. Rose Holley’s paper describes recent work and plans that have driven its ‘find and get’ strategy. Initiatives include data enrichment, improvements to the interface, and access to authenticated resources for affiliated users. Trove contributors are invited to become involved in deeper linking to holdings of contributing libraries, data improvements and maintenance, planning digitisation of regional newspapers and other local content, digitisation-on-demand services, print-on-demand functions, and purchasing mechanisms. Australia, Holley says, ‘has a fantastic opportunity now to demonstrate to the information world and our public at large that we can deliver on find and get better than anyone else. Let’s do it.’   

Work in individual libraries is represented by two papers about the implementation of Serials Solution’s Summon, one by David Howard and Constance Wiebrands about its successful introduction at Edith Cowan University Library, and one by Cathy Slaven, Barb Ewers, and Kurt Vollmerhause about the experience at Queensland University of Technology Library. Both projects called for considerable energy in helping staff and users adapt to the change. Implementation of the BiblioCommons suite of products using Drupal open content management system at Yarra Plenty Regional Library is explored by Christine Mackenzie. The experience of Claudia Davies and David Bratchford in developing a library portal at Legal Aid Queensland threw, in their words, a harsh light on the gap between the tools client groups use and those provided through the library services. Moving to a new approach involved ‘breaking cataloguing rules, breaking our own rules, flagging data in new ways and giving up the notion of the catalogue as the heart of library services.’

Indeed, Bruce Heterick from Ithaka and JSTOR takes issue with the ‘last desperate attempt to promote the institutional online catalog as the starting place for discovery.’ He questions the investment in this 'field of dreams'. If we head down that path, he writes, we should think about a more holistic solution involving, in a much more robust fashion, not only the libraries and the discovery services providers, but also the providers of the content.


At the VALA 2010 conference Tom Tague from Thomson Reuters’ OpenCalais had urged librarians to focus as much on the back end as the front end.

At Information Online 2011, Philip Hider and Ying-Hsang Liu from Charles Sturt University address a big question for the people in the back room by looking at the Resource Discovery and Access (RDA) standard. With implementation of the RDA standard on the horizon, they say it is timely for libraries to review core elements and make decisions about future cataloguing policies. Stephen Pugh (Orranjarrra Partners) writes on the potential roles of and benefits for publishers, aggregators, and other third-parties in further development of metadata for e-books, journals and articles, particularly in academic environments.

Work within institutions is represented by Evan Bailey and Irvin Flack from the NSW Department of Education and Training Centre for Learning Innovation (on the challenge of explaining to people who are not interested in metadata why it is important for them to become interested), by Hazel Bowley from Cybersearch 2 Pty Ltd (on the challenge of getting agreement on the semantics associated with enterprise systems), by Sally Newton (on the use of an enterprise classification scheme at the University of Melbourne), by Robyn Van Dyk (on the implementation of a digital asset management system at the at the Australian War Memorial) and by Ingrid Finnane, Carmel McInerny and Linda Groom (on the development of an in-house rights management system at the National Library of Australia to address difficulties in accessing information, data inconsistencies and inefficient workflows).   


Dealing with the customers was a theme that dominated the parallel sessions.

Developments in information literacy and related academic programs attracted Jayanthi Joseph and Gaby Haddow to discuss a project at Curtin University Library, which is using data to examine the relationship between library use, student retention, student socio economic status and age. Su Hanfling, Rebecca Goldsworthy and Gaith Bader discuss the use of multi-purpose interactive online learning resources to develop student information and research skills at the University of Sydney. Jemima McDonald and Sophie McDonald report on the strategy at the University of Technology Sydney, involving support for researchers across the research life cycle, embedding staff in faculties and using Web 2.0 technologies, mobile apps, QR codes, games, and other mechanisms. Judith Peacock writes about the Queensland University of Technology Library's suite of e-literacy online resources. And Lizzie Chase and others analyse issues relating to e-literacy for primary and secondary students.  

The use of games surfaces through David Di Muro, who writes that designing games is an effective alternative to producing outmoded online tutorials and how-to guides. Ellen Forsyth’s paper is devoted to the potential of games for reference and local studies services in public libraries.  

Social media, not unexpectedly, drew several presenters to the Information Online platform. Ellen Forsyth and Leanne Perry focus on the provision of training in the use web 2.0 tools by public library staff. Kate Freedman from La Trobe University Library and Naomi Doessel from the University of Queensland Library chart the benefits and pitfalls of working collaboratively using Google docs, Twitter and other media. Michelle Liu and Marie-Thérèse Barbaux report on the use of Facebook and a blog to promote resources in a specialist language library at the University of Sydney. Kathryn Greenhill from Cottesloe-Peppermint Grove-Mosman Park Library and Sue Cook from the CSIRO discuss the use of Wordpress MU to promote services in their two libraries. And Anna Raunik promotes the NSLA Re-imagining Libraries program called Libraryhack, aimed at encouraging the public and library staff to create new content using the library data sets.

The benefits of self-service mechanisms are explored by Shaun Brady and others, who report increased efficiency and usage in the libraries that have adopted self-service strategies. Gillian Wood provides a commentary on the use of mobile information technologies by clinicians in Northern Sydney Central Coast Area Health Service. And Aaron Tan reports on the successful testing of an online reference chat service by Public Libraries Singapore.     

On the website usability front, Janet Fletcher discusses the process and outcomes of a study by the University of NSW Library, in which eye tracking, viewed as heat maps, gave a very clear understanding of what works and what doesn't. Users dislike reading busy websites. They can be impatient with jargon and bored with complex explanations. They like a simple search box. 

The risks and legal minefield of using web 2.0 technologies are navigated by Professor Anne Fitzgerald from the Queensland University of Technology Law Faculty. Brendan Sinnamon  and others report on an evaluation of ebook readers at Queensland University of Technology Library. And Jenny Ellis, Graeme Connelly and Richard Siegersma describe a print-on-demand facility using an Expresso Book Machine at Melbourne University Library, a project that is leading to exploration of options for producing monographs, conference papers and online journals, student reading packs, and out of print titles.


Specialist services often point to opportunities for libraries to engage in a wider online landscape.

This year’s crop includes a paper by Peter Read and Suzana Sukovic on the History of Aboriginal Sydney project based in the Department of History, University of Sydney. The performing arts is represented by a paper on by Jonathan Bollen and others on the Aus-e-Stage Navigation Networks visualisation service, one of three new components being deployed to operate alongside AusStage's text-based search-and-retrieval service. Simone Wise, at Queensland University, flags the potential, despite limited development so far, for collaborative use of the participatory web by Australian local studies librarians. And Jan Titcombe explores the challenges of transforming services at the cash-strapped Royal United Services Institute of New South Wales military history library, which serves a wide range of age groups with limited exposure to technology. 

One particularly interesting paper is offered by Judy Hutchinson, Roxanne Missingham, and Philip Anderson on the development of an automated system to assist selection and classification of a substantial digital newspaper clippings collection and its integration with a thesaurus used for ParlInfo Search at the Library of the Parliament of Australia. The project has had a positive impact on workflow, morale and productivity. Articles are now available online within minutes rather than hours.

Institutional repository developments are explored in three papers. Duncan Dickinson and others describe work at the University of Southern Queensland for the dissemination of creative arts multimedia outputs to complement the ePrints service for text-based research outputs. Martin Borchert and Colleen Cleary write about the strategy of the Queensland University of Technology ePrints institutional repository to pay author publication fees for university authors wishing to publish in open access journals of a range of publishers including BioMed Central, Public Library of Science, Hindawi, and Bentham. And Mary Anne Kennan from Charles Sturt University looks at the importance of an actor, such as a mandate or deposit policy, to encourage universities and authors to participate in institutional repository programs.

Developments in data curation attracted one paper by Craig Milne, Ellen Thompson and Lance De Vine, who describe work on projects funded by the Australian National Data Services at Queensland University of Technology to describe research datasets, aggregate metadata from multiple repositories and administration systems, and feed them directly to Research Data Australia. 

The work of corporate libraries is represented by Emma Taylor on the Water Corporation Library's experiences in provide e-services to an organisation with 3000 staff located in over 45 locations across the state. Melinda Stewart describes service delivery at George Weston Foods, a fast moving consumer goods manufacturing business. And Amanda Magnussen tells how electronic services are delivered at IP Australia using ‘ingenuity, workarounds and technological fudges’ because the library lacks access to most of the Web 2.0 tools used by other libraries. 


The conference suggests that the concept of librarianship is still a moveable feast. Kim Allen Scott from Montana State University queries the predilection of ‘angst-driven colleagues’ to adopt the mantle of ‘information scientists’ in the quest for a role in the online universe. Kate Davis and others report on the Queensland University of Technology’s work in seeking to define best practice in delivering ‘blended learning’ in its Master of Information Technology  course. Kim Tairi from Swinburne University asks whether the Aurora Leadership Institute has succeeded in its objective of positioning library leaders ‘as dynamic and effective voices in our sophisticated information environment.’ Paula Callan and Martin Borchert explore training library staff for research support services at Queensland University of Technology. And James Cook University’s Anne Lahey looks at mentoring practices and professional development opportunities for library and information science graduates.


The keynote speakers had flagged future imperatives, opportunities and challenges in their environmental scan. Those in the parallel streams of the conference seemed to have their finger on the pulse: persistent change is simply part of doing normal business. But is the reach far enough and is there anything else to consider?   

The nature of change

Change is likely to be shaped by life cycle theory. Charles Handy put it one way, as a sigmoid curve, in The Empty Raincoat. Clay Shirky, courtesy of Chris Winter at the conference, put it another way in the form of a social surplus created by the internet and social media. And Deloitte’s The Shift Index for macroeconomic trends puts it yet another way in attempting to measure the forces of change.[3] Foundations set the stage for major change. Flows of resources, such as knowledge, allow businesses to enhance productivity. Impacts help gauge progress at an economy-wide level. According to The Deloitte Index, worker passion is a key requirement for effectively responding to ongoing, disruptive changes.

Changing the internet

If the internet is a game changer for the work of libraries, is there anything more librarians, even passionate ones, need to know about the internet game?

Bill Davidow, former Vice President of Intel and author of Overconnected: The Threat and Promise of the Internet, is one who says the overloaded internet itself needs changing. In an interview on ABC radio, he explored the proposition that we're heading for another global crisis because “the internet is now cowboy country, out of control.”[4] He said the internet has created a competitive fervour around information transactions. People are mindlessly engaged in them. Too much happens too fast. The use of credit cards poses all sorts of risks. The loss of privacy should cause alarm. Each little bit of data about a person becomes more valuable as lists of customers become the new currency. Some interconnections should never be made. The fact that Private Bradley Manning leaked to WikiLeaks government information that over 3 million people already knew about is an indication the society hasn’t quite caught up with the risk of contagion and catastrophe.

What do we need to do about being over-connected? First, he said, we need to control and better manage the ‘invisible freight’ of the internet. If we don’t regulate it, the story of the economic crash in 2008 could be repeated in an internet crash. Second, we need to give a great deal more forethought to what is going on before we do certain things: we shouldn’t wait for a catastrophe before we fix up the system. We now spend a lot of time dealing with spam, computer viruses and other problems. If email wasn’t free, would that help solve the problem? Third, we need to realise that incremental changes to existing institutions are not going to fix the problems. Governments and institutions need to be transformed in order for us to get the positive benefits of the internet. 

Changing technologies

Librarians have little control over the internet, but they do have some control over the technology they use to be part of the networked world. Gartner’s list of top 10 strategic technologies for 2011 has some already on the radar of most libraries and some that invite further study. They include cloud computing services, mobile applications and media tablets, social communications technologies (networking tools, collaboration and publishing technologies, and feedback devices) and video (signalling its greater use in online content). And they include next generation analytical tools, context-aware computing, storage class memory, ubiquitous computing, and fabric-based infrastructure.[5]  Put them on your window shopping list.   

Media and publisher changes

The dramatic changes in the media and publishing world are directly affecting library services. Annabel Crabb says the media now operates with ‘ornate variations’ and the internet ‘has corroded so many of the structural basics of the journalistic transaction.’ Using the anecdote of the Cooks Source controversy, she describes how a soured relationship between a blogger and the editor of a foodie magazine Cooks Source had led to a public boycott and, echoing the impact of social media in north Africa, forced it to be taken offline. She coupled this story with the rise of the Huffington Post, the American news website built upon an aggregation of blogs. When Arianna Huffington sold the business in February 2011 for US$315 million, annoyed bloggers initiated litigation to claim a third of what she had pocketed. People who are prepared to work for free, Crabb writes, will stop feeling that way pretty quickly ‘once they suspect that someone is taking the piss.’[6]

As newspapers develop hybrid products and apps to channel their content, they consider outsourcing traditional roles. Those affected are asking questions about the effect on quality. The media are high-speed businesses that need editorial eyes. Outsourcing editors may make newspapers more error-prone. On the other hand, the editorial excesses of media barons are now counterbalanced by the new power of citizen journalists. 

Plans for the Google Newspaper Archive, sketched out by Iarla Flynn at the conference, were followed soon after by news that Google had decided to suspend plans to scan and archive all the world’s newspapers.[7] It will cease accepting, scanning, and indexing microfilm and other archival material from newspapers, and instead would focus its energies on projects such as Google One Pass, a platform to enable publishers to sell content and subscriptions directly from their own sites. Google says it will continue to support the existing archives it has scanned and indexed, but it doesn’t plan to introduce new features or functionality. Echoing Bill Davidow, Irvin Muchnick says that this highlights the limits of self-appointed public utilities that are driven by more profit rather than broader responsibilities and it is another illustration of why the new publishing landscape needs clear information highway rules. The shifting powers of authors and publishers need comprehensive negotiations by the stakeholders. From the federal government, ‘we need compulsory licenses and royalty systems to allow this system to reach its full promise.’[8]

At the conference, Michael Mace predicted that 2011 would be year in which e-books would become more commercially viable than p-books. And sure enough, in mid May, the news came through that sales of e-books had climbed past both hardcover and paperback book sales at
[9] In June 2011, it was announced that all Borders book stores would close in Australia.[10] And, in the same month, came the news that Sydney University library was planning to reduce staff and remove 500,000 books and journals from its shelves.[11] The emotionally-charged reaction by university staff and students was a welcome demonstration of the value of the library to its users ahead of more rational consideration of the issues involved.[12]

The social media revolution

Chris Winter, among others, had drawn the attention of delegates to the power of the social media revolution and the potential impact of crowd sourcing.

In the past year or so, Twitter has gained potency in the suite of social media tools. In April 2010, Twitter announced that it would be donating its entire archive of public tweets to the Library of Congress.[13] In June 2011, the Pew Research Center, canvassing the use of Twitter in the United States, reported that 13% of online adults now use the micro-blogging service and that usage in the 25-44 age group has grown significantly since late 2010.[14]

But to counteract this line of thought, Linda Barron poses a good question in the title of her paper: Does participation equate to engagement? Her conference paper is about measuring the effectiveness of participation in a web 2.0 learning program at the State Library of Queensland. But it is a question that invites scrutiny on a wider front. Is galloping social media addiction something that calls for a detox?

Changing government leadership and incentives

As the Federal Government rolls out the National Broadband Network there is renewed interest in opportunities from related government programs. The latest National Digital Economy Plan encourages those relying on government funding to rework proposals from the last 15 years or to make up for past missed opportunities. [15] 

Simon Crean, the Minister for the Arts and Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, said on the ABC’s Q&A program on 2 May 2011 that, despite the rhetoric about whole-of-government thinking, governments still tend to deal with things in silos. Future initiatives, he said, will be shaped by those with a plan to help governments make funding decisions.

Rolling out the blue cable follows closely on the heels of decisions to close down without explanation the Cultural Ministers Council and the Collections Council of Australia. Uncertainties about the future of the Collections Australia Network have lingered for more than a year. Exercising new imagination may call for mind reading as well as persuasion.

Changing libraries

Against this rolling backdrop, where do libraries stand and in what directions do they need to head?

OCLC’s punchy two-page promo about American libraries, How Libraries Stack Up: 2010, presents a healthy picture.[16] Library cards in the US are as prevalent as credit cards. American public libraries circulate as many materials every day as FedEx ships packages around the world. Every year Americans visit the library more often than they go to the movies and six more times than they attend sporting events. A related report Perceptions of Libraries 2010, says the development of the internet and of related technologies has led to increased use of American libraries. And Americans see increased value of the library for themselves and for their communities.[17]

An American Library Association briefing paper on libraries and their use of technology puts future imperatives in a nutshell. Fundamental to the discussion is that changes ‘must come from within the library community.’ Challenges and opportunities will revolve around four main drivers. Technology changes traditional information forms. Digitisation changes the landscape of information access and use. New information processes are changing libraries, library services and librarians. The future is collaboration.[18]

Technology is unifying the interests of libraries, archives and museums, but it is a challenge that has yet to be fully realised. Unsolved cross-sectoral metadata questions are now linked to questions about Linked Open Data. Those at the International Linked Open Data in Libraries Archives and Museums Summit held in San Francisco in June 2011 considered practical approaches and schemes for linking library, archive, and museum metadata. One of the outcomes was a draft 4-star classification-scheme for linked open cultural metadata [19]

Christine Borgman, in accepting the Paul Evans Peters Award at the April 2011 meeting of the Coalition of Networked Information, examined the complex evolutionary development of networked information and the internet since the 1970s.[20]

This development, she said, can be characterised by four trends. First, the closed network of the first twenty years that moved to an open network with open standards during the next twenty years is now in ‘a funny interim stage’ of mixed closed and open practices. She agreed with John Zittrain’s thesis in The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. We are moving away from the generative stage to a more gated stage. Second, we have moved from a world of static content to more dynamic content and contexts. In the first twenty years, ‘when things were published, they stayed published.’ As we move from the dynamic world of the last twenty years, things are now more mixed. When we retrieve information, we are capturing a snapshot in time, capturing a flow of information. The third trend is the move from readers to authors. It’s a do-it-yourself world and we are moving towards universal authorship characterised by emails, blogs, tweets and Facebook information. And the fourth trend is the move from publications to data. There are new social structures for publication and data management. There are lots of questions to be answered about responsibilities and associated economics.

Borgman sees four great challenges. First, there’s a need for libraries to take back information retrieval. Search engines don’t do everything and they don’t do enough: the world needs both generic and specialised searching. Second, there’s a need to engage in the large life cycle of information management, to partner with domain experts. Third, there’s a need to distribute the architecture. We now have more data than we have capacity to store it. It is now also difficult to move big data through the pipes. We need to think about the economic conditions, the huge duplication of effort and technology and the cost of the information grazing land. And finally, we need to match policy with incentives. Data management is expensive, poorly rewarded, and highly inconsistent. Data curation is a means rather than an end. Standards still matter. Selection still matters. Stewardship still matters.  

Maybe Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi summed it up in Flow.[21] Managing complexity involves integration as well as differentiation. We need to learn how to reunite ourselves with other entities around us without losing our hard-won individuality.    

Winning and Losing in a World of New Paradoxes: the ALIA Information Online Conference, Part 1


[1] Bentley, P. “Winning and Losing in a World of New Paradigms: The ALIA Information Online Conference 2011, Part 1”. (2011) 25/3 Online Currents

[2] ALIA Information Online Conference, Viewed 13 June 2011

[3] Hagel III, J, Brown, JS, and Davison, L. The 2009 Shift Index: Measuring the Forces of Long-Term Change  (2010), /us_tmt_ce_ShiftIndex_072109ecm.pdf, viewed 13 June 2011

[4] Garrett, Kirsten. Interview with Bill Davidow, Background Briefing ABC Radio National 3 March 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[5] Gartner Identifies the Top 10 Strategic Technologies for 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[6] Crabb, A. “Finding a Coin for the Journalistic Juke Box, The Drum, 13 May 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[7] Cariolo, C. “Google Abandons Master-plan to Archive the World's Newspapers. The Boston Phoenix 19 May 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[8] Muchnick, I. “Demise of Google Newspaper Archive Shows Need for National Digital Library Policy” Beyond Chron 25 May 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[9] Hamaker. S. “Tyndale House Launches eBook Publishing Initiative”, The Christian Post, 2 June 2011. viewed 13 June 2011.

[10]Chapter Closes on Borders in Australia” ABC News 2 June 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[11] Narushima, Y. “You Can Judge a Book by its 'Dust Test' as University Library Cuts its Staff and Stock, Sydney Morning Herald 12 May 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[12] Perkins, Y. “Sydney University Library: Borrowers Protest, 19 May 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[13] Watters, A.How the Library of Congress is Building the Twitter Archive”, O’Reilly Radar 2 June 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[14] Smith, A. “Twitter Update 2011” Pew Internet & American Life Project, 1 June 2011 viewed 13 June 2011

[15] Australia. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. National Digital Economy Strategy. viewed 13 June 2011

[16] OCLC. “How Libraries Stack Up: 2011”  viewed 13 June 2011

[17] OCLC. Perceptions About Libraries, 2010 (2011). viewed 13 June 2011

[18] Hendrix, JC. Checking Out the Future: Perspectives from the Library Community on Information Technology and 21st-Century Libraries: ALA Office for Information Technology Policy  (February 2010) viewed 13 June 2011

[19] viewed 13 June 2011

[20] Borgman, C. Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet: Reflections on Three Decades in Internet Time. viewed 13 June 2011

[21] Csikszantmihalyi, M. Flow. London: Rider, 2002.

Non-commercial viewing, copying, printing and/or distribution or reproduction of this article or any copy or material portion of the article is permitted on condition that any copy of material portion thereof must contain copyright notice referring "Copyright ©2009 Lawbook Co t/a Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited." Any commercial use of the article or any copy or material portion of the article is strictly prohibited. For commercial use, permission can be obtained from Lawbook Co, Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited, PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039,


 About usWhat's newSite map | Searching  | Managing  | Learning  |  Library |  Research 

  Contact us | Home  

© 2011 The Wolanski Foundation Project

 Email web manager.  URL:

Page last updated: 22 October 2011