Space Games

Submitted to First Monday (December 2008)

Space Games: The Re-Representation of Reality in Academic Libraries


Academic librarians face the challenge of defending the traditional academic library as place while the world around them is splintering into multiple virtual realities. This article will discuss a few of these realities:  Google World, Second Life – An Online Community, The Age of Murdoch, and Kindle: Amazon’s New Wireless Device.  In the Library as Place section, current issues are discussed with these Internet-based or –supported developments as reference points. 


In the seeing of who you are not, the reality of who you are emerges.
                               Ekhart Tolle, A New Earth (2005)

Until recently a library was a building with a collection of books, journals, and other media.  This definition is no longer sufficient.  Today’s library has a virtual, non-physical component which dwarfs the physical and renders earlier definitions of what constitutes a library relatively meaningless.

Librarians are struggling effectively to meet the challenges this change implies.  They are engaged in the difficult work of balancing the growing use of networked electronic resources with the declining use of print collections and services.1  Their situation is complicated by the fact that most of the changes they are required to implement are caused by events entirely beyond their control. 
It is not as if one or two things are changing.   Everything is changing.  The sheer magnitude of the rate of change has few historical parallels.  Developments occurring almost anywhere in the information industry may be relevant to the academic librarian.  Some of these development shoot onto the scene, blindsiding even the closest and most practiced observer.  One example is Google’s 2004 announcement that it was joining with five prestigious libraries to digitize their print collections.  According to Paul N. Courant, former Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Michigan, this “changed the world.”2  

Whenever changes occur in the delivery, storage, or content of information, corresponding library adaptations may be required.  In the process librarians must often rearrange their prior concepts of the prevailing reality.  Simultaneously, they must continue to provide material support to the traditional library.  The constant juggling of priorities adds a game-like quality to library work.  Because this juggling involves the Internet and the virtual world, it may be considered a space game.    

Five realities are highlighted in this article: 

Collectively, these discussions acknowledge efforts by representative leaders to hold on to what is valued while attempting to adapt in an orderly fashion, or to innovate and create whole new mixed (physical and virtual) world realities.  The resulting sketches may foster a greater appreciation for the role of campus librarians as they strive to meet the challenges these realities present. 

Google World
In Google we trust.  And why not?  It’s a Google world.  The Google search engine accounts for almost 60 percent of all searches in the United States.   Its reputation is exceeded only by Johnson & Johnson and Coca-Cola.3  Google’s vision is extraordinary. According to Michael Gorman, former president of the American Library Association, “The Google Boys dream of taking over the universe by gathering all the information in the world and creating the electronic equivalent of, in their own words, ‘the mind of God.’”4 

No wonder librarians were split into Googlizers and Resistors.5  France’s National Library President Jean-Noel Jeanneney viewed Google’s book project as “confirmation of the risk of a crushing American domination in the definition of how future generations conceive the world.”6  Nineteen European national libraries joined together in a counter-offensive. Twenty if one adds the British National Library’s “implicit support.”
Librarians at Cornell were respectful in their reaction to Google and its claims.  They conducted a modest study to determine if one product, Google Answers, could defeat the Cornell University Library digital reference services.

The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library’s role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google’s approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.7

 No clear winner, concluded the authors.  Google’s researchers were considered more consistent and better at locating hard-to-find information on the Web.  Cornell librarians were complimented for their use of non-Web materials although “the rating scores themselves do not reveal any significant advantage being gained through their use.”8

In “Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California,” a Bibliographic Services Task Force stated that Google was one of “the standards against which we are judged.”9  Interestingly, in a most candid assessment, they concluded, “the current Library catalog is poorly designed for the tasks of finding, discovering, and selecting the growing set of resources available to our libraries.”10

Achieving an appropriate balance between on-web and off-web activity is a constant challenge for librarians.  Few library functions are unaffected.  Lorcan Dempsey suggests that “Libraries struggle because they manage a resource which is fragmented and ‘off-web’ [and] very much organized by publisher interest, rather than by user need.”11

The Google vision can be faulted, but a library of everything is not a bad thing.  Google offers librarians remarkable choices.  One of these was made by librarians at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who linked 3,600 theses and dissertations to Google.12  Amazingly, in the first three years use of these materials increased from 50 to 500,000 annually.

The Google hype has been extraordinary and the dominant narrative, as Lee Shaker suggests, exists partly because of the company’s fiscal success.13  Nonetheless, Google itself must take account of the market environment for its services as it did when Google Answers was abandoned.14  Some may scoff and feel a degree of pleasure at such failures but nothing is gained. We need visionaries and we need people who dream and try their best to realize those dreams.

Second Life – An Online Community
The Web is structurally congenial to the wisdom of crowds.
       James Surowiecki (Newsweek, April 3, 2006)

Second Life (SL) residents construct avatars of themselves and guide their creations through a virtual world or platform to role-play, work, teach or take courses, make money, and buy goods and services, both virtual and real.  This self-constructed reality is assisted by SL’s creator and Linden Labs CEO, Philip Rosedale.  Rosedale’s concept of SL varies.  He wouldn’t call it a game, but he has used terms such as “online world,” “mixed worlds,” and “metaverse,” which represents the intersection between SL-like 3D worlds and Internet-like networked data.  According to Rosedale, these worlds offer “a new means of human expression.”15  Lotus spreadsheet inventor Mitch Kapor raises the hyperbole to a new level when he suggests that SL “may even accelerate the social evolution of humanity.”16

There are those who take SL quite seriously.  Mark Warner, a former governor of Virginia, was interviewed in Second Life.  He felt “a little disembodied.”  IBM CEO Samuel S. Palmisano has two avatars, one of which he used in a virtual demonstration after addressing a real-life meeting of 8,000 employees in Beijing, China.17  Reuter’s first virtual bureau chief Adam Pasick finds the work “not that different from being a reporter in the real world.”18  IBM and Reuters are joined in SL by Toyota, Sun Microsystems, Adidas and Reebok, BBC, Intel, and a growing list of other mainstream corporations.

Harvard University is among the sixty plus schools and colleges offering courses in Second Life.  The Harvard Law School offered a course (CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion) on Berkman Island.19  At Montana State University a local architect using SL taught a course for creating design prototypes.20  Psychiatrists from the University of California at Davis created a SL room where a person’s avatar is confronted “with visual and auditory hallucinations” in order to give a sense of “what it feels like to be a schizophrenic.”21

Want land?  A virtual acre costs an average of $20 per month.  Purchase a virtual island for $400 a month.  Pay in Linden dollars which are convertible to U.S. dollars through your “real” bank.  Wells Fargo acquired an island “designed to train young people to be financially responsible.”22  The Alliance Library System (ALS), an Illinois Regional Library System, also purchased an island.23  The ALS island is staffed two hours per day, usually in the evening.  Tours are offered.  A virtual building is in the planning stages.  It too will be staffed.  Email reference will be provided.

Second Life and other online community platforms are examples of the live web or Web 2.0, which is the basis for Academic Library 2.0.  The 3-D, social networking, malleable, and mixed world (virtual and real) features of these platforms represent reality in ways which are uniquely distinct from the content laden World Wide Web.  Here “proximity matters again . . . . [and] the value of being closer to where a character lives or works is significant – much like in real life.”24  These online communities could become a new meeting ground between librarians and their users. 

The Age of Murdoch

What degree of change is necessary before something can be considered revolutionary? In the newspaper business, where “the average age of a print newspaper reader is 53” and the Internet (39 percent) is preferred to the newspaper (8 percent) as a news source for 18-34 year olds, this question has immediate relevance.25

Merrill Brown states that “there’s a dramatic revolution taking place in the newspaper business today.”26  Rusty Coats, Director of New Media at Minnesota Opinion Research, agrees with this assessment. “By and large, the major news companies are still turning a blind eye to what is happening because it’s challenging and they need to consider radical change.”27  In his opinion, change is “way too incremental.”

Journalists help shape our reality but others create that reality, others like News Corporation’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, who acknowledges that a revolution is occurring in the information industry: “In the face of this revolution, however, we have been slow to react. We’ve sat by and watched while our newspapers have gradually lost circulation.”28  In a speech to The Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers, Murdoch noted that:

Power is moving away from the old elite in our industry toward those launching a blog every second, sharing photos and music online and downloading television programmes on demand.29

Mathias Döpfner, head of the Axel Springer media empire, which controls over 150 newspapers, tends to agree with Murdoch’s assessment of the newspaper industry. He believes that paper will be replaced as a “transfer medium” but will live on as a “creative medium.”30  He cautions against newspapers becoming a fast food consumable.  Readers want “orientation” and “pre-selection” while the Internet “is selflessly anti-authoritarian in character, profoundly democratic.  Newspapers, by contrast, are confidently authoritarian.”31 

What Rupert Murdoch and others do in the newspaper industry may have direct ramifications for those responsible for the operation of our libraries’ newspaper rooms.  In a study of news collections at the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, Debora Cheney and her coauthors note:

The use and importance of newspaper collections in academic libraries have been in decline as acquisition costs have increased significantly, as the difficulty obtaining daily issues in a timely manner has grown, and as newspaper readership has declined nationally.  In contrast, today’s student and researcher are using television and Internet new sources heavily.32

Because daily newspapers are “less relevant” newspaper collections in many libraries “lie fallow.”  In order to mitigate these trends and to offer a more conducive environment for obtaining news, librarians at Penn State implemented a Newspaper Readership Program.  This program takes account of the convergence lessons found in the newspaper industry.  A news room was created to provide a three-television viewing area and enhanced access to news aggregator databases.  A broader collection of newspapers and news magazines has been provided and librarians support more closely “faculty efforts to develop their students’ critical thinking and media literacy skills.”33

Murdoch, whose company acquired, is greatly attracted to the social networking services of the Internet, which he considers “a creative, destructive technology that is still in its infancy, yet breaking and remaking everything in its path.”34  He believes the current portal model is becoming out of date and hopes to see evolve into a new kind of portal.  Murdoch’s interest is primarily commercial as has enormous advertising potential with an estimated 100 million users.

The Living Web, or Web 2.0, permits everyone to have a portal.  This feeds into Döpfner’s views on the significance of user generated content.  “The Internet site of the future has not fifty but fifty million reporters. The users, the customers, are reporters.”35

The phenomenon has caught the attention of the library community.  In “What Can MySpace Teach Us in Special Libraries?” Stephen Abram, former president of the Special Libraries Association suggests that “at current growth rates [MySpace] has the potential to define social space (and not just virtual social space) for the majority of people.”36   By studying the social networking behavior of students Abram believes we can learn to (1) make library networks more visible and self-creating, (2) encourage active participation and knowledge sharing, (3) create safe spaces in an environment with permeable boundaries, and (4) bridge environments that might otherwise lead to various forms of generation-gap.


Kindle: Amazon’s New Wireless Device

The printed book is arguably the most steadfast of the old media.  Libraries continue to fill their shelves with them.  This will change.  Not soon, perhaps, but eventually.  The book won’t be replaced and it won’t be discarded.  It will simply become less relevant.

Amazon’s Kindle is not a book although it has a shape similar to one and at 10.3 ounces is as light as one.37  The print quality is alleged to be outstanding with a 167 dot-per-inch E Ink display, an innovation from MIT’s Media Lab.  The device will store the equivalent of 200 books.   New York Times Best Sellers can be previewed, ordered for less than ten dollars, and downloaded within minutes. 

For those who do everything on a screen the Kindle may represent an ideal product.  The current $399.00 price will be a drawback, of course, but opinions may change if textbooks become available at deep discounts over print editions.  On a rainy weekday evening with the pizza delivery person due in minutes, it may be more convenient to download Charles Dickens’ Bleak House for $1.99 than to jump into a car or walk across campus to the library.  Plays, poems, and critical notes are likely to be equally inexpensive.  Classmates or members of a fraternity or sorority will be able to share the cost.

The Kindle is being marketed not as a book but as a service.  Millions of books, as well as other media, will be available to download.  Amazon is currently digitizing its four million books.  Digitizing worldwide can be considered the first act. 

The real magic will come in the second act, as each word in each book is cross-linked, clustered, cited, extracted, indexed, analyzed, annotated, remixed, reassembled and woven deeper into the culture than ever before.  In the new world of books, every bit informs another; every page reads all the other pages.38         
In the future, some books will remain “open” after publication allowing authors to correct or update them online with alterations made instantly available to buyers.  Books will be opened to readers for comment and direct interaction with their authors.  Authors will have the option to include the reader in the creation process.  The actual degree of openness that occurs will vary greatly but it appears that the potential joining of author and reader will offer valuable instructional possibilities. 

Over 102,000 eBooks can be purchased on  Libraries are buying them.  Readers are reading them.  Microsoft’s Bill Hill read Edward Gibbon’s six-volume The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on his Dell Pocket PC.  Steven Levy read James Boswell’s Life of Johnson on his iPhone.  Whether the general reading public will follow these early adopters is open to question.  However, as the Association of Research Libraries’ Martha Kyrillidou states “the availability of content electronically is becoming the dominant desire of our library users.”39


The Library as Place
The physical use of many library functions has declined remarkably.40  Nonetheless, faculty and students remain extremely positive about their campus libraries and the services they offer.41  The Internet has made this counter intuitive outcome possible.  First, the Internet provides faculty and students with a treasure load of information capabilities that are impossible for the library to duplicate.  Second, librarians have altered their services and programs in ways that effectively compliment the Internet.  Edward L. Ayers, Dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Hugh R. Kelly Professor of History at the University of Virginia, acknowledges this success.

Librarians have been the real heroes of the digital revolution in higher
education.  They are the ones who have seen the farthest, done the most,
accepted the hardest challenges, and demonstrated most clearly the benefits
of digital information.  In the process, they have turned their own field
upside down and have revolutionized their professional training.42

Declines in the physical use of the library may be masked by those who, for often practical reasons, insist upon the continuing preeminence of the library as a physical entity.  This insistence becomes a strategic necessity if one’s goal is to build or renovate a physical structure which no longer satisfies current or projected long-term needs. 

“As a ‘temple of scholarship,’ the library as place assumed an almost sanctified role, reflected both in its architecture and in its siting,” notes architect Geoffrey Freeman.43 Sarah Thomas cloaks books in the same protective mantle. “Of course, they’re sacred.”44  Conventional wisdom is taken to an entirely new level by Nancy Maxwell in the Sacred Stacks when she declares librarianship a “sacred profession” and libraries “an expression of the immanence of the divine.”45  Lynn O’Leary, director of USC libraries seems to concur. [People] “go in and feel they’re having a religious experience . . . . It’s almost a sacred place.”46  Geneva Henry alters the emphasis but maintains an appropriately deferential tone. “The library is not so much a space where books are held as where ideas are shared.”47 

By draping the library in quasi-religious sentiments rational arguments may be deemed unwelcome and unseemly.  Thus, the shift from physical place to virtual space may be judged out of character or unaligned with traditional values.  Gripping the past and its symbolic imagery may be effective to a point but an over-reliance on these images may distort what is really happening and may mislead librarians into believing that a strict adherence to the place ideology is helpful as they confront the challenges of the virtual world.  Whether the library as place represents reality better than space or virtual metaphors may be disputed but librarians should not allow any myths to limit or impede their explorations.    

The University of Southern California provides a reasonable example of how far some institutions have moved beyond the traditional library. One contributing factor at USC is the rapid increase in the number of its e-journals, which may account for 90 percent of its periodicals budget within five years.48  Another factor is the decline in circulation and reference transactions. Circulations (not counting renewals) declined from 609,000 in 1995 to 466,000 in 2004, or 23 percent.49 Off-campus storage materials, representing one half the print collection, are “rarely” paged.  Reference transactions declined from 158,000 to 65,000, or 59 percent.50 

According to Diana Krieger, “we can expect libraries [like USC] to shift from quasi-digital to mostly digital – and quite possibly to fully digital.”51  The “fully digital” option will most likely be available as a matter of choice.  Few libraries will choose to discard their print collections.  However, librarians may choose to download new books on-demand.  This selection practice would eliminate or minimize a variety of costs ranging from shipping to shelving.  The electronic copy might never be printed in toto.

Bytes will not be an issue. Already the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, which holds 85 billion web pages archived from 1996 to date, contains 2 petabytes of data.52 A single petabyte can store over 250 quadrillion songs.53  By 2020 consumer PCs may hold 1 petabyte or more of hard drive space.54   

In OCLC’s sponsored project “The Social Landscape” several patterns in the current information environment are identified.55   These patterns have implications for those librarians who are attempting to bridge place/space issues.  

Pattern one: decrease in guided access to content:  Most librarians would probably agree. Search software has improved enormously and people can find many resources on their own and with greater ease than in the past. 

Pattern two: disaggregation:  This can refer to both content and institution.  For example, the article is disaggregated from the journal and the journal is disaggregated from the library.  The rapidly expanding use of electronic resources in libraries provides evidence in support of pattern two.

Pattern three: collaboration: “Librarians have always excelled at providing context.”56

In “Calling All Myth Busters,” the outgoing chair of the EDUCAUSE Quarterly Editorial Committee Frederick Miller wondered if it was a myth that “we won’t need a library because all needed resources will be available digitally.”57 

It is undoubtedly a myth that all needed resources will be available digitally.  But even if most were, it will take an unforeseen event to eliminate the presence of printed books.  In 2005-2006 the ARL University Libraries added 9,235,000 millions volumes to their collections.58  Most assuredly these acquisitions were not made with the expectation that they would become obsolete anytime soon. 

What is occurring, however, as noted in this article, is that academic libraries have changed remarkably in response to developments in the information industry and the broader society.  Multiple realities pose difficult challenges but they are being addressed in a common sense manner as librarians engage in the long-term process of re-representing the libraries in which they work. Certainly the web library is not as controllable as the historical non-web library.  Flexibility is required of librarians, as well as a willingness to adapt quickly.  No one should expect librarians to be in the vanguard.  There are exceptions.  Librarians are pressing for vastly improved counting systems so that electronic use can be monitored effectively and its financial implications translated into commonly understood budgetary standards.  Federated searching is another area in which librarians are seeking improvements in order to create a seamless link between library and non-library electronic resources.  

Librarians have devoted a great deal of attention to the maintenance of existing facilities.  In response to the declining use of the library’s physical collections librarians have been creating the groundwork for a library as place that notably enhances the previous model:


While significant, these developments should not obscure the fact that as libraries add books to their collections the amount of free linear shelf space is reduced.  This may eventually lead to requests for additional space. 

“Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.”
                                    Popular Mechanics (1949) 

Search engines are the most trusted source for information among young people.  This reality is revolutionizing the news industry. Rupert Murdoch acknowledges that young people prefer the Internet, not newspapers, for their news.  One reporter, assigned by Reuters to be its Second Life virtual news bureau chief, believes the requirements of reporting in the virtual world are identical to the physical world.60  Google’s vision has been far-reaching.  Its founders’ everything mentality is both grand and courageous. Murdoch’s acquisition of MySpace may also be considered courageous. And shrewd.  He seized an investment opportunity because he understood the growth potential in online social networking.  Second Life and its other worldly attractions are appealing to librarians with the Alliance Library System (ALS) in Illinois. They chose to build their new library on a virtual island. Take a tour, they suggest.          

The future success of academic librarianship may depend on what librarians do in places like Illinois.  The ALS librarians decided to make the mind jump, leaving behind the physical, making the virtual their work space, at least for part of their day.  They decided to go where the new world struggle to reach faculty and students will probably be decided.  Space is the wise gambit, not place.  By making this leap the well-tested few will be in the best position to chart the path librarians should follow and to demonstrate why librarian-assisted virtual use creates valuable synergies for faculty and students.  The physical building and its place on campus will remain important but its roots will be from the fiber optic world or its replacement.  In the meantime, a hodgepodge of realities is sure to excite, amaze, and confound librarians as they strive to find the right combination to the often mystifying events confronting them in their daily work lives.



1. Charles Martell, 2005. “The Ubiquitous User: A Reexamination of Carlson’s Deserted Library,” portal: Libraries and the Academy, volume5, number 4 (October), pp. 441-53; ________, 2007. “The Elusive User: Changing Use Patterns 1995 to 2004,” College & Research Libraries, volume69, number 5 (September), pp. 435-444; __________, 2008. “The Absent User: Physical Use of Academic Library Services and Collections Continues to Decline 1995-2006,” Journal of Academic Librarianship, volume 34, issue 5 (September), 400-407.

2.  Paul N. Courant, 2006. “Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and their kin) in the World of Google,” First Monday, volume11, number 8 (7 August), p. 2,  at, accessed 12 December 2008).

3. Lee Shaker, 2006.  “In Google We Trust: Information Integrity in the Digital Age,” First Monday, volume11, number 4 (3 April 3), p. 10, at issues/issue11_4/ shaker/index.html, accessed 10 December 2008.
4.  Michael Gorman, 2004. “Google and God’s Mind: The Problem Is, Information Isn’t Knowledge,” Los Angeles Times (17 December), p. B. 15.

5.  Brian Kenney, 2004. “Googlizers vs. Resistors,” Library Journal, volume129 (December), pp. 44-46; Steven J. Bell, 2005. “Submit or Resist: Librarianship in the Age of Google,” American Libraries, volume36 (October), p. 68; Deborah Hicks, 2006. “Submit or Resist: Google, Is There a Third Way?” Dalhousie Journal of Information & Management, volume 2 (Spring), pp. 1-11, and at, accessed 12 December 2008).

6. “European Libraries Fight Goggle-ization,” 2005. DW-World.DE, (27April), p. 2, at,1564,1566717,00.html, accessed 12 December, 2008. 

7.  Anne R. Kenney et al., 2006. “Google Meets eBay: What Academic Librarians Can Learn from Alternative Information Providers,” D-Lib Magazine, volume9 (June), pp. 1-2, at, accessed 12 December 2008. 

8.  Kenney, “Google Meets eBay,” p. 6.

9.  Bibliographic Services Task Force, 2005. “Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California: Final Report,” Berkeley, CA: University of California Libraries, (December), p. 3, at sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf, accessed 12 December 2008.

10.  Bibliographic Services Task Force, “Rethinking How We Provide,” p. 3.
11.  “The Integrated Library Service That Isn’t,” 2005. Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog (22 February), at, accessed 12 December, 2008. 

12.  Reported by Richard Sweeny, University Librarian at New Jersey Institute of Technology, see Kenney, “Googlizers vs. Resistors,” p. 4.

13. Shaker, “In Google We Trust,” p. 11.

14.  Michael Liedtke, 2006. “Google Cedes Answer-Service Turf to Rivals,” Sacramento Bee, (30 November), pp. D1-2.

15.  Mark Wallace, 2006. “The Future of You,” PC World 24 (November), p. 1,  at,126861-page,1-c,onlineentertainment/ article.html, accessed 12 December 2008.

16.  “Living a Second Life,” 2006. Economist  (30September), p. 3, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

17. Steve Hamm, “Palmisano Gets a Second Life,” 2006. Business Week (20 November), p. 47, at, accessed 12 December, 2008.

18.  “Reuters Opens Virtual News Bureau,” 2007. (16 October), p. 2, at, accessed 12 December 2008.
19.  Gregory M. Lamb, 2006. “Real Learning in a Virtual World,” Christian Science Monitor, (15 October), p. 13, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

20.  Annalee Newitz, 2006 “Your Second Life Is Ready,” Popular Science (September), pp. 1-10,  at, accessed 12 December 2008.

21. “Virtual Online Worlds: Living a Second Life,” 2006. Economist (30September), p. 3, at,  accessed 12 December 2008.

22.  Newitz, “Your Second Life Is Ready,” p. 1.

23.  Lori Bell, Tom Peters, and Kitty Pope, 2006. “Enjoying Your First Life? Why Not Add a Second?  Developing Library Services in Second Life,” Serious Games Source (30 June), pp. 1-5, at second_ life_library.php, accessed 12 December 2008.

24.  For information on Library 2.0, see “Library 2.0,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, at, accessed 12 December2008); Paul Miller, “Coming Together Around Library 2.0,” 2006. D-Lib Magazine (April), pp. 1-10, at, accessed 12 December 2008; Michael Habib, 2006. “Academic Library 2.0 Concept Models” (22 August), pp. 1-4, at, accessed 12 December 2008; Michael E. Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk, 2006. “Library 2.0,” (1 September), pp. 1-8, at CA6365200.html, accessed 12 December 2008.

25.  Vincent J. Maher, 2006. “11 Reasons Why Massively Multiplayer Games Will Change How Business Works: Part 1,” E-Media Tidbits (25 October), pp. 1-2, at, accessed 12 December 2008).

26.  Merrill Brown, 2005. “Abandoning the News,” Carnegie Reporter, volume3 (Spring), p. 2, at, accessed 12 December 2008. 

27.  Brown, “Abandoning the News,” p. 5.

28.  Brown, “Abandoning the News,” p. 2.

29.  Speech by Rupert Murdoch to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 2005. News Corporation (13 April), pp.1-5, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

30. Mathias Döpfner, 2006. “The Future of Journalism,” (17 May), p.4, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

31. Döpfner, “The Future of Journalism,” p. 5.

32.  Debora Cheney et al., 2006.  “Convergence in the Library’s News Room: Enhancing News Collections and Services in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries, volume 66, number 5 (September), p. 395, and at publications/crljournal/2006/septembera/cheney06.pdf, accessed 12 December 2008.

33.  Cheney, “Convergence in the Library’s News Room,” p. 395.

34.  Enid Burns, 2006. “Murdoch Discusses Future of,” ClickZNew (10 January), p. 1, at, accessed 12 December 2008.
35. Döpfner, “The Future of Journalism,” pp. 5-6.

36.  Stephen Abram, 2006. “What Can MySpace Teach Us in Special Libraries?” Information Outlook (6 June), p. 2, at, accessed 12 December 2008. 

37.” Kindle: Amazon’s Wireless Reading Device,”, accessed 12 December 2008.

38.  Kevin Kelly, 2006. “Scan This Book,” New York Times Magazine (14 May), p. 3, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

39.  Martha Kyrillidou and Mark Young, 2005. ARL Statistics 2003-04: Research Library Trends, Washington, D.C.: ARL, at /stats/arlstat/04pub/04intro.html, accessed 12 December 2008. 

40.  Martell, “The Absent User.”

41.  Amy Friedlander, 2002. “Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment. Introduction to a Data Set Assembled by the Digital Library Federation and Outsell, Inc,” Washington, D.C.: Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources, November, p. 9, at /contents.html, accessed 12 December 2008; “Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership” 2005, Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, pp. 6-5, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

42.  Edward L. Ayers, 2004. “The Academic Culture and the IT Culture: Their Effect on Teaching and Scholarship,” Educause Review, volume39 (November/December), p. 49, and at, accessed 12 December 2008.

43.  Geoffrey T. Freeman, 2005. “The Library as Place: Changes in Learning Patterns, Collections, Technology, and Use,” CLIR Reports, volume 129 (February), p. 1, and at, accessed 12 December 2008.

44.  Ralph Blumenthal, 2005. “College Libraries Set Aside Books in a Digital Age” New York Times (May 14), p. A1-9.                                           

45.   Nancy Kalikow Maxwell, 2006.  Sacred Stacks: The Higher Purpose of Libraries and Librarianship, Chicago: American Library Association.

46.  Diana Krieger, 2005. “Paper to Pixels,” USC Trojan Family Magazine (Winter), p. 38.

47.  Blumenthal, “College Libraries,” p. A 3.

48.   Krieger, “Paper to Pixels,” p. 40.

49.  Association of Research Libraries, 1996. ARL Statistics: 1994-1995, Washington, D.C.: ARL, at =setupreport, accessed 12 December 2008; Association of Research Libraries, 2003. ARL Statistics: 2003-2004,  at, accessed 12 December 2008.

50.  ARL Statistics: 2003-2004.

51.  Krieger, “Paper to Pixels,” p. 40.

52.  “Wayback Machine,” Internet Archive, 1, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

53.   “Petabyte,”, 3, at, accessed 12 December 2008), p. 1.

54.   “Petabyte,” p. 1

55.  “The Social Landscape,” 2003. 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition, Dublin, Ohio: OCLC, at /social.htm, accessed 12 December 2008.

56.  Pattern Three, “The Social Landscape,” 1,  at /future/collaboration.htm, accessed 12 December 2008.

57.  Frederick Miller, 2007. “Calling All Myth Busters!” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, volume 30, number 2, at /CallingAllMyth Busters/40021, accessed 12 December 2008.

58.  ARL Statistics 2005-2006, Table 1-Collections(a), at. annualsurveys/arlstats/arlstats06.shtml, accessed 12 December 2008.              

59.  Bryan Sinclair, 2007. “Commons 2.0: Library Spaces Designed for Collaborative Learning,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, volume 30, number 4, at, accessed 12 December 2008; Gabriela Sonntag and Felicia Palsson, 2007. “No Longer the Sacred Cow - No Longer a Desk: Transforming Reference Service to Meet 21st Century User Needs,” Library Philosophy and Practice, at http://www.webpages., accessed 12 December 2008; Sue Searing and Karla Stover Lucht, compilers, 2006. “The Library as Place: The Changing Nature and Enduring Appeal of Library Buildings and Spaces,” UI Current LIS Clips (September), pp. 1-12, at, accessed 12 December 2008.

60.  “Reuter’s Opening Virtual News Bureau,” p. 2

___________________Copyright Protected___________________
click here to return to the previous page