Crafting productive civic engagement does not have to be easy to be possible. If a feckless drift toward polarization of group opinion was made inevitable by the process of discussion, much of the current debate would have to be rethought. But, studies indicate that this danger can be mitigated through ``deliberative'' group process: a carefully facilitated group dialog, which focuses on balanced presentation of positions, and the task of understanding viewpoints rather than choosing from them (Gastil, 2004; Hamlett, 2006). But the time intensive nature of participatory methods remains an issue. As the argument from democratic theorists for an increased level of civic engagement and political participation by average citizens becomes more insistent (Barber, 1996), so do the distractions of our networked world. Fortunately for the many issues that merit careful public consultation, but cannot justify large-scale public involvement, there is the ingenious method of ``deliberative polling'', developed by Jim Fishkin of the Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy.
like customers than passive recipients of knowl- edge, as they have often been considered in the past. They also come normally with a very good background on Web 2.0 (as in social) and some Web 3.0 (as in both personalized and social) sys- tems and platforms, albeit with less knowledge in the area of e-Learning (including pedagogy and meta-cognition of life skills such as Learning to Learn). Indeed with the rise of this ‘student-as- client’ paradigm, the business of higher learning has broken the bounds of the traditional university structures and ‘exploded’ onto the Web. MOOCs are an excellent example of this, with vast num- bers of students (often 100,000+) being able to access courses designed by leading teachers and researchers. These courses, like all previous non-AEH courses, fall into the ‘one-size-fits-all’ trap (Brusilovsky, 2012), in that delivery of these learning materials are not personalized to the learner in anything other than a superficial man- ner. Therefore AEH research and development has a great deal to offer the business of educa- tion, especially in using MOOCs (and Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Moodle) as a vehicle for delivering a personalized lesson to a large scale audience over the course of their working life.
Based on three years of innovative pedagogical development and guided by a participatory action research methodology, this paper outlines an approach to integrating mobile web 2.0 within a tertiary education course, based on a social constructivist pedagogy. The goal is to facilitate a student-centred, collaborative, flexible, context-bridging learning environment that empowers students as content producers and learning context generators, guided by lecturers who effectively model the use of the technology. We illustrate how the introduction of mobile web 2.0 has disrupted the underlying pedagogy of the course from a traditional Attelier model (face-to-face apprenticeship model), and has been successfully transformed into a context independent social constructivist model. Two mobile web 2.0 learning scenarios are outlined, including; a sustainable house design project (involving the collaboration of four departments in three faculties and three diverse groups of students), and the implementation of a weekly ‘nomadic studio session'. Students and lecturers use the latest generation of smartphones to collaborate, communicate, capture and share critical and reflective learning events. Students and lecturers use mobile friendly web 2.0 tools to create this environment, including: blogs, social networks, location aware (geotagged) image and video sharing, instant messaging, microblogging etc… Feedback from students and lecturers has been extremely positive, and the course is being used as a model of implementing mobile web 2.0 throughout the institution.
news and comments on blogs focused on the area around Goldsmiths; Markus had been running workshops in the local community to teach people how to plan, shoot, edit and share short documentary videos as part of his practice-based PhD course, with the aim to help give voice to underrepresented concerns and to promote accounts critical of the mainstream discourse of ’regeneration’ of the poorest areas of the neighbourhood. Ian’s interest in the local community was rooted in his local upbringing: for him, following local blogs was a way to keep up to date with local news and conversations with minimal effort, but was also a way to discover new cafés (the area has seen a lively development of such venues, complementing the array of existing street food outlets) where he could gather with his local friends. Markus, instead, as an overseas student with a history of engage- ment in community media activism (street-TV projects in Italy, community TV stations in Jamaica) started interfacing with the local opposition to the agendas of real estate devel- opers masked through discourses of ’regeneration’ as part of his documentary filmmaking research project, which revolved around an Internet-based, participatory television chan- nel of the local community. Whereas Markus contributed many hours of his time every week to the curation of user-contributed content, to run workshops and to promote his web-based project, Ian’s engagement was undeniably of a different kind, and he explicitly stated that he was interested in learning about local developments but not in taking part in activist projects around local issues, besides occasionally signing petitions online. In both cases, however, a sense of somehow belonging to the local community motivated their in- teraction — intensely Read/Write for Markus, mostly read-only for Ian — with content produced locally and published over the Internet.
Conflicting findings about the benefits of political decentralization and participatory democracy for national authoritarian regimes have led scholars to examine the underlying political, social, and economic con- texts in which these reforms occur (see, for example, research by Blanchard and Shleifer 2001; Grindle 2007; Ko and Zhi 2013; O’Brian and Li 2000; Oi and Rozelle 2000; Selee 2011; Uchimura and Jütting 2007; Zhuravskaya 2000). However, two factors remain understudied. First, unlike scholars of national democratic systems (e.g., Eaton 2004a, b; Hiskey and Seligson 2003; Van Cott 2008; Wampler 2008), scholars of national authoritarian regimes have not yet examined whether the bot- tom-up or top-down design of decentralizing political or participatory institutions might affect the strength of their benefits to these regimes. Second, unlike scholars of national democratic systems (e.g., Van Cott 2008; Wampler 2007, 2008), scholars of national authoritarian regimes have only just begun to examine whether the placement of decentralized participatory institutions in pro-regime or anti-regime hands might mat- ter for the direction of their impact on authoritarian regime support (e.g., Grindle 2000, 2007; Selee 2011). It may be the case that the design of decentralized political and participatory institutions and their placement in pro-regime or anti-regime hands work together to explain the diver- gent findings about the impact of political decentralization on national authoritarian rule noted above.
As a hub of information, traditionally, library plays a major role in educating users. However, with the development of the digital era, libraries’ roles become even more challenging. Breeding (2007), who emphasizes on the need of embedding Web 2.0 applications to enrich library services, mentioned that “Web 2.0 has become a trendy marketing concept”. Meanwhile Ram (2011) and others, explained that the boundaries of libraries have broadened to accept new sources and services into their daily operation. The sources of the libraries have grown from physical objects to virtual objects, from card catalogues to online public access catalogues (OPACs), and cooperative cataloguing to social cataloguing with an ability to comment, review and reuse with the application of Web 2.0 technologies.
The effect of the Semantic Web research community in turning some of its attention from the grand challenge of domains like e-Science and Enterprise to the challenge of the mundane may be more providing a a new domain for the same agenda. For the Semantic Web purists, if there are such, then Web 2.0 involvement will provide a potential push to explore its current research agenda in terms of the existing Semantic Web layers of the cake. For instance, the Web 2.0 energy for mashups and communal publishing and tagging may provide sufficient enthusiasm to push through a number of the Semantic Web’s bottlenecks (getting folksonomies to kickstart ontologies; leveraging a source like RDF Garage to identify knowledge gaps for further ontology refinement; using semantic tags to create concept networks which can also enable new research for inferring trust, and so on). Alternatively, our proposal for more explicit connexions to be established between Web 2.0 (and researchers in other fields drawn to Web 2.0) and Semantic Web communities may be seen as a way to fundamentally open the agenda, and allow different voices to be heard in the construction of the very formalisms of the SW (for example, the suggestion of what may be seen as heretically putting in new layers – like a presentation layer - in the layer cake), whether these voices come from HCI, IR, Web 2.0 or elsewhere. One effect may be that peer review of Semantic Web/Web2.0 papers may need to be ready to see not only more of the same Semantic Web approaches as applied in a new (mundane) domain, but rather to see also the reciprocal effects of that domain contributing to the construction of what Semantic Web research is, itself.
Collaborative space is based on digital technology, the availability of a number of tools and the prior definition of working methods permitting a (open or closed) community of people to work together towards the success of a project. Collaborative work or "groupware" poses new challenges to corporations. Who is the owner of the results? Who is responsible for a mistake made in a collaborative space? How should the security of such a space be controlled? Who controls the space? Such are new questions that were not necessarily a problem in the web 1.0 environment. Because the law, and particularly the Labour Code, are silent on this new phenomenon, corporations willing to implement such types of services must organize them around two key elements: firstly, the definition of a specific "protocol" and secondly, the implementation of a "moderation" or "administration" mechanism.
Whenever a new form of communication appears on the scene, it immediately becomes the object of discussion. This has been going on since the first penny press edition in 1834, whereas today discussions are carried out with reference to the Internet. The stability with which mass-media have faced different criticism can be well understood thanks to the functionalist analysis which considers the media as a social system working within an external system made up of a set of cul- tural and social conditions. In spite of its complexity, any set of repetitive actions contribute to maintaining or to weakening the stability of the system. We can say that globalization would not have been possible without the media and Web 2.0 may be of remarkable interest for its role in in- fluencing cultural identity. All the past technologies, from electric light to the airplane, took a whole generation to gain ground among people, and Internet has not required such a long time. The impossibility to digest the new modalities of communication offered by the net creates the risk of unexpected contamination. Geographical magazines often show pictures of native Amazonians dressed in their traditional costumes while using computers and mobile phones. Educational uses of Web 2.0 and mobile learning tools have been rapidly expanded over the last few years and a great number of projects have been planned for teaching languages. Mobile learning includes many areas: handheld computers, MP3 players, notebooks and mobile phones. In this paper we shall outline the methodology including selection of web tools, task design, implementation and intercultural communication. The study carried out at the University of Florence shows that learners develop their communication competence while performing entertaining activities which enable them to achieve the desired goals.
To gain understanding about those tools we tested twenty Web 2.0 collaborative tools, the idea partially come from a previous study by  in which seven of the tools ware adopted, while we reviewed the remaining tools such as: eXo Platform, Basecamp, Zoho project, Wrike, Asana, Huddle, Mavenlink, Trello, ProWorkflow, Skype, Google Hangout, Zimbra, Groupware, WebEx, PHProject, Bluetie, Microsoft SharePoint, Kune, and Microsoft Office Groove, based on our experience. The researcher try to cover more wider ranges of tools that has more different features, ranging from freeware to paid, client server to hybrid architecture, from charting, to project management and to document management.
Figure 1 shows the overall architecture of our proposed integration model. This system consists of six components: (a) Tools, external web tools to provide services to clients; (b) Integration Manager, have information service and provide communication between tools, client, and responsible for integration operation in the system; (c) Filter, operate two-way data filtering; (d) Permission Handler, checks existing Digital Entity(DE)s permission or build a new permission token for new DEs; (e) Data Manager, provides a mechanism to extract data from a repository and insert data into a repository; and (f) Storage, maintains user data and permissions in the database.
democratic systems and the recognition of how one particular process of governing and governance takes into account each individual as well as involve greater good for the society. It is now understood that such a “strong” d emocratic system can be put to action through the use of technology. The emergence of the personal computer in the late 70s and early 80s and the longer gestation of the new forms of people-controlled communication facilitated by the Internet and Usenet in the late 80s was a direct result of the mass movement of the 1960s in the developed world. Back then, masses of people began to realize their potential to affect how the world around them works. People rose in protest to the ways society was out of control. The personal computer movement of the 1970s created the personal computer. By the mid 1980s they forced the corporations to produce computers which everyone could afford. This was a time in America when citizens were awakening to the myth of functioning democracy. They felt that the United States was a democracy which never existed. A representative democracy with no direct say of the citizens; it was realized that a medium is required for active citizen communities to debate and discuss.
E-Learning 2.0 ecosystem has turn out to be a trend in the world nowadays. The term E-Learning 2.0 ecosystem was coined that came out during the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies. Most of the researches overlook a deep-seated issue in the e-learner’s foregoing knowledge on which the valuable intelligent systems are based. This research utilizes the e-Learner’s collective intelligence knowledge and extracts useful information for appropriate target courses or resources as a part of a personalization procedure to construct the e- Learner’s collective intelligent system framework for recommendation in e-learning 2.0 ecosystem. This research based on a novel web usage mining techniques and introduces a novel approach to collective intelligence with the use of mashup and web 2.0 technology approach to build a framework for an E-Learning 2.0 ecosystem. It is incorporated in predictive model efficiently based on back-propagation network (BPN). A prototype system, named E-learner’s Collective Intelligence System Framework, has been proposed which has features such as self-regulation, reusability, lightweight, end user oriented, and openness. To evaluate the proposed approach, empirical research is conducted for the performance evaluation.
Web 2.0 tools including Vox, Ning and Flickr were used to develop the briefs and supplement in- person meetings during the writing stage. Product design students worked in one of five groups, each of which focused on a specific design challenge. Students were required to carry out aspects of research in their group, sharing information via group meetings and Web 2.0 tools (Cochrane et al., 2009a). This project thus explored the potential of mobile Web 2.0 tools to enable and enrich student collaboration across departmental boundaries.
An expanded applicant pool has effect on reducing adverse impact for protected groups. Some technology-based tools are able to make HR staff process more information than before (Chapman & Webster, 2003). The direct outcome would be an increasing overall number of applicants. According to the survey data from Chapman & Webster (2003), using internet related technologies on recruitment did not appear to be having a detrimental effect on the number of minority applicants applying for jobs. Actually, HR manager hire more minority applicants as a result of adopting an online application procedure. With an increasing overall number of applicants, a higher number of minority applicants who met companies’ cutoffs and are able to fill more positions. Therefore, there is higher numbers of minority applicants, such as women or minority races, who are recruited by company. However, Stone and his colleagues (2006) argued that situation is not as optimistic as we thought, because individual differences always have influence on acceptance and use of e-recruiting systems. For instance, women are less likely to use web-based recruiting systems than are men, so it is less likely that they will be hired than men. Moreover, e-recruiting is less likely to be used by older, less well-educated, or members of ethnic minority groups than those who are young, highly educated, white job candidates.
As the matter of fact, Web 2.0 based e-learning allows its learners to publish and exchange information and skills through communication. The terminology e-learning 2.0 emerges as a new dimension for learning followed by variety of Web 2.0 based tools. In traditional learning, students have been assigned with a bounded role towards education by following the formal procedures of learning. In contrast, e-learning particularly Web 2.0 based e-learning emphases on social learning and make all the possible use of Web 2.0 tools . It also provides an informal approach towards education. O’Reilly defined usage of Web 2.0 in the form of different tools. These tools are wikis, blogs, social networking, tags, discussion forums, RSS feeds and podcasting etc  also explained with the help of Figure 1.
of participation that starts out with information-sharing and evolves, through consultation and deliberation, to extensive collaboration, empowerment and joint decision making, and in some cases, even to self- government. The appropriate, or possible, breadth and depth of participa- tion depends on speciﬁc context and circumstance. In many cases, participatorygovernance practices evolve and deepen over time, for exam- ple, beginning with improved information-sharing between citizens and the state and, as trust and relations are strengthened, gradually developing into more meaningful and intensive forms of participation. In terms of breadth, the goal of participatorygovernance is not to have every citizen participate in every decision, but rather to ensure an equitable representation of dif- ferent interests and societal groups, especially of disadvantaged or margin- alized groups, in those decisions and processes that most directly affect peoples’ lives. The working deﬁnition adopted here suggests that some level of inﬂuence and shared control—for example, something beyond just information-sharing or consultation—is required for an initiative to be considered an example of participatorygovernance.
will be an abundance (rather than a scarcity) of computing power for many problems. Arguably this state has existed for some time for loosely coupled parallel applications (hence the success of Condor [Thain2005] and related technologies for cycle scavenging), but we see closely coupled parallel computing as being revolutionized by the coming ubiquity multicore systems. The availability of substantial parallel computing power through dozens of multicore processors available on a single desktop or server will allow current small and medium sized parallel computing jobs to run on a single machine, making the traditional supercomputing centers’ infrastructure (user time allocations, multi-user batch queuing systems) a relatively unattractive, complex solution for all but the largest of parallel computing problems. Restructuring current Supercomputer infrastructure as highly parallel multicores in a “cloud” system may provide a new direction that links Web 2.0 and Grids and satisfy the common case of multiple smallish parallel jobs. Power users may be served with a “Compute Grid (e.g. Globus [Foster2006]) Cloud” with an architecture similar to current supercomputer infrastructure. Before addressing these driving issues, we begin with a survey of terms and concepts that will be discussed in this paper. These will clarify our internal usage, and we hope others will also adopt our usage.
The discussion of Grids is confused by many different definitions. One can use the term Grids in narrow fashion to, for example, require use of Web Services or the Web Service Resource Framework or just call any distributed collection of services as “Broad Grids” which is what we do here. Then one uses the term “Narrow Grid” to refer to any “Broad Grid” implemented using particular technology or for a particular application . One very important Narrow Grid is under design by the Open Grid Service Architecture (OGSA) group in Open Grid Forum  and another would be the many mashups using Google maps . Our specific goal in this section is to demonstrate that Web 2.0 provides a comprehensive set of “Narrow Grid” implementations of the core “Broad Grid” concepts that are analogous to OGSA and Enterprise Web Service standards.