The Playful City: Using Play and Games to Foster Citizen Participation

Full text

MYKOLAS ROMERIS UNIVERSITY
Social Technologies
and Collective Intelligence
Monograph
Vilnius
2015
!"#$%&'"(#)*+,*"-.#/012.#34,"#5-%678-#9*:6;#<=*&'#5-%6#%&!#>%?"=#
:@#A@=:"B#9*CD"&#5%BC+*E%C@&.3#F&#G@+*%-#4"+,&@-@'*"=#%&!#
9@--"+CH"#F&:"--*'"&+"(#"!*:"!#I6#J"-*:%#GK%BL%8=K*"&M(#N/OPNQN.#
R*-&*8=;#)6K@-%=#S@?"B*=#<&*H"B=*:6.

ISBN 978-9955-19-708-9 (print)
ISBN 978-9955-19-707-2 (online) © Mykolas Romeris University, 2015
is monograph is prepared by the European Social Fund under the Global Grant
funded project “Social Technologies for Development Collective Intelligence in Networked
Society” (project No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-03-030).
Reviewers
Dr. Dap Hartmann, Del University of Technologies, Netherlands
Dr. Agota-Giedrė Raišienė, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
Dr. Povilas Aleksandravičius, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania
Editor in Chief
Dr. Aelita Skaržauskienė
Authors:
Dr. Jacqui Ewart – 0,4 authorial quires
Dr. Beata Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz – 0,2 authorial quires
Dr. Edgaras Leichteris – 1,6 authorial quires
Dr. Algimantas Mačiulis – 0,6 authorial quires
Dr. Hamish McLean – 0,4 authorial quires
Dr. Algis Mickūnas – 1,7 authorial quires
Dr. Birutė Mikulskienė – 1,4 authorial quires
Dr. Gintarė Paražinskaitė – 0,7 authorial quires
Dr. Žaneta Paunksnienė – 1,2 authorial quires
Dr. Birutė Pitrėnaitė-Žilėnienė – 3,7 authorial quires
Dr. Rasa Rotomskienė – 3 authorial quires
Dr. Aelita Skaržauskienė – 6,4 authorial quires
Dr. Andrius Stasiukynas – 1,2 authorial quires
Dr. Anna Zalewska – 0,2 authorial quires
Dr. Inga Žalėnienė – 0,3 authorial quires
Dr. Michiel de Lange – 0,5 authorial quires
PhD students: Benas Brunalas – 1,1 authorial quires, Laura Gudelytė – 0,7 authorial
quires, Marius Kalinauskas – 1,2 authorial quires, Monika Mačiulienė – 1,5 authorial
quires, Olga Navickienė – 0,4 authorial quires, Viktorija Stokaitė – 0,6 authorial quires,
Rūta Tamošiūnaitė – 0,3 authorial quires, Agnė Tvaronavičienė – 0,7 authorial quires,
Taurimas Valys – 0,6 authorial quires.
Translated by: Nijolė Burkšaitienė, Alvyda Liuolienė, Viktorija Mažeikienė, Daiva Užpalie-
nė, Vilhelmina Vaičiūnienė, Darius Valūnas
Publishing was approved by:
Institute of Communication and Mediation of Faculty of Social Technologies of Mykolas
Romeris University in the meeting of 22 January 2015 (Record No KMI-9).
Social Technologies Research programme of Mykolas Romeris University in the meeting
of 23 December 2014 (Record No MPK2-11).
Council of Faculty of Social Technologies of Mykolas Romeris University in the meeting
of 30 January 2015 (Record No 1STH-21).
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be
made without written permission of the authors and the publisher.
SCIENCE ECONOMY COHESIONEUROPEAN UNION
Creating the Future of Lithuania

426
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
against cancer by playing a hang-glider arcade type of game. During the
game, the players glide in space and collect valuable space dust and at
the same time identify negative elements in real genetic data. Scientists
spend hours and hours to carry out the process; however, if there is a big
number of players, such a task becomes a problem which takes just a few
minutes to be solved. e game “Foldit” is a protein folding game, which
helped to disclose the structure of enzymes causing a disease similar to
AIDS in monkeys’ organisms. Researchers had been trying to solve this
problem for 13 years, whereas the players solved it in only three weeks.
e game “Planet Hunters” helped to nd over forty planets that could be
suitable for life. “Galaxy Zoo” allows looking for similarities in galaxies
and classifying them according to their type and origin and, thus, creating
a huge bank of collective knowledge. ese are just a few examples of the
existing projects that aim at invoking the players’ potential for solving real
problems through collective games. e brilliance of this concept lies in
the fact that people participating in the creative process do not necessarily
know what important goal they are making a contribution to. us, it
is likely that it will not take too long for the day to come when games
that had been previously considered to be childish entertainment and a
careless form of wasting one’s time will with the help of virtual worlds be
saving thousands of lives by joining the players’ creative potential.
5.2.3. e Playful City: Using Play and Games to Foster Citizen
Participation
Michiel de Lange,
Utrecht University, Netherlands, m.l.delange@uu.nl
Introduction: the playful smart city. Since several decades, the
relationship between technology, creativity and city life has been an
intimate one. Following “creative city” policies popular in the late 1990s and
early 2000s, “smart city” business, policy and design visions have gained
considerable traction since the middle of the 2000s. Smart city agendas
aim to improve services and liveability through ICTs and supporting
infrastructures, such as urban labs, and rapidly gain foothold in cities
worldwide. Large tech companies, such as IBM, HP, CISCO, Microso,
etc., are forming smart city coalitions with municipalities and knowledge
institutions. Among the issues that smart city policies seek to address are

427
5. Developing CI Monitoring Technique
mobility, clean energy, water and food production and distribution, health,
living and public participation (Hollands, 2008). However, among cities,
such as Rio de Janeiro, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Masdar and Songdo, the
emphasis and actual implementation of smart city visions hugely dier.
Smart city visions have received wide criticism (see, for example,
Greeneld, 2013; Hemment and Townsend, 2013). By and large, these
criticisms have focussed on the ill-dened notion of “smartness” in
smart city visions, targeted the simplied view of what cities actually are
and attacked their a-political technocratic nature. What does “smart”
mean and who are actually supposed to be smart? Is city life and the
urban experience about control, eciency and predictability, or about
encountering the unexpected and dealing with dierences? Moreover,
smart city views propose “technological xes” to complex problems.
Many so-called “smart technologies” or smart interventions are implicitly
driven by logics of consumption, control and capsularization but do not
empower citizens to become active players in their cities (de Lange and
de Waal, 2013). e push for safety with CCTV and smart risk assessing
algorithms turn cities into places of pervasive control and surveillance.
Smart retails solutions, location-based services and predictive algorithms
push a consumerist view of urban life. Also, personal mobile technologies
foster a culture of capsularization and retreat. When technology-driven
solutions ignore active contributions of citizens, they may have adverse
eects for urban public life and identities at large.
Alternative notions have been proposed to address these asserted
shortcomings, which, among others, are the “playable city” and “playful
city”241. In these people-centered views, the issue at stake is how to engage
“smart citizens” with their urban environment and each other with the aid
of play and games. In this chapter, the author further explores this nascent
research and design agenda that connects the world of urban research and
design to the world of research and design of play and games. e aim is to
contribute to debates about smart cities and smart citizenship through the
particular lens of play and games, to provide a typology for analyzing and
developing the playful city and to reect on the strengths and weaknesses
of this idea.
241 See, for example, the Playable City program and conference at Bristol’s Watershed <http://
www.watershed.co.uk/playablecity>; or the Playful City workshop held in Amsterdam in
2014 <http://www.hetnieuweinstituut.nl/en/international/partner-programmes/asem-
international-networking-programme/creative-skills-playful>.

428
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Play and the city: a historical overview. To gain a rmer grasp of
play and games as ways to engage people in participatory city making,
it is fruitful to trace some historical connections between play and the
city. In various ways, play and games have been part and parcel of urban
theory and practices since ancient times (see also de Lange, 2009).
From Roman “bread and games” (panem et circenses) to the present
“experience economy” (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), cities have long been
conceived as centers of entertainment and fun. e city in this view is the
locus for actual playful behavior and activities, and for enjoying games
or other forms of entertainment. Second, with the rise of the modern
metropolis, people’s behaviors and attitudes in public space have come to
be understood in playful terms through the use of theatrical metaphors.
eorists, such as Simmel, Goman and Loand, argued that urbanites
engage in continuous role-playing and information games to deal with
life among strangers who meet in highly segmented roles (Simmel,
1997; Goman, 1959; Loand, 1973). ird, a historical strand of “ludic
architecture” connects play and games to the physical form of the city.
Aer the Second World War, Dutch architect Aldo van Eyck dotted the
ruined cityscapes in the Netherlands with outdoor play spaces as a way
to counter top-down functionalist planning policies and open up room
for people’s own creativity (Oudenampsen, 2013). If this historical line
connects play to education, civilization and Bildung ideals, a related
yet distinct fourth strand as about play as downright subversive. e
Situationists criticized mass consumer society and sought to reclaim the
right to the city through subversive counter-play and everyday spatial
tactics, such as dérive and detournement (Debord, 1955, 1958, 2005; De
Certeau, 1984). Recent approaches in the same tradition have focused on
subcultural or countercultural urban practices, such as skateboarding or
parkours (Borden, 2001; Mould, 2009). Fih, while not strictly playful,
key notions from the world of informatics, such as networks, simulation,
feedback loops and virtual reality, have come to profoundly inuence
architectural theory and practice as new ways to imagine, represent and
design cities with digital tools (see, for instance, Wigley, 2001; Picon,
2008). Cybernetics and systems theory have been very inuential ways
of understanding the city as emergent rule-based systems, which can be
“played” through creative recombinations and generative, algorithmic,
responsive or parametric design (see, for example, Berry, 1964; Beesley

429
5. Developing CI Monitoring Technique
and Khan, 2009). Finally, in late capitalism, play has been absorbed by
work itself, through the conation of labor and leisure time and the
concomitant ethics of the creative class, hacker ethic, etc. (Riin, 2000;
Florida, 2002; Himanen, 2001; Scholz, 2013; Fortunati, 2015).
From this extremely compressed overview, several insights can
be distilled. Historical conceptions of the “playful city” have existed on
multiple levels and in various forms, across spatial, social and mental
spheres of urban life. In the majority of these views, there is a clear
conception of “smartness” involved in play. However, it is a rather dierent
view of smartness: didactic and self-empowering in Van Eyck’s urban
playgrounds, shrewd subversiveness in Situationism’s playful tactics,
cleverness and self-condence in playing information games in role-
playing, and of almost demiurgic ambition in parametric design. Note
that in some other historical strands sketched above play is equated with
mere entertainment and implicitly taken as childish, stupefying or opium
for the masses. Another point is that in early modern times the realms of
play and everyday life became separated. More recently, they have been
(again) understood as inextricably intertwined. is has been largely
driven by the advent of digital technologies in the urban realm and the
presumed link to creativity and smartness. A nal point is that there are
salient dierences in play and between play and games itself. Following
the work of Roger Caillois, several play activities are distinguished, such
as competition, chance, pretense and sensory stimulation (Caillois, 2001).
In addition, Caillois noted that play attitudes may alternate between
spontaneous and intrinsically motivated free play (paidia) to rule-based
and goal-oriented gaming (ludus).
In game design too, the city has oen been a central source of
inspiration. Alternately called pervasive/ubiquitous/location-based mobile/
hybrid reality/alternate reality/urban games, a whole genre of games frames
the city as a playing board in order to escape the connes of the screen
and be played in hybrid physical-digital spaces (de Souza e Silva, 2006;
Chang and Goodman, 2006; Montola, Stenros and Waern, 2009; de Souza
e Silva and Sutko, 2009). Cities also frequently gure in game design. is
may range from representations of particular cities in the US in the GTA
series, to simulating the complexities of city-making in SimCity, to playing
with the future of a smart city gone rogue in Ubiso’s Watchdogs. In this
chapter, we focus on the question how game designers, artists and architects

430
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
have been developing games that center on specic urban problems, and
create play experiences that connect people to life in the city and to fellow
urbanites. is is a relatively recent area of expertise that connects urban
design with developments in the world of game design. Designing games
that are not just played for their entertainment value but also for serious
purposes is known under such labels as serious games, games for change,
applied games, gamication, persuasive games, etc. e dierences between
these notions will not be discussed here. It suces to note that while the
use of games and play elements to help solve problems appears promising, a
careful balance must be struck between simulating “real world” complexity
and deliberate simplication, and between leveraging people’s intrinsic play
motivations and achieving external goals.
Levelling city play. Play and games may foster participation and
citizen-driven innovation on various levels. In this analysis, the author
will move from the most applied level of using games for actual urban
design to playful experiences without any immediate utilitarian purpose.
First, games may be used to engage people in the actual planning and
design process itself through simulation, feedback and using outcomes
in actual design. An early example from the Netherlands is Baas op Zuid
(www.baasopzuid.nl, 2002), a project by BBVH architects in collaboration
with housing corporations. e online simulation game was used for
the redevelopment of two old neighbourhoods in the city of Rotterdam.
Players had to make decisions about their neighbourhood. With a limited
budget, would they choose more green spaces, more parking spots or more
playgrounds? Players immediately could see the consequences of their
choices. Outcomes were aggregated and sent to the planners. Not only did
this inform the actual design and decision-making process, but inhabitants
also acquired a better understanding of stakeholder deliberations in
complex trajectories of city rejuvenation. People who normally would not
attend a town hall meeting now had a chance to speak up. Still, in this case
the professional remained the initiator and there was no far-reaching shi
in the relationship between expert and amateur. Moreover, there was no
true gameplay involved, except for the immediate multi-sensory feedback
on decisions made (for example, seeing less coins or hearing trac noise).
Second, games allow people to act on a wide range of specic urban
issues through role-playing, building trust, forging collaborations and
tapping into crowd creativity. An example is Community PlanIt (http://

431
5. Developing CI Monitoring Technique
engage mentgamelab.org/projects/community-planit, 2011) by Eric Gordon
and team (Gordon and Koo, 2008; Gordon, Schirra and Hollander, 2011).
Players answer questions and complete missions to earn virtual coins that
they can pledge to real-world urban planning causes. Players also earn
awards, including bonus coins by participating in in-game deliberations.
rough this game, citizens, municipality and other stakeholders take up
dierent yet equivalent roles and collectively try to solve problems. rough
team cooperation, these games build trust, which helps to overcome the
tension between short and long term interests. Citizens now have become
actual agenda-setters and problem-solvers.
Another project from the Netherlands is Rezone the game (de Lange,
2013). Two cultural organizations from the city of Den Bosch, together with
a university for applied science’s game design program, developed a game
hybrid board/screen game. Rezone consists of a physical board game with
3D printed iconic buildings that represent the neighborhood, an augmented
reality layer of real-time information about these buildings projected on a
screen, and a computer algorithm programmed to let vacancy spread like
a virus around already empty buildings. Players have to salvage real estate
from decline by making strategic investments and forging collaborations.
Participants adopt one out of four possible stakeholder roles. In the case
of vacancy, these roles include proprietor (owner of real estate), mayor
(representing the municipality), engineer (urban designer) and citizen
(neighbors). e challenge is for players to not just pursue individual
self-interest, but to strategically collaborate in order to defeat the system,
which is programmed to let the city descend into decay. In a time in which
architecture is under pressure – nancially, but also with regard to the
legitimacy of professional expertise – it is important that new processes are
developed that allow citizens to become shared owners of the processes and
outcomes of urban interventions. Rezone is an attempt to establish this sense
of ownership through intrinsically motivated play and contribute to livable
and lively cities. Like most other games, Rezone is a radical simplication
of a complex issue. Rezone itself does not provide solutions. What it can do
is to put an issue on the agenda, convene various stakeholders around an
issue and allow them to discover horizons for action for themselves. When
people cra their own solutions, they will have a much stronger sense of
ownership over the outcomes. Already one of the largest construction and
real estate companies in the Netherlands has shown interest.

432
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
ird, games are used to stimulate playful encounters and inter-
actions with other people and places by stimulating serendipity and fun.
In Koppelkiek (www.koppelkiek.nl, 2009),
by social game maker Kars
Alfrink, players in a troublesome neighborhood in Utrecht had to execute
simple missions by taking a snapshot of oneself, for example, together with
someone else and a randomly found number. ese pictures where publicly
shown in the window of a neighborhood center and acted as a conversation
piece between neighbors. is game was explicitly created to promote
playful interactions and serendipity. Players were invited to drop their usual
defense mechanism and open themselves up. e game, thus, helped to
cement social cohesion and trust between neighbors, and re-engage with
the urban environment.
Fourth, games are used to foster a “sense of place”, a feeling of belonging
and care for the city through emotionally powerful play experiences. An
example is the “subtlemob” project As If It Were the Last Time (http://
wearecircumstance.com/as-if-it-were-the-last-time.html, 2009) by artist
Duncan Speakman, in which participants underwent a cinematographic
experience in the streets of London. Participants downloaded an mp3 track
and received a secret location and time to start the track on a portable audio
player. ey were divided into two teams. One team received instructions
to perform a minimal scene, while the other group listened to a soundtrack
and voice-over and became the audience of a lmic scene performed out
on the streets. is hardly qualies as a game, yet it creates a shared playful
experience and induces a sense of connectedness. rough a minimal
intervention, participants themselves turn the everyday into a magical
situation. Playfulness here stimulates aective responses and emotional ties.
ese examples are about applying games or play experiences to the
urban realm to foster the “playful city”. e reverse also happens: the city
itself can be made “playable” in dierent ways (on the notion of playability,
see, for instance, Kücklich, 2004). Two levels can be distinguished: the
procedural level of designing certain playable urban infrastructures and
services, and the conditional level of opening up existing urban policies for
experiments and creative “smart governance”. At the procedural level, city
infrastructures and services (e.g., trac speed meters, public transport
staircases) can be made interactive and gamied to stimulate certain
behavior and mentality. A well-known example is the subway staircase
turned into a giant live piano as a way to seduce travelers to climb the stairs

433
5. Developing CI Monitoring Technique
instead of taking the escalator242. At the level of urban governance, there
are numerous experiments that aim to open up the city to systemic change
by its inhabitants. Innovations in “playing with the rules” and “leveling
the playing eld” include participatory budgeting, liquid politics, opening
data repositories, and urban labs for semi-autonomous innovation. It is
important to note the subtle but salient dierence between the “playful
city”, taken here as the city in which play and games stimulate the smartness
of citizens, and the “playable city”, taken here as the city that itself becomes
smart at infrastructural and institutional levels.
Conclusion: the playful smart citizen. In summary, some provisional
lessons that could inuence how we think about, study and design the
smart city are formulated. From the brief historical excavation of the
relationship between play and the city, it has been shown how “smartness”
in play is understood in a variety of ways. e author suggests that thinking
and working along the lines of the “playful city” open up a host of ways
to conceive “smartness”, instead of just a technologically-driven one. If we
want citizens to be smart alongside cities, we need to better understand how
people are already smart in a multitude of ways and how we could leverage
this to make better and more interesting cities. Also, from this overview, an
important consideration has arisen with a more critic’s dimension. Play risks
becoming absorbed into goal-oriented utilitarian practices and neoliberal
and self-disciplining discourses of labor as play. While this has not received
much attention here, this should be born in mind when further studying
and design the playful city.
From the analysis of the mentioned examples, it has been seen that
stakeholders while playing meet in a joyous atmosphere, instead of intense
town hall meetings or around the negotiation table. Playing together allows
trustful relationships to form, which allows forging new social ties or
solidifying existing ones. Play in itself probably is not enough to solve urban
problems, such as vacancy or the lack of ownership and social cohesion.
Playing together, however, may act as a catalyst. From the analysis, it has
also become clear that urban design no longer is the exclusive domain of
architects and planners. Game makers, media artists and app developers too
are designers of today’s cities across physical, social and experiential ranges.
Cities face ever more complex issues. is requires smart strategies to tap
242 Piano Staircase [interactive]. <www.thefuntheory.com>. e notion of gamication has
been hotly debated; see, for instance, Deterding, 2011.

434
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
into the pool of citizen wisdom and participation. Games and play seem great
ways to do so. However, this requires planners to relinquish control, accept
uncertain and ambiguous outcomes, and to allow failure to possibly occur.
Games are ontologically ambiguous: they are composed of a set of
constitutive rules, a material setting, and actualized through the embodied
activities of the players. is is comparable to what architects may
recognize as program, design and use, but with a twist. Game designers
create rules and settings, yet the game is only actualized by actual players.
People playing are not merely end users. ey are active participants. ey
frequently engage in active production and “meta-play”, playing with
the (rules of) the game itself. Players subvert original rules, hack, cheat,
exchange game tips, create derivatives and tell stories about their own play.
According to Dutch historian Johan Huizinga, author of the seminal work
Homo ludens from 1938, play is not an element in culture, but at the origin
of culture (Huizinga, 1955). Play generates culture because it provides room
for innovation. Play oers a safe space for experiment and collaborations
in which failing does not immediately have grave consequences. Huizinga’s
observation that culture emerges from play suggests that these various
play interventions discussed above may contribute to a new urban
planning culture in particular and participatory urban culture at large (van
Westrenen, 2011; de Lange, 2013; de Lange, van Boxmeer and Peters, 2014).
Playful citizens then are not passive users of their city, but adopt a more
active role as co-creators of their environments or “city hackers”. is way
a sense of ownership can arise (de Lange and de Waal, 2012, 2013). Instead
of leaving it up to governments, corporations and (design) professionals,
citizens in the playful city create their own smart urban culture.
5.3. Experimental Application of the CI Potential Index Methodology
B. Pitrėnaitė-Žilėnienė,
Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania, birute.pitrenaite@mruni.eu
E. Leichteris,
Knowledge Economy Forum, Lithuania, edgaras@zef.lt
5.3.1. e Course and Methodology of the Experiment
To analyse the hypotheses on peculiarities and preconditions for CI
development, a scientic experiment was launched alongside with the

569
REFERENCES
A Digital Agenda for Europe. 2010. European Commission [interactive].
Communication COM (2010) 0245. Brussels: European Commission.
<http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/digital-agenda-europe>.
Abs, H. J.; Veldhuis, R. 2006. Indicators on Active Citizenship for Democracy –
the social, cultural economic domain. Paper by Order of the Council of Europe
or the CRELLNetwork on Active Citizenship for Democracy. e European
Commission’s Joint Research Center in Ispra, Italy.
Acko, R. L. 1999. Acko`s Best: His Classic Writings on Management. Jonn
Wiley&Sons, New York.
Adler, E. 1997. Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.
European Journal of International Relations, 3(3): 319–363.
Adler, P. R.; Goggin, J. 2013. What Do We Mean By “Civil Engagement”? Journal
of Transformative Education, 3(3): 236–253.
Akgun, A. E.; Byrne, J.; Keskin, H.; Lynn, G. S.; Imamoglu, S.Z. 2005. Knowledge
Networks in New Product Development Projects: A Transactive Memory
Perspective. Information and Management, 42(8), 1105–1120.
Akgüna, A. E.; Dayanb, M.; Benedettoc, A. D. 2008. New Product Development
Team Intelligence: Antecedents and Consequences. Information &
Management, 45(4): 221–226.
Akyazi, U. 2014. Possible Scenarios and Maneuvers for Cyber Operational Area.
International Conference ECCWS, Greece.
Alag, S. Collective Intelligence in Action. Manning Publications Co [interactive].
2010 [accessed 2010-07-26]. <http://www.bootb.com/en/about/>.
Alahuhta, P. P.; Nordbäck, E.; Sivunen, A; Surakka, T. 2014. Fostering Team
Creativity in Virtual Worlds. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 7(3).
Alberghini, E.; Cricelli, L.; Grimaldi, M. 2010. Implementing Knowledge
Management through IT Opportunities: Denition of a eoretical Model
Based on Tools and Processes Classication. e Proceedings of the 2nd
European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Lisbon, Portugal, p. 22–33.
Aleksandravičius, A.; Žukovskis, J. 2011. Kaimo bendruomenių raida ir jų veiklos
tikslai: siekiant darnumo visuomenėje. Vadybos mokslas ir studijos – kaimo
verslų ir jų infrastruktūros plėtrai, 1(25): 7–15.
Alexander, J. C. 2009. e Democratic Struggle for Power: the 2008 Presidential
Campaign in the USA. Journal of Power, 2(1): 65–88.
Ali, O. G.; Faltin, F. W.; Doganaksoy, N. 1997. Practical Change Point Estimation.
Technical Information Series. General Electric Company, Research and
Development Center.

570
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Ališauskas, K.; Jankauskienė, A.; Kairytė, L. 2008. Nuostatų kaita kaimo
bendruomenių veikloje. Ekonomika ir vadyba: aktualijos ir perspektyvos,
3(12): 5–13.
Alonso, O.; Rose, D. E.; Stewart, B. 2008. Crowdsourcing for Relevance Evaluation.
ACM SIGIR Forum, 42(2): 9–15.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A Model of Organizational Innovation. In B. M. Staw, &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Researchin Organizational Behavior, 10:123–167.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating Creativity in Organizations. California
Management Review, 40(1): 22–26.
Andersen, K. N. 2011. Social Technologies and Health Care: Public Sector
Receding, Patients at the Steering Wheel. Conference proceedings „Social
Technologies“, 11.
Anderson, A.; Huttenlocher, D.; Kleinberg, J.; Leskovec, J. 2013. Steering user
behavior with badges. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on
World Wide Web, pp. 95–106. International World Wide Web Conferences
Steering Committee.
Andrews, D. W.; Andrews K. 1993. Tests for Parameter Instability and Structural
Change with Unknown Change Point. Econometrica, 61(4): 821–856.
Andrews, R. 2010. Organizational Social Capital, Structure and Performance.
Human Relations, 63(5): 583–608.
Armstrong, A.; Hagel, J. III. 1995. Real Prots from Virtual Communities. e
McKinsey Quarterly, 3: 127–41.
Asvanund, A.; Clay, K.; Krishnan, R.; Smith, M. D. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of
Network Externalities in Peer-to-peer music-sharing Networks. Information
Systems Research, 15(2): 155–174.
Aulinger, A.; Miller, L. 2014. Collective Intelligence versus Team Intelligence.
Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Aulinger, A.; Miller, L. 2014. Kollektive Intelligenz, Teamintelligenz, Intelligenz –
Was sie verbindet – Was sie unterscheidet, Berlin. To be published in March
2014 with an english summary. Summary on www.iom-edition.org.
Bache, I.; Flinders, M. 2004. Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Bagdonienė, D.; Daunorienė, A.; Simanavičienė, A. 2011. Nevyriausybinių
organizacijų veiklos kokybės ir efektyvumo vertinimas. Ekonomika ir vadyba,
16: 654–663.
Bailey, K. 2008. Methods of social research. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Bakhouya, M.; Gaber, J. 2014. Bio-inspired Approaches for Engineering Adaptive
Systems. Procedia Computer Science, 32: 862–869.
Balis, M. E.; Krako, I. H.; Berman, P. H.; Dancis, J. 1967. Urinary Metabolites in
Congenital Hyperuricosuria. Science, 156(3778): 1123.

571
◆ References ◆
Ball, C.; Dunn, L. 1995. Non-Governmental Organisations: Guidelines for Good
Policy and Practice. e Commonwealth Foundation.
Ballantyne, D.; Aitken, R. 2007. Branding in B2B Markets: Insights from the
Service-dominant Logic of Marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 22(6): 363–71.
Banks, N.; Hulme, D. 2012. e Role of NGOs and Civil Society in Development
and Poverty Reduction. BWPI Worki ng Pape r. [accessed 2013-04-12] <http://
www.bwpi.manchester.ac.uk/resources/Working-Papers/bwpi-wp-17112.pdf>.
Barabasi, A. L. 2002. Linked: the New Science of Networks. New York: Perseus
Barahona, M.; García, C.; Gloor, P.; Parraguez, P. 2012. Tracking the 2011 Student-
led Movement in Chile through Social Media Use. MIT, Collective Intelligence
2012.
Barrett, M.; Cappleman, S.; Shoib, G.; Walsham, G. 2004. Learning in Knowledge
Communities: Managing Technology and Context. European Management
Journal, 22(1): 1–11.
Barrett, T. 2010. e problem-based learning process as nding and being in ow.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(2): 165–174.
Barsade, S.; Gibson, D. 2007. Why Does Aect Matter in Organizations? Academy
of Management Perspectives, 21: 36–59.
Bartels, A.; Daley, E.; Ashour, M. 2009. Global IT Market Outlook: 2009. Forrester
Research, Inc.
Bartle, R. 1996. Hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades: Players who suit MUDS. Prieiga
internete <http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm> [accessed 2014-10-26].
Bartle, R. 2003. Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders Games.
Bartoš, J.; Walek, B.; Klimeš, C.; Farana, R. 2014. Fuzzy Application with Expert
System for Conducting Information Security Risk Analysis. Proceedings of the
13th European Conference on Cyber warefare and Security: ECCWS 2014 (p.
33). Academic Conferences Limited.
Batra, A.; Kaushik, P.; Kalia, L. 2010. System inking: Strategic Planning. Journal
of Indian Management. October–December.
Bauerlein, M. 2008. e Dumbest Generation. New York: Penguin Group.
Baumann, Z. 2001. Community: Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Oxford:
Polity Press.
Beck, T. 2007. Web 2.0: User-generated content in online communities. Hamburg:
Diplomica Verlag.
Beck, U. 2002. e Cosmopolitan Society and its Enemies. eory, culture &
society, 19(1-2): 17–44.
Beer, S. 1967. Cybernetics and Management. English Universities Press, London.
Beesley, P.; Khan, O. 2009. Responsive Architecture/Performing Instruments.
In Situated Technologies Pamphlet series, ed Omar Khan, Trebor Scholz and
Mark Shepard. New York: e Architectural League of New York.

572
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Beni, G. 2005. From Swarm Intelligence to Swarm Robotics.Swarm Robotics, 1–9.
Bennett, V.; Koh, K. H.; Repenning, A. 2013. Computing Creativity: Divergence
in Computational inking, ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science
Education Conference, (SIGCSE 2013), March 6-9, 2013, Denver, Colorado,
USA.
Berger, P. L.; Luckmann, T. 1999. Socialinis tikrovės konstravimas: žinojimo
sociologijos traktatas. Vilnius: Pradai.
Bernstein, A.; Klein, M.; Malone, T. W. 2012. Programming the Global Brain.
Communications of the ACM, 55(5), 41–43.
Berry, B. J. L. 1964. Cities as Systems within Systems of Cities. Papers in Regional
Science, 13(1):147–163.
Bitiukova, J. Hate speech in Lithuania. Frequently asked questions. Human rights
Monitoring Institute [interactive]. Vilnius, 2011. [accessed 2013-05-06].
<http://www.hrmi.lt/uploaded/PDF%20dokai/Neapykantos_kurstymas_
DUK_20110629.pdf>.
Blackshaw, T. 2010. Key Concepts in Community Studies. London: Sage
Publications.
Blau, J. 2014. Big European Research Push on the Horizon.Research-Technology
Management, 57(2): 3.
Block, P. 2008. Community: e Structure of Belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Blockley, D. I. 2010. e Importance of Being Process. Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, 27 (3): 189–199.
Boase, J. et al. 2006. e Strength of Internet Ties. In the Pew Internet and
American Life Project. [accessed 2014-12-8] < http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2006/e-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx>.
Bode, I. 2003. Flexible Response in Changing Environments: e German ird
Sector Model in Transition. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2(32):
190–206.
Boden, M. A. 1994. Dimensions of Creativity. MIT Press. Cambridge:
Masssachusetts.
Boder, A. 2006. Collective Intelligence: a Keystone in Knowledge Management.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1).
Boland, R.; Tenkasi, R. 1995. Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in
Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 6(4): 350–372.
Bonabeau, E. 2009. Decisions 2.0: e Power of Collective Intelligence. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 50(2): 45–52.
Bonabeau, E.; Dorigo, M.; eraulaz, G. 1999. Swarm Intelligence: from Natural to
Articial Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonabeau, E; Meyer, C. 2001. Swarm Intelligence: A Whole New Way to ink
AboutBusiness. Harvard Business Review, 79 (5): 106–114.

573
◆ References ◆
Booth K. Security and Self: Reections of a Fallen Realist. 1994. YorkSpace institutional
repository [interactive]. [accessed 2014-09-20]. <http://yorkspace.library.yorku.
ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/1414/YCI0073.pdf?sequence=1>.
Booysen, F. 2002. An Overview and Evaluation of Composite Indices of
Development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2): 115–151.
Borden, I. 2001. Skateboarding, Space and the City: Architecture and the Body.
Oxford England; New York: Berg.
Borgatti, S. P.; Foster, P. C. 2003. e Network Paradigm in Organizational
Research: A Review and Typology. Journal of management, 29(6): 991–1013.
Boring, E. G. 1923. Intelligence as the Tests Test it. e New Republic, 24: 35–36.
Bosch, O. J. H.; King, C. A.; Herbohn, J. L.; Russell, I. W.; Smith, C. S. 2007.
Getting the Big Picture in Natural Resource Management—Systems inking
as „Method“ for Scientists, Policy Makers and Other Stakeholders. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 4: 217–232.
Bosse, T.; Jonker, C. M.; Schut, M. C.; Treur, J. 2006. Collective Representational
Content for Shared Extended Mind. Cognitive Systems Research, 7: 151–174.
Bothos, E.; Apostolou, D.; Mentzas, G. 2009. Collective Intelligence for Idea
Management with Internet-based Information Aggregation Markets. Internet
Research, 19: 26–41.
Boulesnane, S.; Bouzidi, L. 2013. A Case Study in the Context of Information
Technology: Toward a Collective Intelligence Approach. International Journal
of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 12(2): 185–201.
Boyatzis, R. E. 2007. Competencies in the 21st Century. Journal of Management
Development, 27 (1): 7–11.
Boyatzis, R. E.; Goleman D. 2007. Emotional and Social Competency Inventory.
Boston: Hay Group.
Brabham, D. C. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: an
Introduction and Cases. Convergence: e International Journal of Research
into New Media Technologies, 14(1): 75–90.
Bradford, D. L.; Cohen, A.R. 1998. Power up: Transforming organizations through
shared leadership. Wiley, Chichester.
Brandt, F.; Conitzer, V.; Endriss, U. 2012. Computational Social Choice. Multiagent
systems, 213–283.
Brown, E.; Cairns, P. 2004. A grounded investigation of game immersion. In
Extended Abstracts of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. ACM Press, New York, 1297-1300.
Brown, P.; Lauder, H. 2000. Collective Intelligence. In: Baron, S., Field, J., Schuller,
T. (eds.) Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, pp. 230. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bruch, M.; Bodden, E.; Monperrus, M.; Mezini, M. 2010 IDE 2.0: Collective
Intelligence in Soware Development. Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop
on Future of soware engineering research, pp. 53–58. ACM.

574
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Brundin, E.; Wigren, C.; Isaacs, E.; Friedrich, C.; Visser, K. 2009. Triple Helix
Networks in a Multicultural Context. Triggers and Barriers for Fostering
Growth and Sustainability. Journal of Development Entrepreneurship, 1(13):
77–98.
Bruneckienė, J.; Činčikaitė, R. 2009. Šalies regionų konkurencingumo vertinimas
regionų konkurencingumo indeksu: tikslumo didinimo aspektas. Ekonomika
ir vadyba, 14: 700–708.
Bruns, A. et al. 2012. #qldoods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on
Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods. Media Ecologies Project.
ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries & Innovation. [accessed 20-
11-18] <http://www.cci.edu.au/oodsreport.pdf>.
Buchanan, M. 2002. Nexus: Small worlds and the Groundbreaking eory of
Networks. Local: Norton.
Büchel, B.; Raub, S. 2002. Building Knowledge-creating Value Networks. European
Management Journal, 20(6): 587–596.
Bučinskas, A.; Raipa, A. 2001. Piliečių dalyvavimo ir valdžios institucijų veiklos
sąveika. Tiltai, 4.
Bughin, J.; Byers, A. H.; Chui, M. 2011. How Social Technologies are Extending
the Organization. McKinsey Quarterly, 20(11): 1–10.
Bukšnaitis, V.; Blonskis, J.; Misevičius, A. 2011. Bičių spiečių imitavimas sprendžiant
optimizavimo uždavinius. Infor macij os mokslai, 2011(56): 163–173.
Byggrave, L. A. 2012. Legal and Privacy Challenges of Social Networking Sites.
Doctotal thesis, University of Oslo.
Cabrera, A.; Cabrera, E. F. 2002. Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas. Organization
Studies, 23: 687–710.
Cabrera, D.; Colosi, L.; Lobdell, C. 2008. Systems inking. Evaluation and
Program Planning. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(3): 299–310.
Caillois, R. 1961. Man, Play, and Games. New York: Free Press.
Caillois, R. 2001. Man, Play, and Games. Translated by Meyer Barash. Urbana and
Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Original edition, 1958. Reprint, 2001.
Calder, B. J.; Staw, B. M. 1975. Self-perception of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.
J Pers Soc Psychol, 31: 599–605.
Cano, M. G.; Kirby, D.; Urbano, D. 2006. A Literature Review On Entrepreneurial
Universities: An Institutional Approach 1. Working paper presented at the
3rd Conference of Pre-communications to Congresses. Business Economic
Department. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Barcelona, June 2006.
Capelo, C; Dias, JF. 2009. A Feedback Learning and Mental Models Perspective
on Strategic Decision Making. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 57: 629–644.
Capra, F. 2002.e Hidden Connections. Doubleday, New York.

575
◆ References ◆
Carayannis, E. G.; Campbell, D. F. J. In Carayannis E. G., Dubina, I.N., Seel,
N., Campbell, D. F. J., Uzunidis, D. (Eds.) 2013. Mode 3 Knowledge Production
in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Quintuple Helix and Social Ecology.
Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
pp. 1293–1300. New York: Springer.
Carayannis, E. G.; Campbell, D. F. J. 2012. Mode 3 Knowledge Production in
Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. 21stcentury Democracy, Innovation, and
Entrepreneurship for Development. New York: Springer Briefs in Business.
Carr, N. 2010. e shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York:
W.W.Norton.
Caselli, M. 2008. Measuring… what? Notes on some globalization indices.
Globalizations, 5(3): 383–404.
Cassar, A.; Wydick, B. 2010. Does Social Capital Matter? Evidence from a Five-
country Group Lending Experiment.Oxford Economic Papers, 62(4): 715–739.
Castells, M. 1996. e rise of the network society. e information age: Economy,
society and culture. Massachusetts and Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. 2005. Tinklaveikos visuomenės raida. Informacijos amžius:
Ekonomika, visuomenė ir kultūra, I tomas. Kaunas: Poligraja ir informatika.
Castells, M. 2006. Tapatumo galia. Kaunas: Poligraja ir informatika.
Castells, M.; Cardoso, G. 2005. e Networked Society: from Knowledge to Policy.
Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins Center for Transatlantic Relations.
Cenkov, E. 2010.Civil Society in Bulgaria. Soja: Center for the Study of Democracy.
Čepienė, A. 2011. Kaimo bendruomenės narių socialinio dalyvavimo teorinės
įžvalgos. Profesinės studijos: teorija ir praktika, 8: 124–130.
Chai, S.-K.; Salerno, J.; Mabry, P.; Stiles, E; Cui, X. 2010. Workings of Collective
Intelligence within Open Source Communities. Advances in Social Computing,
6007: 282–289.
Chakravarty, S. R. 2003. A Generalized Human Development Index. Review of
development economics, 7(1): 99–114.
Chalupnicek, P. 2010. e CAPITAL in Social Capital: An Austrian
Perspective.American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 69(4): 1230–1250.
Chan, D.; Lo, W. 2007. Running Universities as Enterprises: University Governance
Changes in Hong Kong. Asia Pacic journal of Education, 27(3): 305–322.
Chanal, V., & Caron-Fasan, M. L. (2008). How to invent a new business model
based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspirit® case. In Actes de la Conférence
Internationale de Management Stratégique, Nice, pp. 1–27.
Chang, M.; Goodman, E. 2006. Asphalt Games: Enacting Place through Locative
Media. Leonardo electronic almanac, 14(3).
Chang, M.-H.; Harrington, J. E. Jr. 2005. Discovery and Diusion of Knowledge in
an Endogenous Social Network. American Journal of Sociology, 110: 937–976.

576
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Chapman-Smith, B. 2012. Social media took “church” role in quakes, New Zealand
Herald. [accessed 2014-11-20] <http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/
news/article.cfm?buer_share=a6e0e&c_id=5&objectid=1082840>.
Charles, A. What is the 1% rule? e Guardian [interactive]. 2006 [accessed
2010-07-10]. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/20/
guardianweeklytechnologysection2>.
Checkel, J. T. 2001. e Europeanization of Citizenship. Transforming Europe:
Europeanization and domestic change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Checkland, P. 1981. Systems inking Systems Practice. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Chen, C. 2007. Holistic Sense-making: Conicting Opinions, Creative Ideas, and
Collective Intelligence. Library Hi Tech, 25: 311–327.
Chen, R. S.; Hsiang, C. H. 2007. A Study on the Critical Success Factors for
Corporations Embarking on Knowledge Community-based E-learning.
Information Sciences, 177: 570–586.
Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open Innovation: e New Imperative for Creating and
Proting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation, the New Imperative for Creating and
Proting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W.; Teece, D. J. 2002. Organizing for Innovation: When is Virtual
Virtuous? Harvard Business Review, 80(8): 127–35.
Chiu, YC.; Shyu, JZ.; Tzeng, GH. 2004. Fuzzy MCDM for Evaluating the
E-commerce Strategy. International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology, 19(1): 12–22.
Chlivickas, E.; Petrauskaitė, N. 2009. Aukštųjų technologijų sektoriaus plėtra:
žmogiškųjų išteklių potencialas. Public Administration, 2(22): 26–31.
Chui, M.; Manyika, J.; Bughin, J.; Dobbs, R.; Roxburgh, Ch.; Sarrazin, H.; Sands, G.;
Westergren, M. 2012. e Social Economy: Unlocking Value and Productivity
through Social Technologies. McKinsey Global Institute Report.
Churchman, CW. 1968. e Systems Approach. Delacorte Press: New York.
Clark, B. R. 2004. Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies
and Concepts, Maidenhead. Society for Research into Higher Education and
Open University Press.
Clough, P.; Earle, K.; Sewell, D. 2002. Mental Toughness: the concept and its
measurment. In:: I. Cockerill (ed.). Solutions in Sport Psychology, 32-45.
London: omson.
Cohen, D.; Prusak, N. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, S. G.; Gibson, Ch. B. Virtual Teams Eective. General Management review
[interactive]. Calcutta, 2012 [accessed 2013-04-06]. <http://www.etgmr.com/
GMRjan-mar04/art1.html>.

577
◆ References ◆
Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of Social eory. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Collier, B.; Burke, M.; Kittur, N.; Kraut, R. 2008. Retrospective versus Prospective
Evidence for Promotion: e Case of Wikipedia. Academy of Management
Annual Meeting. Anaheim, CA.
Collinson, D. 2007. Collaborative leadership. In: D. Collinson, Editor. Collaborative
leadership, Centre for Excellence in Leadership: Lancaster.
Community-Intelligence [interactive]. 2010 [accessed 2010-05-15]. <http://www.
community-intelligence.com/blogs/public/archives/000270.html>.
Constant, D.; Sproull, L.; Kiesler, S. 1996. e Kindness of Strangers: e
Usefulness of Electronic Weak ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science,
7(2): 119–135.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
1950, Rome [accessed 2014-03-21] <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/
Treaties/Html/005.htm>.
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing
of Personal Data. 1981, Strasbourg [accessed 2013-01-11] <http://conventions.
coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/108.htm>.
Cook, D. 2014. Identity Multipliers and the Mistaken Twittering of “Birds of a
Feather”. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Cyber warefare and
Security: ECCWS 2014 (p. 42). Academic Conferences Limited.
Cooke, P.; Clion, N.; Oleaga, M. 2005. Social Capital, Firm Embeddedness and
Regional Development.Regional Studies, 39(8): 1065–1077.
Córdoba-Pachón, J. 2011. Embracing Human Experience in Applied Systems-
inking, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28: 680–688.
Corneli, J.; Mikroyannidis, A. 2012. Crowdsourcing Education on the Web: a
rolebased analysis of online learning communities. In: Okada, Alexandra;
Connolly, Teresa and Scott, Peter eds. Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open
Educational Resources. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 272–286.
Coronato, A.; Florio, V.; Bakhouya, M.; Serugendo, G. 2012. Formal Modeling of
Socio-technical Collective Adaptive Systems.2012 IEEE Sixth International
Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops.
Costa, R. 2002. A Cultura Digital. Publifolha.
Costa, R. D. 2006. On a new concept of community: social networks, personal
communities and collective intelligence. Interface-Comunicação, Saúde,
Educação: 2(se), 0–0.
Crevani, L.; Lindgren, M.; Packendor, J. 2010. Leadership, not leaders: On the
study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26 (1): 77–86.
Croissant, A.; Lauth, H. J.; Merkel, W. 2000. Zivilgesellscha und Transformation:
ein internationaler Vergleich. Systemwechsel, 5: 9–49.

578
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Cronk, M. 2012. Using Gamication to Increase Student Engagement and
Participation in Class Discussion. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.) Proceedings
of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2012, pp. 311-315.
Crooks, A. et al. 2013. #Earthquake: Twitter as a Distributed Sensor System.
Transactions in GIS, 17(1): 124–147.
Cross, R.; Parker, A. 2004. e Hidden Power of Social Networks. Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Cruse, H.; Dean, J.; Ritter, H. 1999. Was ist Intelligenz? Karl-Heinz Wellmann
and Utz imm (Ed.): Intelligenz zwischen Mensch und Maschine. Von der
Hirnforschung zur künstlichen Intelligenz. Begleitbuch zum Neuen Funkkolleg
„Die Zukun des Denkens“, Münster.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.
New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Czapiński, J. 1985. Wartościowanie – zjawisko inklinacji pozytywnej. O naturze
optymizmu. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Dabbish, L.; Stuart, C.; Tsay, J.; Herbsleb, J. 2014. Social Coding in GitHub:
Transparency and Collaboration in an Open Soware Repository. Collective
Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Dahlander, L.; O’Mahony, S. 2010. Progressing to the Center: Coordinating
Project Work. Organization Science, (Arthur 1994). 1–19.
Daj, A.; Chircha, A. 2009. Digital Marketing Instruments: Using Online
Communities for Product Innovation. Recent, 10(27): 227–232.
Damper, R. I. 2000. Emergence and Levels of Abstraction. International Journal of
Systems Science, 31: 811–818.
Dan, M. C. 2012. e ird Mission of Universities in the Development Strategy
of Vienna City. Informatica Economica, 16(4): 49–56.
DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Network Challenge
[interactive]. Arlington, 2010 [accessed 2010-08-10]. <http://
networkchallenge.darpa.mil/>.
Das, S.; Lavoie, A. 2014. Home Is Where the Up-Votes Are: Behavior Changes
in Response to Feedback in Social Media. Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT
Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Davenport, T. H.; Prusak, L. 2000. Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What ey Know. Harward Business School Press, Boston.
Davies, I.; Issitt, J. 2005. Reections on Citizenship Education in Australia, Canada
and England. Comparative Education, 41: 389–410.
Davis-Stober, C. P.; Budescu, D. V.; Dana, J.; Broomell, S. 2014. When Is a Crowd
Wise? Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.

579
◆ References ◆
Dawidowicz, P. 2011. e Person on the Street’s Understanding of Systems
inking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29: 2–13.
De Certeau, M. 1984. e Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
De Gennaro, T. 2010. Social Technologies Will Penetrate IT Management Tools.
Forrester Research.
de Lange, M. 2009. e Mobile City Project and Urban Gaming. Second Nature:
International Journal of Creative Media, special issue Games, Locative & Mobile
Media, 1(2): 160–169.
de Lange, M. 2013. Rezone the Game: Playing for Urban Transformation. http://
www.bijt.org/wordpress/2013/04/24/rezone-the-game-playing-for-urban-
transformation.
de Lange, M.; de Waal, M. 2012. Ownership in the Hybrid City. In. Amsterdam.
http://virtueelplatform.nl/g/content/download/virtueel-platform-
ownership-in-the-hybrid-city-2012.pdf.
de Lange, M.; de Waal, M. 2013. Owning the City: New Media and Citizen
Engagement in Urban Design. First Monday, special issue Media & the city,
18(11).
de Lange, M.; van Boxmeer, R.; Peters, T. 2014. Rezone Playful Interventions:
Spelen voor de toekomst. Den Bosch: BAI & bART/DW.
De Muro, P.; Mazziotta, M.; Pareto, A. 2009. Composite Indices for
Multidimensional Development and Poverty: An Application to MDG
Indicators. Wye City Group Meeting [interactive]. Rome, 2009 [accessed 2014-
10-01]. <http://www. fao. org/es/ess/rural/wye_city_group>.
De Smet, H.; Lagadec, P.; Leysen, J. 2012. Disasters Out of the Box: A New
Ballgame? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management. 20(3): 138–148.
de Souza e Silva, A. 2006. From Cyber to Hybrid: Mobile Technologies as Interfaces
of Hybrid Spaces. Space and culture, 9(3): 261–278.
de Souza e Silva, A.; Sutko, D. M. 2009. Digital Cityscapes: Merging Digital and
Urban Playspaces, Digital formations. New York: Peter Lang.
De Wolf, T.; Holvoet, T. 2005. Emergence Versus Self-organisation: Dierent
Concepts but Promising when Combined. Engineering self-organising systems,
3464: 1–15. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Debord, G. 1955. Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography. In Les Lèvres
Nues.
Debord, G. 1958. eory of the Dérive. In Internationale Situationiste.
Debord, G. 2005. Society of the spectacle. London: Rebel Press.
Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. 2008. Self-determination eory: A Macrotheory of Human
Motivation, Development, and Health. Canadian Psychology, 49: 182–185.
Deleuze, G. 1953. Empirisme et subjectivité. Paris: PUF.

580
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Deleuze, G.; Guattari, F. 1982. Mille plateaux. Paris: Minuit.
Deneubourg, J. L.; Aron, S.; Goss, S.; Pasteels, J. M. 1990. e Self-organizing
Exploratory Pattern of the Argentine ant. Journal of Insect Behavior, 3: 159–
168.
Denning, P. J.; Hayes-Roth, R. 2006. Decision Making in Very Large Networks.
Communications of the ACM, 49(11): 19–23.
Denzin, N.; Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. ousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Derksen, M.; Beaulieu, A. 2011. Social Technology. e Handbook of Philosophy
of Social Science, 703-719.
Derksen, M.; Vikkelsø, S.; Beaulieu, A. 2012. Social technologies: Cross-
disciplinary reections on technologies in and from the social sciences.
eory Psychology, 22(2): 139–147.
DesignBay [interactive]. Surry Hills, 2010 [accessed 2010-05-28]. <http://www.
designbay.com/>.
Desouza, K. C.; Krishnamurthy, R. 2014. Crowdsourcing on Challenge.gov:
Aligning Expectations between Public Managers and Citizens. Collective
Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. 2011. Gamication: Toward a
denition. CHI 2011 gamication workshop.
Deterding, S.; Dixon, D.; Khaled, R.; Nacke, L. 2011. From Game Design Elements
to Gamefulness: Dening “Gamication”. In 15th International Academic
MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments. Tampere,
Finland: ACM.
Diamantopoulos, A.; Winklhofer, H. M. 2001. Index Construction with Formative
Indicators: An alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(May): 277–290.
DiBlasio, N. 2012. Disaster-relief groups try tweets, apps to spread the news.
USA Today. [accessed 2012-09-01] <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/
story/2012-08-29/Disaster-Relief-Isaac-Social-Media/57414436/1>.
Diener, E.; Suh, E. 1997. Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective
indicators. Social indicators research, 40(1-2): 189–216.
Ding, L.; Difranzo, D.; Graves, A.; Michaelis, J. R.; Li, X.; McGuinness, D. L.;
Hendler, J. 2010. Data-gov Wiki: towards linking government data architecture
of data. AAAI Spring Symposium on Linked Data Meets Articial Intelligence.
Directive (EC) 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July
2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy
in the electronic communications sector [2002] OJ L’201/37.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal
data and on the free movement of such data [1995] OJ L’281/31.

581
◆ References ◆
Domański, J. 2010. Zarządzanie strategiczne i jego modele dla organizacjami non
prot. [accessed 2013-09-12]. <http://www.ptzp.org.pl/les/konferencje/kzz/
artyk_pdf_2010/39_Domanski_J.pdf>.
Domínguez, A.; Saenz-de-Navarrete, J.; de-Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés,
C.; Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. 2013. Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical
Implications and Outcomes. Computers & Education, 63(April 2013): 380–
392.
Dongping, F. 2010. e Tension between Holism and Purism: Comment on
“Creative Holism”. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27: 200 –207.
Dorigo, M.; Stützle, T. 2004. Ant Colony Optimization. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dorigo, M; Maniezzo, V.; Colorni, A. 1996. Ant System: Optimization by a Colony
of Cooperating Agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
26: 29–41.
Douglas, J. Y.; Hargadon A. 2001. e Pleasures of Immersion and Engagement:
Schemas, Scripts and the Fih Business. Digital Creativity 2001, 12(3):153–166.
Dreifus, C. A Conversation with Scot. E. Page: In Professor’s Model, Diversity =
Productivity. e New York Times [interactive]. New York, 2008 [accessed 2012-
05-01]. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~mpayres/teach/Diversity%26Productivity.
pdf>.
Drevel, A. 2009. Virtualios bendruomenės išraiškos. Grupės ir aplinkos, pp. 177–
197.
Drew, H.; Townsend, A. eds. 2013. Smart Citizens. Manchester: FutureEverything
Publications.
Driessen, P.P.J.; Glasbergen, P.; Verdaas, C. 2001. Interactive Policy-making a
Model of Management for Public Works. European Journal of Operational
Research, 128: 322–337.
Drucker, P. 1995. Zarządzanie organizacją pozarządową: teoria i praktyka.
Warszawa: Fundusz współpracy.
Drwal, R. Ł. 1980. Delta questionnaire for measuring locus of control. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 11: 269–282.
Drwal, R. Ł. 1995. Kwestionariusz do pomiaru poczucia kontroli (Delta) R. Ł.
Drwala. In: R. Ł. Drwal, P. Brzozowski, P. Oleś (ed.). Adaptacja Kwestionariuszy
Osobowości, 228–241. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Duarte, A. T. 2011. Privacy and Health System Solution Case. Conference
proceedings ,,Social Technologies“, 11.
Duchastel, P. 1992. Towards Methodologies for Building Knowledge-Based
Instructional Systems. Instr Sci, 20(5-6): 349–358.
Duy, N. 2012. Using social media to build community resilience. e Australian
Journal of Emergency Management, 27(1): 40–45.

582
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Dugan, L. 2012. Would you place a 911 call on Twitter? Mediabistro. [accessed
2012-09-05] <http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/911-call-on-twitter_
b27752>.
Dunbar, K. 1999. How scientists build models: In vivo science as a window on the
scientic mind. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian ,. agard (Eds.), Model-based
reasoning in scientic discovery, pp. 85 – 99. New York: Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Press .
Duncan, A. US Department of Education’s Open Innovation Portal Hosts NEA
Foundation’s Challenge to Innovate (C2I). US Department of Education
[interactive]. Washington, 2011 [accessed 2011-10-03]. <www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/us-department-educations-open-innovation-portalhosts-nea-
foundations-challenge>.
Duncan, S. 2011. Minecra, Beyond Construction and Survivival. Well Played
v.1, A journal on video games, value and meaning.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. 2006. Community participation and Internet use aer
September 11: Complementarity in channel consumption. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2): 659–673.
Dyer, J. R. G. ; Johansson, A.; Helbing, D.; Couzin, I. D.; Krause, J. 2009. Leadership,
Consensus Decision Making and Collective Behaviour in Humans. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. B, 364: 781–789.
Dyer, J. R. G.; Ioannou, C. C.; Morrell, L. J.; Cro, D. P.; Couzin, I. D.; et al. 2008.
Consensus Decision Making in Human Crowds. Animal Behav iour, 75: 461–470.
Ebert, U.; Welsch, H. 2004. Meaningful Environmental Indices: a Social Choice
Approac h. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manag ement, 47(2): 270–283.
Ebner, W.; Leimeister, J. M.; Krcmar, H. 2009. Community Engineering for
Innovations: e Ideas Competition as a Method to Nurture a virtual
Community for Innovations. R&D Management, 39: 342–356.
Ebrahim, N. A.; Ahmed, S.; Taha, Z. 2009. Virtual Teams: a Literature Review.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3): 2653–2669.
Edelenbos, J.; Klijn, E. H. 2005. Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision
Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the
Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and eory, 16: 417–
446.
Eliasz, A. 2002. Psychologia ekologiczna, w: J. Strelau (red). Psychologia.
Podręcznik akademicki. Gdańsk: GWP
Elmore, R. F. 2000. Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Elveback, L. R.; Taylor, W. F. 1969. Statistical Methods of Estimating Percentiles.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 161(2): 538–548.
Engel, D.; Woolley, A. W.; Jing, L. X.; Chabris, C. F.; Malone, T. W. 2014. Reading
the Mind in the Eyes or Reading between the Lines? eory of Mind Predicts

583
◆ References ◆
Collective Intelligence Equally Well Online and Face-To-Face. PLOS ONE,
9(12): e115212.
Estellés-Arolas, E.; González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. 2012. Towards an Integrated
Crowdsourcing Denition. Journal of Information science, 38(2): 189–200.
Estermann, T.; Nokkala, T.; Steinel, M. 2011. University Autonomy in Europe
II: e Scorecard. European University Association. Prieiga per internetą:
<http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications/University_Autonomy_in_
Europe_II_-_e_Scorecard.sb.ashx>.
Etzioni, A. 2011. Nationalism: e Communitarian Block. e Brown Journal of
Worlds Aairs, 18(1): 229–247.
Etzkowitz, H. 2003. Research Groups as “Quasi-rms’: e Invention of the
Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy, 32: 109–121.
Etzkowitz, H.; Webster, A.; Gebhardt, C.; Terra, B. 2000. e Future of the
University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower in to
Entrepreneurial University. Research policy, 29(2): 313–330.
Europe 2020 strategy. Europe 2020 – Europe’s growth strategy – European
Commission [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-10-16]. <http://ec.europa.eu/
europe2020/index_en.htm>.
Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 2010. European
Commission [interactive]. Communication COM (2010) 2020. Brussels:
European Commission. <http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm>.
European Commission „Research and Innovation Performance in EU Member
States and Associated Countries: Innovation Union progress at country level“.
Luxembourg: Publications Oce of the European Union, 2013. <http://
ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-theunion/2012/
innovation_union_progress_at_country_level_2013.pdf>.
Evans, M. M; Ali, N. 2013. Bridging Knowledge Management Life Cycle eory
and Practice. International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge
Management and Organisational Learning ICICKM 2013–Conference
Proceedings, pp. 156-165.
Farbrot, A. 2014. Even more hooked on social media. ScienceNordic. [accessed
20-12-05] <http://sciencenordic.com/even-more-hooked-social-media>.
Farsi, J. Y.; Imanipour, N.; Salamazadeh, A. 2012. Entrepreneurial University
Conceptualization: Case of Developing Countries. Global Business and
Management Research: An international Journal, 4(2): 193–204.
Fernandesa, J.; Duarteb, D.; Ribeiroa, C.; Farinhab, C.; Madeiras Pereiraa, J.; Mira
da Silvab., M. 2012. iink: A Game-Based Approach Towards Improving
Collaboration and Participation in Requirement Elicitation. Procedia
Computer Science Volume 15, 2012, pp, 66–77.
Ferro, L. S.; Walz, S. P.; Greuter, S. 2013. Towards Personalised, Gamied Systems:
An In-vestigation into Game Design, Personality and Player Typologies. In

584
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Proceedings of e 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment:
Matters of Life and Death, New York, NY, USA, pp. 7:1–7:6.
Fischer, G. 2001. Communities of Interest: Learning through the Interaction
of Multiple Knowledge Systems. Proceedings of the 24th IRIS Conference,
pp. 1-14. Department of Information Science, Bergen.
Fischer, G. 2006. Distributed Intelligence: Extending the Power of the Unaided.
Individual Human Mind.
Fisher, K.; Fisher, M. D. 1998. e Distributed Mind: Achieving High Performance
through the Previous Term Collective Intelligence Next term of Knowledge Work
Teams. New York: Amacon Press.
Fletcher, J. K. 2004. e paradox of postheroic leadership. e Leadership
Quarterly 15: 647–661.
Flew, T. 2008. New Media: An Introduction (3rd Ed.). Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Florida, R. L. 2002. e Rise of the Creative Class: and how it’s Transforming Work,
Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Foa, R.; Tanner, J. C. 2012. Methodology of the Indices of Social Development.
International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam
[interactive]. Hague, 2014 [accessed 2014-08-10]. <http://www.indsocdev.
org/resources/Methodology%20of%20the%20Social%20Development%20
Indices_%20jan11.pdf>.
Fortunati, L. 2015. New Media, Play, and Social Identities. In Playful Identities:
e Ludication of Digital Media Cultures, edited by Valerie Frissen, Sybille
Lammes, Michiel de Lange, Jos de Mul and Joost Raessens, 293-305.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Foth, M. 2011. From Social Buttery to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social
Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen
Engagement. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York:
Vintage Books.
Foutz, N. Z.; Jank, W. 2010. Research Note-Prerelease Demand Forecasting for
Motion Pictures Using Functional Shape Analysis of Virtual Stock Markets.
Marketing Science, 29(3): 568–579.
Fraustino, J. 2012. Social Media Use during Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge
Base and Gaps. Final Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division,
Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism.
[accessed 2014-10-12] <http://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/les/les/
publications/START_SocialMediaUseduringDisasters_LitReview.pdf>.
Freudenberg, M. 2003. Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical
Assessment. STI Working Paper, 2003(16): 2–34.

585
◆ References ◆
Frey, K.; Luethje, C.; Haag, S. 2011. Whom Should Firms Attract to Open
Innovation Platforms? e Role of Knowledge Diversity and Motivation.
Long Range Planning, 44: 397–420.
Fukuyama, F. 1996. Conança: as virtudes sociais e a criação da prosperidade. Rio
de Janeiro: Rocco.
Fung, A. 2003. Associations and Democracy: Between eories, Hopes, and
Realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 515–539.
Furtado, V.; Ayres, L.; Oliveira, M. d.; Vasconcelos, E.; Caminha, C. et al. 2010.
Collective Intelligence in Law Enforcement – e WikiCrimes System. Inf.
Sci., 180: 4–17.
Future Vision: “Smart everywhere”. A Digital Agenda for Europe [interactive].
Brussels: European Commission, 2014 [accessed 2014-10-16]. <http://
ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/future-vision-smart-everywhere >.
Gabelnick, F.; MacGregor, J.; Matthews, R. S.; Smith, B. L. 1990. Learning
Communities: Creating Connections among Students, Faculty, and Disciplines
(New Directions for Teaching and Learning #41). Jossey-Bass, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Gan, Y.; Zhu, Z. 2007. A Learning Frame work for Knowledge Building and
Collective Wisdom Advancement in Virtual Learning Communities.
Educational Technology & Society, 10: 206–226.
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: e eory of Multiple Intelligence. New York:
Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 2002. Intelligenzen. Die Vielfalt des menschlichen Geistes, Stuttgart.
Gartner svetainė. 2013. Forecast: Video Game Ecosystem, Worldwide, 4Q13.
<https://www.gartner.com/doc/2606315> [Prieiga: 2014-09-29].
Gassmann, O. 2006. Opening up the Innovation Process: Towards an Agenda.
R&D Management, 36(3): 223–228.
Geerts, S. 2009. Discovering crowdsourcing: theory, classication and directions for
use. Master thesis. Technishce Universiteit Eindhoven.
Gehringer, E. F. 2011. „Crowdsourcing“ a Textbook: 120 Student Authors Writing on a
Wiki (Research-Based) Educause [interactive]. [accessed 2012-05-04]. <http://
www.educause.edu/Resources/CrowdsourcingaTextbook120Stude/223704>.
Geifman, D.; Koren, H. 2014. GEM: A Model for Collective Ideation. Collective
Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Geiger, D.; Seedorf, S.; Schader; M. 2011. Managing the Crowd: Towards a Taxonomy
of Crowdsourcing Processes. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference
on Information Systems, Detroit, Michigan August 4th – 7th 2011.
Gellner, E.1993. Postmodernizmas,protasir religija. Vilnius: Pradai.
Gerber, A. S.; Huber, G. A.; Doherty, D.; Dowling, C. M.; Raso, C.; Ha, S. E. 2011.
Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics,
73: 692–706.

586
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Gharajedaghi, J. 2006. Systems inking: Managing Chaos and Complexity. San
Diego: Elsevier.
Gholami, B.; SafavI, R. 2010. Harnessing Collective Intelligence: Wiki and Social
Network from End-user Perspective. Proceedings of 2010 International
Conference on e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning.
Gibbons, P. L. 1997. It’s the World’s Biggest Copy Machine. PC Week, 14(4): 109.
Giles, J. 2005. Internet Encyclopaedias Go Head to Head. Nature, 438: 900–901.
Gimžauskas G. 2012. Kodėl „Twitter“ nėra labai populiarus ir kam jis tinkamas?
[accessed 2013-01-19] <http://www.pinigukarta.lt/ka-tai-reiskia/it-ka-tai-
reiskia/twitter-fenomenas>.
Gjerding, A. N.; Wilderom, C. P. M.; Cameron, S. P. B.; Taylor, A.; Scheunert, K.J.
2006. Twenty Practices of an Entrepreneurial University. Higher Education
Management and Policy, 18(3): 76–103.
Gladwell, M. 2010. Small change. e New Yorker, 4(2010): 42–49.
Glez-Pena, D.; Lourenco, A.; Lopez-Fernandez, H.; Reboiro-Jato, M.; Fdez-
Riverola, F. 2013. Web Scraping Technologies in an API World. Briengs in
Bioinformatics, 15(5): 788–797.
Global Innovation Index Report, 2014. < https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/
content.aspx?page=gii-full-report-2014> [Prieiga: 2014-11-11].
Gloor, P. 2006. Swarm Creativity – Competitive Advantage through Collaborative
Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gloor, P. A.; Paasivaara, M.; Schoder, D.; Willems, P. 2008. Finding Collaborative
Innovation Networks through Correlating Performance with Social Network
Structure. International Journal of Production Research, 46(5): 1357-1371.
Glynn, M. A. 1996. Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and
organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review,
21(4): 1081-1111.
Goman, E. 1959. e Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday.
Goldnger, J.; Ferguson, M. 2009. Social Capital and Governmental Performance
in Large American Cities. State & Local Government Review, 25–36.
Goldie, J. L. 2006. Virtual Communities and the Social Dimension of Privacy. Law
& Technology Journal.
Goleman, D. 1998. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Goncalo, J. A.; Staw, B. M. 2006. Individualism–collectivism and Group Creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1): 96–109.
Google [interactive]. 2010 [accessed 2010-06-20]. <http://www.google.com>.
Gopal, A.; Prasad, P. 2000. Understanding GDSS in Symbolic Context: Shiing
the Focus from Technology to Interaction. MIS Quarterly, 24(3): 509–546.
Gordon, E.; Koo, G. 2008. Placeworlds: Using virtual worlds to foster civic
engagement. Space and Culture, 11(3): 204–221.

587
◆ References ◆
Gordon, E.; Schirra, S.; Hollander, J. 2011. Immersive Planning: a Conceptual
Model for Designing Public Participation with New Technologies.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(3): 505–519.
Gore, A. 2013. e Future. New York: Random house.
Gowing, N. 2009. Skyful of Lies and Black Swans. e new tyranny of shiing
information power in crises. Oxford: e Reuters Institute of Technology.
Goyal. A.; Akhilesh, K. B. 2007. Interplay among Innovativeness, Cognitive
Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence and Social Capital of Work Teams. Team
Performance Management, 13(7/8): 206 – 226.
Grady M, Parisi F. 2006. e Law and Economics of Cybersecurity, Cambridge
University press, Cambridge.
Graham, G.; Kerrigan, F.; Mehmood, R.; Rahman, M. 2009. e Interaction
of Production and Consumption in the News Media Social Space. Com-
munications Infrastructure. Systems and Applications in Europe, pp. 229–239.
New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Granovetter, M. 1974. Getting a Job: a Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Granovetter, M. 2000. Le marché autrement. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer.
Greeneld, A. 2013. Against the Smart City (e city is here for you to use Book 1).
New York: Do Projects.
Greenwald, G.; MacAskill, E. 2013. NSA Prism Program Taps in to User Data of
Apple, Google and Others.e Guardian, 7(6): 1–43.
Gregg, D. 2009. Developing a Collective Intelligence Application for Special
Education. Decision Support Systems, 47(4): 455–465.
Gregg, D. G. 2010. Designing for Collective Intelligence. Communications of the
ACM, 53(4): 134–138.
Griths, M. 2007. Oxygen: Social Intranets, Collective Intelligence, and Government
Practices. Electronic Journal of E-government, 5(2): 177–90.
Grigas, R. 2010. Bendruomeniškumo ir savivaldos Lietuvoje kaitos bruožai:
istoriosonė interpretacija. Konferencija „Vietos savivalda ir bendruomenės
Lietuvoje, Vilnius, 2010–02–10. [accessed 2013-04-12]. < http://vinilas.lt/
lvbos/siuntiniai/Konferencija1.pdf>.
Griggs, K.; Wild, R. 2013. A Social Networking Adoption Model for Com-
munication and Collaboration in e‐Government. Proceedings of the 13th
European Conference on eGovernment: ECEG 2013 (p. 221). Academic
Conferences Limited.
Gronroos, C. 2004. e Relationship Marketing Process: Communication, Inter-
action, Dialogue, Value. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(2).
Grootaert, C. 1997. Social Capital: the Missing Link? (Social Capital Initiative
working paper n.3). Washington: World Bank.

588
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Grootaert, C; Woolcock, M. 1997. Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators of
Environmentally Sustainable Development. Washington: World Bank.
Gross, D. Google Boss: Entire World Will be Online by 2020. CNN Tech
[interactive]. Atlanta, 2013 [accessed 2013-04-19]. <http://edition.cnn.
com/2013/04/15/tech/web/eric-schmidt-internet/index.html?hpt=te_t1>.
Groth, F. 201). Gamication: State of the Art Denition and Utilization. 4th
Seminar on Research Trends in Media Informatics. Conference Paper, pp 39-46.
Gruber, T. 2008. Collective Knowledge Systems: Where the Social Web Meets the
Semantic Web. Journal of Web Semantics, 6: 4–13.
Grudens-Schuck, N.; Allen, B. L.; Larson, K. Focus Group Fundamentals.
Methodology Brief [interactive]. Kern, 2004 [accessed 2012-09-07]. <http://
wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/region4/FocusGroupFundamentalsRobert.pdf>.
Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3), DG
Regional Policy, Brussels. May 2012.
Guilford, J.P. 1959. Traits of creativity in Creativity and its Cultivation. Harper and
Row. pp. 142-161
Gunawardena, C. N.; Hermans, M.B.; Sanchez, D.; Richmond, C.; Bohley, M.;
Tuttle, R. 2009. A eoretical Framework for Building Online Communities
of Practice with Social Networking Tools. Educational Media International,
46(1): 3‐16.
Guogis, A.; Gudelis, D.; Stasiukynas, A. 2007. Nevyriausybinių organizacijų ir
savivaldybių santykių reikšmė plėtojant vietinę demokratiją: atvejo tyrimai
dvejose Lietuvos savivaldybėse. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 22.
Gurses, S.; Diaz, C. 2013. Two Tales of Privacy in Online Social Networks. IEEE
Security & Privacy, 11(3).
Gyventojų dalyvavimas vietos reikalų tvarkyme. 2010. Studija. Vidaus reikalų
ministerija.
Hagel, J.; Brown, J. S.; Jelinek, M. A. R. I. A. N. N.; Sitkin, S.; Cardinal, L.; Bijlsma-
Frankema, K. 2010. Relational Networks, Strategic Advantage: New Challenges
for Collaborative Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haldin-Herrgard, T. 2000. Diculties in Diusion of Tacit Knowledge in
Organizations. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(4): 357–365.
Hämäläinen, R. P.; Saarinen, E. 2004. Systems Intelligence-Discovering a hidden
competence in human action and organizational life. Research Reports, 88,
October, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory:
Espoo.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamication Work? –A Literature
Review of Empirical Studies on Gamication. In proceedings of the 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January 6-9, 2014.
Hampe, B. 1997. Making Documentary Films and Reality Videos. A Practical Guide
to Planning, Filming and Editing Documentaries of Real Events. New York:
Henry Holt and Company.

589
◆ References ◆
Hampton, K. 2010. Internet Use and the Concentration of Disadvantage:
Glocalization and the Urban Underclass. American Behavioral Scientist,
53(8): 1111–1132.
Hampton, K. N. 2011. Comparing Bonding and Bridging Ties for Democratic
Engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4); 510–528.
Handbook of Collective Intelligence. MIT Center for Collective Intelligence
[interactive]. 2010 [accessed 2013-05-01]. <http://scripts.mit.edu/~cci/HCI/
index.php?title=Main_Page>.
Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide.
2008. e Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
[interactive]. [accessed 2014-08-29]. <http://www.oecd.org/std/42495745.
pdf>.
Harman, K.; Koohang, A.; Paliszkiewicz, J. 2014. Scholarly interest in gamication:
a citation network analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(9):
1438–1452.
Harnad, S. 2007. Creativity: Method or Magic? In: H. Cohen and B. Stemmer (eds.)
Consciousness and Cognition: Fragments of Mind and Brain Amsterdam:
Elsevier Academic Press, pp. 127–13.
Hartswood, M.; Grimpe, B.; Jirotka, M. 2013. Towards Ethical Governance of
Social Machines. Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Cloud
and Green Computing, pp. 426–427. IEEE Computer Society.
Hartswood, M.; Grimpe, B.; Jirotka, M.; Anderson, S. 2014. Towards the Ethical
Governance of Smart Society.Social Collective Intelligence, pp. 3–30.
Hauschildt, J.; Kirchmann, E. 2001. Teamwork for Innovation – the “Troika” of
Promotors. R&D Management, 31: 41–49.
HDI. United Nations Development Programme [intera ctive]. 201 4 [acce ssed 2014-08-
10]. <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi-table>.
Helbing, D. 2013. Globally Networked Risks and How to Respond. Nature, 497:
51–59.
Helliwell, J.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J. 2013.World Happiness Report 2013. New York,
NY: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
Henderson, C. R. 1895. Review. Journal of Political Economy, 3(2): 236–238.
Henson B.; Reyns B.; Fisher B. 2011. Security in the 21st Century: Examining
the Link between Online Social Network Activity, Privacy, and Interpersonal
Victimization. Criminal Justice Review, 36(3).
Herbst, J. 2005. Oblicza społeczeństwa obywatelskiego. Warszawa: FRSO.
Herrscher, EG. 1995. Why is Systemic inking “Dicult to Sell’? Critical Issues in
Systems eory and Practice. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 45–49.
Hesse, B. W.; O’Connell, M.; Augustson, E. M.; Chou, W. Y. S.; Shaikh, A. R.; Finney
Rutten, L. J. 2011. Realizing the Promise of Web 2.0: Engaging Community
Intelligence. Journal of Health Communication, 16(sup1): 10–31.

590
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Heylighen F. 2002. e Global Brain as a New Utopia, in: R. Maresch & F. Rötzer
(eds.) Zukunsguren (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt).
Heylighen, F. 1999. Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the
Web: Algorithms to Develop a Collective Mental Map. Computational &
Mathematical Organization eory, 5: 253–280.
Heylighen, F.; Bollen, J.; Riegler, A. 1999. e Evolution of Complexity. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Himanen, P. 2001. e Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information age. 1st ed.
New York: Random House.
Hirst, P.; ompson, G. 1992. Globalization in Question: the International Economy
and the Possibilities of Governance. Cambrige: Polity Press.
Hirvelä A.; Huhtinen A.M.; Kangasmaa T. 2014. e Opportunities of National
Cyber Strategy and Social Media. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference
on Cyber warefare and Security: ECCWS 2014 (p. 88). Academic Conferences
Limited.
Hofstadter, D. R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York:
Basic Books.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Holden, C. 2007. Young People’s Concerns. In: D. Hicks i C. Holden (eds.).
Teaching the Global Dimension, 31-42. London and New York: Routledge.
Hollands, R. G. 2008. Will the Real Smart City Please Stand up? Intelligent,
Progressive or Entrepreneurial? City, 12(3): 303–320.
Hong, L.; Page, S. 2004. Groups of Diverse Problem-solvers Can Outperform
Groups of High-ability Problem-solvers. PNAS, 101: 16385–16389.
Horizon 2020, Work Programme 2014 – 2015. Information and Communication
Technologies <http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/
wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-leit-ict_en.pdf>.
Howe, J. 2008. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of
Business. New York: Crown Business.
Howe, J. e Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired [interactive]. Detroit, 2006. [accessed
2012-04-12]. <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html>.
Huggins, R. 2003. Creating a UK Competitiveness Index: Regional and Local
Benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37(1): 89–96.
Huizinga, J. 1955. Homo Ludens; a Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Hulpia, H.; Devos, G. 2010. How Distributed Leadership Can Make a Dierence
in Teachers” Organizational Commitment? Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(3): 565–575.
Hume, D. 1983. Traité de la nature humaine. Paris: Aubier.

591
◆ References ◆
Hung, W. 2008. Enhancing Systems inking Skills with Modeling. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 39(6): 1099–1120.
Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., Zubek, R. (2004) MDA: A Formal Approach to Game
Design and Game Research.Game Design and Tuning Workshop at the Game
Developers Conference, San Jose.
Iandoli, L.; Klein, M.; Zollo, G. 2008. Can we Exploit Collective Inelligence for
Collaborative Deliberation? e Case of the Climat Change Collaboratorium.
MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, 4675–4708.
Ikhalia, E.; Arreymbi, J. 2014. Online Social Networks: A Vehicle for Malware
Propagation. Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Cyber warefare
and Security: ECCWS 2014 (p. 95). Academic Conferences Limited.
Ilgius, V. 1999. Filantropija – nuo išimčių prie tradicijos. Lietuvos laisvos rinkos
instituto konferencija, Vilnius. [accessed 2011-06-12]. <http://old.nisc.lt/nvo_
lietuvoje.php>.
Inglehart, R. 1998. Human values and beliefs. Ann Arbor: e University of
Michigan Press.
Innocentive [interactive]. 2010 [accessed 2010-07-19]. <http://www.innocentive.
com/>.
Institute for a Broadband – Enabled Society [interactive]. Melbourne, 2013
[accessed 2013-06-01]. <http://www.broadband.unimelb.edu.au/>.
Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues. WIPO [interactive].
Geneva, 2002 [accessed 2013-04-28]. <http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
ecommerce/ip_survey/>.
Invernizzi, A.; Williams, J. (ed) 2009. Children and Citizenship. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Iosup, A.; Epema, D. 2014. An experience report on using gamication in technical
higher education. Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on
Computer science education (SIGCSE “14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 27–32.
Isenberg, D. J. 1986. Group polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6): 1141–1151.
Jackson, M.; Keys, P. 1984. Towards a System of Systems Methodologies.Journal
of the Operational Research Society, 35(6): 473–486.
Jakutytė, K. 2012. Nevyriausybinių organizacijų veiklų įgyvendinimas e.
dalyvavimo aspektu. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 11(2).
Janis, I. L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and
Fiascoes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6): 1141–1151.
Jarvenpaa, S. L.; Leidner, D. E. 1999. Communication and Trust in Global Virtual
Teams. Organization Science, 10(6, special issue: Communication Processes
for Virtual Organizations): 791-815.
Jasek, R.; Sarga, L. 2014. Human Factor: e Weakest Link of Security?
International Conference ECCWS, Greece.

592
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Jasinevičius, R.; Petrauskas, V. 2011. Sprendimų pagrindimo kompiuterizavimas.
Kauno technologijos universitetas. Kaunas: Technologija.
Joe, H.; Yardley, L. 2003. Content and ematic Analysis in Research Methods
for Clinical and Health Psychology (eds David F Marks and Lucy Yardley).
UK: Sage
Johannessen, J. A.; Olsen, B.; Olaisen, J. 2001. Mismanagement of Tacit Knowledge:
the Importance of Tacit Knowledge, the Danger of Information Technology,
and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management,
21(1): 3–20.
Johnson, S. 2012. Future Perfect: e Case For Progress In A Networked Age.
Penguin Books Limited.
Johnson, S. Swarming next time. Feed [interactive]. 2001 [accessed 2001-01-15].
<http://web.archive.org/web/20010707070217/www.feedmag.com/
templates/default.php3?a_id=1568>.
Joinson, A. N.; Paine, C. B. Self-disclosure, Privacy and the Internet. Oxford
Handbook of Internet Psychology [interactive]. 2009 [accessed 2014-02-19].
<http://ekarapanos.com/courses/socialweb/Social_Web_fall_2011/Reading_
Material_les/Joinson_sd.pdf>.
Jokinen, T. 2004. Global Leadership Competencies: a Review and Discussion.
European Industrial Training, 29(3): 199–216.
Jones, Q.; Ravid, G.; Rafaeli, S. 2004. Information Overload and the Message
Dynamics of Online Interaction Spaces: A theoretical Model and Empirical
Exploration. Information Systems Research, 15(2): 194–210.
Jones, R.; Corner, J. 2011. Stages and Dimensions of Systems Intelligence. Systems
Research and Behavioural Science, 29(1): 30–45.
Juozaitis, A. M.; Vilimienė, R. 2000. Nevyriausybinės organizacijos: nuo aiškios
strategijos link efektyvios veiklos. Vilnius: Danielius.
Kaigo, M. 2012. Social Media Usage During Disasters and Social Capital: Twitter
and the Great East Japan Earthquake. Keio Communication Review. 34: 19–35.
Kamm, N. 2011. FEMA will use social media through all stages of a disaster. Nextgov.
[accessed 2014-12-08] <www.nextgov.com/technology-news/2011/02/fema-
will-use-social-media-through-all-stages-of-a-disaster/48470/>.
Kanacri, B. P. L.; Rosa, V.; Giunta, K. D. 2012. e Mediational Role of Values in
Linking Personality Traits to Civic Engagement in Italian Youth. Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 40(1): 8–21.
Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B. C.; Wei, K. K. 2005. Contributing Knowledge to Electronic
Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29:
113–143.
Kanter, B. SXSW: What Social Media Analytics and Data Can’t Tell You.
SocialMediaToday [interactive]. Charlottesville, 2014 [accessed 2014-04-05].
<http://socialmediatoday.com/kanter/2244086/sxsw-what-social-media-

593
◆ References ◆
analytics-and-data-can-t-tell-you?utm_source=smt_newsletter&utm_
medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&inf_contact_key=b37da04e20
d94f37d6f59042b7280289815c740e3a2baaf68a6b8029204fd5e7>.
Kapetanios, E. 2008. Quo Vadis Computer Science: From Turing to Personal
Computer, Personal Content and Collective Intelligence. Data & Knowledge
Engineering, 67: 286–292.
Katz, N.; Lazer, D.; Arrow, H.; Contractor, N. 2005). e network perspective on
small groups. eories of Small Groups, ousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 277–312.
Keen, A. 2007. e Cult of the Amateur: How Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the
Rest of Today’s Usergenerated Media are Destroying Our Economy, Our Culture,
and Our Values. 1st paperback ed. New York: Doubleday.
Kennedy, K. J. 2006. Towards a Conceptual Framework of Understanding Active
and Pasive Citizenship, Unpublished Report. In: J. Nelson, D. Kerr, Active
Citizenship in INCA Countries: Denitions, Policies, Practices and Outcomes.
London: QCA.
Kerckhove, D. 1997. Connected intelligence. Toronto: Somerville House.
Kerr, D. 1999. Citizenship Education: an International Comparison. London: QCA.
Kėrytė, Ž. 2010. Pilietiškumo konstravimas globalumo kontekste: NVO vaidmens
kaita Lietuvoje. Kultūra ir visuomenė, 1(2): 67–83.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2001. e Leadership Mystique. Pearson Education, London.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 2004. What Makes the Leader Great? Strategic Directions,
8: 4–9.
Khatib, F.; Cooper, S.; Tyka, M. D.; Xu, K.; Makedon, I.; Popović, Z. et al. 2011.
Algorithm Discovery by Protein Folding Game Players. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 108(47): 18949–18953.
Kimel, Bar-Din M. 2003. Focus group methodology. e FDA Drug Safety &
Risk Management Advisory Committee Meeting, Gaithersburg, Maryland,
December 4, 2003.
Kinicki, A.; Kreitner, R. 2006. Organizational Behavior: Key, Concepts, Skills and
Best. Burr Ridge: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kirschner, P. A.; Shum, S. J. B.; Eds, C. S. C. 2005. Visualizing Argumentation:
Soware Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-making. Information
Visualization, 4: 59–60.
Kiškis, M. 2011. Intelektinės nuosavybės teisinė apsauga elektroninėje erdvėje.
Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras.
Kišūnaitė, A. 2014. Visuomenės dalyvavimas politinių sprendimų priėmime:
ar pereisime nuo pasyvaus stebėtojo iki aktyvaus partnerio vaidmens? BNS
pranešimas spaudai.
Kittur, A.; Nickerson, J. V.; Bernstein, M.; Gerber, E.; Shaw, A.; Zimmerman, J.;
Lease, M.; Horton, J. 2013. e Future of Crowd Work. Proceedings of the
2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New York,
1301–1318.

594
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Klein, M.; Cio, M.; Malone, T. 2007. Achieving Collective Intelligence via Large-
Scale On-line Argumentation. In ICIW (p. 58).
Klososky, S. 2011. Enterprise Social Technology: Helping Organizations Harness the
Power of Social Media, Social Networking, Social Relevance. Austin: Greenleaf
Book Group Press.
Klug, G. C.; Schell, J. 2006. Why people play games: An industry perspective. In
P.Vorderer & J.Bryant (Eds.). Playing computer games: Motives, responses
and consequences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Knack, S.; Keefer, P. 1997. Does Social Capital have an Economic Payo? A Cross-
country Investigation.e Quarterly journal of economics, 1251–1288.
Koellinger, P. 2008. e Relationship between Technology, Innovation, and Firm
Performance – Empirical Evidence from E-business in Europe. Research
policy, 37(8): 1317–1328.
Koh, K. H.; Nickerson, H.; Basawapatna, A. 2014. Early Validation of
Computational inking Pattern Analysis. ITiCSE “14 Proceedings of the 2014
conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education. ACM
New York, NY, USA.
Kokswijk, J. 2007. Digital Ego: Social and Legal Aspects of Virtual Identity. Chicago:
Eburon Academics Publishers.
Komito, L. 1998. e Net as a Foraging Society: Flexible Communities. e
Information Society, 14: 97–106.
Koo, Ch.; Wati, Y.; Jung, J. J. 2011. Examination of How Social Aspects Moderate
the Relationship Between Task Characteristics and Usage of Social
Communication Technologies (SCTs) in Organizations. International Journal
of Information Management, 31(5): 445–459.
Koplowitz, R.; Owens, L. 2010. Disciplined Social Innovation. Forrester Research.
Kozinets, R. V.; Hemetsberger, A.; Schau, H. J. 2008. e Wisdom of Consumer
Crowds: Collective Innovation in the Age of Networked Marketing. Journal of
Macromarketing, 28 (4): 339–354.
Kratochwill, F.; Ruggie, J. G. 1986. International Organization: a State of the Art
on an Art of the State. International Organization, 40(4).
Krause, S.; James, R.; Faria, J. J.; Ruxton, G. D.; Krause, J. 2011. Swarm Intelligence
in Humans: Diversity Can Trump Ability. Animal Behaviour, 81: 941–948.
Kraut, R.; Resnick, P.; Kiesler, S. 2012.Building Successful Online Communities.
Cambridge (Mass.): MIT.
Kreiner, K.; Schultz, M. 1993. Informal Collaboration in R&D: the Formation of
Networks across Organizations. Organization Studies, 14(2): 189–209.
Krogh, G. 2003. Knowledge Sharing and the Communal Resource. In: Easterby-
Smith, M.; Lyles, M. A. (eds.). e Blackwell Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge Management. USA: Blackwell.

595
◆ References ◆
Krogh, V.; Nonaka, I.; Voelpel, S.&G. 2000. Organizational knowledge creation
theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27:
1179–1208.
Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B. 2007a. Odpowiedzialność podmiotowa dzieci. Jak
rozumieć i inspirować jej rozwój. Kraków: Impuls.
Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B. 2007b. Developing responsibility - a challenge for 21st
century teachers. Children’s perception of subjective and non-subjective
solutions in solving responsibility dilemmas. In: I. Kovalcikova (ed.), Children’s
Identity And Citizenship In the Visegrad Context (s. 95 –102). Presov.
Kubilius, J. Tikimybių teorija ir matematinė statistika. Vilnius, 1996.
Kücklich, J. 2004. Play and Playability as Key Concepts in New Media Studies.
Report on research undertaken during Marie Curie fellowship at Dublin City
University, 2003-2004.
Kukla, A. 2000. Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. New York:
Routledge.
Kvedaravičius, J. 2006. Organizacijų vystymosi vadyba. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo
Universitetas.
Lapid, Y. 1989. e ird Debate: On the Prospects of International eory in a
Pos-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly, (3): 235–254.
Laster, J. A. Swarm of Volunteers, a Honey of an Idea. Chronicle of higher education
[interactive]. London, 2010 [accessed 2012-05-01]. <http://chronicle.com/
article/Crowdsourcing-a-Honey-of-an/65705/>.
Laszlo, E. 2002. e Systems View of the World. Hempton Press: Broadway.
Lave, J.; Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Le, T. T.; Tarafdar, M. 2009. Business Ecosystem Perspective on Value Co-
creation in the Web 2.0 Era: Implications for Entrepreneurial Opportunities.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 1(2): 112–30.
Lecy, J.; Schmitz, H.P; Swedlund, H. 2012. NGO and NPO Eectiveness: A
Modern Synthesis. VOLUNTAS, 23(2): 434–457.
Lee, D. T.; Goel, A.; Aitamurto, T.; Landemore, H. 2004. Elicitation of Social
Choice Functions. Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective
intelligence, Boston.
Lee, M.; Lan, Y. 2007. From Web 2.0 to Conversational Knowledge Management:
towards Collaborative Intelligence. Journal of Entrepreneurship Research, 2(2):
47–62.
Lee, SK.; Yu, JH. 2013. Composite Indicator Development Using Utility Function
and Fuzzy eory. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(8): 1279–
1290.
Leibetseder, B. 2011. A Critical Review on the Concept of Social Technology.
Social Technologies, 1(1): 7–24.

596
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Leichteris, R. 2011. Mokslo ir technologijų parkai socialinių technologijų
kontekste. Social Technologies, 1(1): 139–150.
Leimeister, J. M. 2010. Collective Intelligence. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 4(2): 245–248.
Leimeister, J. M.; Huber, M.; Bretschneider, U.; Krcmar, H. 2009. Leveraging
Crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting Components for IT-based Idea
Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26: 197–224.
Leimester, J. M. 2010. Collective Intelligence. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 4: 245– 248.
Leliūgienė, I.; Sadauskas, J. 2011. Bendruomenės sampratos traktuotės ir
tipologija. Socialinių mokslų studijos, 2011, 3(4): 1281–1297.
Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. 2009. From Innovation Networks to Open Innovation
Communities: Co-creating Value with Customers and Users. A work-in-
progress paper accepted to the 25th IMP Conference, September, pp. 3–5.
Lesser, E.; Ransom, D.; Shah, R.; Pulver, B. 2012. Collective Intelligence.
Capitalizing on the Crowd. IBM Global Services, NY.
Levine, S. S.; Prietula, M. J. 2014. e Hazards of Interaction: When Isolation
Benets Performance Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective
intelligence, Boston.
Lévy, P. 1997. Collective Intelligence. New York: Plenum Trade.
Lévy, P. 1997. Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace.
New York: Plenum.
Lévy, P. 2002. Cyberdemocratie. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Lévy, P. 2010. From Social Computing to Reexive Collective Intelligence: e
IEML Research Program. Information Sciences, 180: 71–94.
Lewicka, M. 2004. Kup pan książkę... Mechanizmy aktywności obywatelskiej
Polaków. Studia Psychologiczne, 42(4): 65–82.
Lewicka, M. 2005. Ways to Make People Active: e Role of Place Attachment,
Cultural Capital, and Neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25: 381–395.
Lewicka, M. 2008. Dwuścieżkowy model aktywności społecznej: Kapitał społeczny
czy kulturowy? In: D. Rutkowska i A. Szuster (eds.), Różne oblicza altruizmu,
245–275. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Lewis, D. 2000. Management of Non-Governmental Organizations: Catalysts,
Partners and Implementors. Routledge, 68–69.
Li, Ch.; Berno, J. 2012. Groundswell, Expanded and Revised Edition: Winning in a
World Transformed by Social Technologies. Harvard: Harvard Business School
Press Books, 352 p.
Liang, P.; Avgeriou, P.; He, K.; Xu, L. 2010. From Collective Knowledge to
Intelligence: Pre-Requirements Analysis of Large and Complex Systems.

597
◆ References ◆
Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Web 2.0 for Soware Engineering, pp. 26–
30. ACM.
Lietuva2030.lt. Lietuvos pažangos strategija “Lietuva 2030” [interactive]. 2014
[accessed 2014-10-15]. <http://www.lietuva2030.lt/images/stories/2030.pdf>.
Lietuvos Respublikos Aplinkos ministro įsakymas „Dėl Visuomenės informavimo
ir dalyvavimo rengiant planus ir programas, skirtas aplinkos oro ir van-
dens apsaugai bei atliekų tvarkymui, tvarkos aprašas“ 2005 m. liepos
26d. Nr. D1-381. [accessed 2013-01-22] < https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/
legalActPrint?documentId=TAR.C06803F15FEE >
Lietuvos Respublikos Asociacijų įstatymas Valstybės žinios. 1996 m. Nr. I-1231.
Lietuvos Respublikos Asociacijų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 2004, Nr. 25-745.
Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija. 2 skirsnio 35 straipsnis. Valstybės Žinios. 1992,
Nr. 33-1014.
Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija. Valstybės žinios. 1992, Nr. 33-1014.
Lietuvos Respublikos Labdaros ir paramos fondų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios.
1996, Nr. 32-787.
Lietuvos Respublikos Nevyriausybinių organizacijų plėtros įstatymas. Valstybės
žinios. 2013 Nr. XII-717.
Lietuvos Respublikos Partnerystės sutartis (patvirtinta Europos Komisijos
2014m. birželio 20 d.). <http://esinvesticijos.lt/uploads/documents/docs/97_
d6e1d9e807333649c7d74147e36743bf.pdf>.
Lietuvos Respublikos Peticijų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1999, Nr. 66-2128.
Lietuvos Respublikos Piliečių įstatymų leidybos iniciatyvos įstatymas. Valstybės
žinios. 1999, Nr. 1-5.
Lietuvos Respublikos Politinių partijų įstatymas. Valsty b ės ž i ni o s. 1990, Nr. 29-692.
Lietuvos Respublikos Religinių bendruomenių ir bendrijų įstatymas. Valstybės
žinios. 1995, Nr. 89-1985
Lietuvos Respublikos Savivaldybių tarybų rinkimų įstatymas Valstybės žinios.
1994, Nr. 53-996.
Lietuvos Respublikos šietimo ir mokslo ministerija, Mokslo ir studijų stebėsenos ir
analizės centras (2013). Lietuvos švietimas skaičiais 2013. Studijos. Vilnius, 2013.
Lietuvos Respublikos Susirinkimų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1993, Nr. 69-1291
Lietuvos Respublikos Teisėkūros pagrindų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 2012,
Nr.110-5564.
Lietuvos Respublikos Teritorijos administracinių vienetų ir jų ribų įstatymas.
Valstybės žinios. 1994, Nr. 60-1183.
Lietuvos Respublikos Teritorijų planavimo įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1995,
Nr.107-2391.
Lietuvos Respublikos Viešojo administravimo įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1999,
Nr. 60-1945.

598
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Lietuvos Respublikos Viešųjų įstaigų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1996 Nr. 68-1633;
2004 Nr. 90-4063.
Lietuvos Respublikos Vietos savivaldos įstatymas. Valstybės žinios. 1994, Nr. 55-
1049.
Lietuvos Respublikos Vietos savivaldos įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymas. Valstybės
žinios. 2008, Nr. 113-4290.
Lietuvos Respublikos Visuomeninių organizacijų įstatymas. Valstybės žinios.
1995, Nr. 18-400.
Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas „Dėl visuomenės informavimo ir
dalyvavimo teritorijų planavimo procese nuostatų patvirtinimo“. Valstybės
žinios. 1996, Nr. 90-2099.
Lietuvos studijų politikos 2009-2011 m. pokyčių kompleksinė analizė. 2014. Vilnius:
Mokslo ir studijų stebėsenos ir analizės centras.
LIin, N.; Cook, K.; Burt, R. 2005. Social Capital: eory and Research. New
Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
Lindsay, B. R. 2011. Social media and disasters: current uses, future options, and
policy considerations. Congressional Research Services Report 7-5700. [accessed
2012-08-10] <http://fpc.state.gov/ documents/organization/174191.pdf>.
Lithuanian Schoolchildrens” Civic Empowerment Exceeds Empowerment of the
Whole Society]. Civil Society Institute [interactive]. Vilnius, 2013 [accessed
2013-06-05]. <http://www.civitas.lt/lt/?pid=74&id=78>.
Liu, B. 2007. Web Data Mining. Berlin: Springer.
Liu, S. et al. 2008. In Search of the Bigger Picture: e Emergent Role of On-Line
Photo Sharing in Times of Disaster, In F. Fiedrich & B. Van de Walle (Eds.)
Proceedings of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington, DC.
Loand, L. H. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space.
New York: Basic Books.
López, A. S. 2013. Towards a Model of Entrepreneurial Universities: Signicance,
eory and Research implications. Review of Management Innovation &
Creativity, 6(18): 1–15.
Lorenz, J.; Rauhut, H.; Schweitzer, F.; Helbing, D. 2011. How Social Inuence Can
Undermine the Wisdom of Crowd Eect. PNAS, 108: 9020–9025.
Lrv.lt.LR Vyriausybė – Valstybės pažangos taryba [interactive]. 2014 [accessed
2014-10-15]. <http://www.lrv.lt/veikla/valstybes-pazangos-taryba/>.
Lumpkin, J. R.; Ireland, D. R. 1988. Screening Practices of New Business
Incubators: the Evaluation of Critical Success Factors. American Journal of
Small Business, 12(4): 59–81.
Luo, S.; Xia, H.; Yoshida, T.; Wang, Z. 2009. Toward Collective Intelligence of
Online Communities: A Primitive Conceptual Model. Journal of Systems
Science and Systems Engineering, 18(2): 203–221.

599
◆ References ◆
Lykourentzou, I.; Papadaki, K.; Vergados, D. J.; Polemi, D.; Loumos, V. 2010.
CorpWiki: A Self-Regulating Wiki to Promote Corporate Collective
Intelligence through Expert Peer Matching. Information Sciences, 180: 18–38.
Lykourentzou, I; Vergados, D. J.; Kapetanios, E.; Loumos, V. 2011. Collective
Intelligence Systems: Classication and Modelling. Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Web Intelligence, 3(3): 217–226.
Maani, KE.; Cavana, RY. 2007. Systems inking, System Dynamics: Managing
Change and Complexity (2nd edn). Auckland: Prentice Hall.
Macbeth, D. K.; de Opacua, A.I. 2010. Review of Services Science and Possible
Application in Rail Maintenance. European Management Journal, 28(1): 1–13.
Mačiukaitė-Žvinienė, S.; Grigaliūnaitė, J. 2006. Looking for Civil Participation in
the Baltic States: Non-Governmental Sector. Viešoji politika ir administravimas,
17: 115–123.
Mačiulienė, M.; Leichteris, E.; Mačiulis, A. 2013. e perspectives of developments
of virtual communities in Lithuania. Social Technologies’2013 conference
proceedings.
Mackay, Ch. 1841. Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness
of Crowds. London: Richard Bentley.
MacKinnon, R. Internet Freedom Strats at Home. Foreign Policy [interactive]. 2012
[accessed 2012-04-03]. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/03/
e_Worlds_No_1_reat_to_Internet_Freedom>.
Majchrzak, A.; Malhotra, A., 2013. Towards an Information Systems Perspective
and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation. Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 22: 257-268.
Makridakis, S.; Hogarth, R.; Gaba, A. 2009. Dance with chance. One world
Publications, Oxford.
Malone, T. W. 2006. What is Collective Intelligence and What Will We Do About
it? Edited transcript of remarks presented at the ocial launch of the MIT
Center for Collective Intelligence, October 13, Cambridge, MA.
Malone, T. W.; Laubacher, R.; Dellarocas, C. 2009. Harnessing Crowds: Mapping
the Genome of Collective Intelligence. Technology, 2009-001, Cambridge, MA.
Malone, T. W.; Laubacher, R.; Dellarocas, C. 2010. e Collective Intelligence
Genome. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3): 21–31.
Malone, T., Laubacher, R. and Dellarocas, C. 2009. Harnessing Crowds: Mapping
the Genome of Collective Intelligence.SSRN Journal.
Malone, T.; Klein, M. 2007. Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Address Global
Climate Change.Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3):
15–26.
Maloney-Krichmar, D.; Preece, J. 2005. A Multilevel Analysis of Sociability,
Usability and Community Dynamics in an Online Health Community.

600
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction (special issue on Social Issues
and HCI), 12 (2): 201–232.
Manson, N. C.; O’Neill, O. 2007. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Vol.
1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Map of the Civil Society in Lithuania. Civil Society Institute [interactive]. Vilnius,
2013 [accessed 2013-06-05]. <http://www.civitas.lt/en/?pid=24&id=5>.
Marček, E. 2008. Dialog między władzą i organizacjami pozarządowymi na
Słowacji – lata 1992 – 2008. Organizacje pozarządowe i władza publiczna.
Drogi do partnerstwa, red. G. Makowski, T. Shimanka, Warszawa.
Martins, L. L.; Gilson, L. L.; Maynard, M. T. 2004. Virtual Teams: What Do We Know
and Where do We Go from Here?. Journal of management, 30(6): 805–835.
Mathisen, G. E.; Einarsen, S. 2004. A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative
and Innovative Environments within Organizations. Creativity Research
Journal, 16(1): 119–140.
Matonytė, I. 2003. Pilietinės visuomenės tyrimo teorinės perspektyvos. Viešoji
politika ir administravimas, 5.
Mavrodiev, P.; Tessone, C. J.; Schweitzer, F. 2012. Eects of Social Inuence on the
Wisdom of Crowds. In Proceedings of CoRR.
Maxwell, W. 2014. Global Privacy Governance: A Comparison of Regulatory
Models in the US and Europe, and the Emergence of Accountability as a
Global Norm.Cahier de prospective, p. 63.
Mayer, K. Who Produces Social Technologies? Social Technology Workshop
[interactive]. 2009 [accessed 2012-09-16]. <http://socialtechnology.
wordpress.com/2009/10/23/who-produces-social-technologies/>.
Mayer-Kress, G.; Barczys, C. 1995. e Global Brain as an Emergent Structure
from the Worldwide Computing Network, and its Implications for Modeling.
e Information Society, 11(1): 1–27.
McAdams, D. P. 1992. e Five-factor Model in Personality: A Critical Appraisal.
Journal of Personality, 60: 329–361.
Mccann, P.; Ortega-Argilés, R. 2013. Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and
Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy.Regional Studies, pp. 1–12.
McGranahan, D. 1995. Measurement of Development: Research at the UN’s
Research Institute for Social development. International Social Science
Journal, 143: 39–57.
McKinsey Global Survey results. McKinsy Global Survey [interactive]. 2012
[accessed 2012-09-16]. <http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Business_
Techn ology/B T_Str ategy/M i nding _ your _ digit a l _bus i ness_ McKin s e y_
Global_Survey_results_2975>.
McMillan, D. W.; Chavis, D. M. 1986. Sense of Community: A Denition and
eory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1): 3–9.

601
◆ References ◆
Meier, P. 2013. Automatically Extracting Disaster-Relevant Information.
Irevolution. [accessed 2014-11-22] <http://irevolution.net/2013/04/01/auto-
extracting-disaster-info/>.
Melosik, Z. 1998. Obywatelstwo, czas (historia), przestrzeń (geograa), In: Z.
Melosik i K. Przyszczypkowski, (eds.), Wychowanie obywatelskie. Studium
teoretyczne, porównawcze i empiryczne. Poznań-Toruń: Edytor, s. 57–68.
Memmi, D. 2006. e Nature of Virtual Communities. Al&Society, 20: 288−300.
Merkel, W.; Lauth, H.-J. 1998. Systemwechsel und Zivilgesellscha. Welche
Zivilgesellscha Braucht die Demokratie? [System Change and civil
society. What kind of civil society does democracy need?] Aus Politik und
Zeitgeschichte, 6(7), 3–12.
Mets, T. 2010. Entrepreneurial Business Model for Classical Research University.
Engineering Economics, 21(1): 80–89.
Mets, T.; Kelli, A.; Barkalaja, A.; Raudsaar, M. 2014. Towards the Entrepreneurial
College Model: Estonian and German Examples of Creative Industries.
Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 69: 89–105.
Mian, S. 2003. Qualities of Incubation and entrepreneurship: What the research
Tell Us? Conference of Incubation and New Ventures. e conference Board of
Canada, Montreal, Canada.
Michailova, S.; Husted, K. 2003. Knowledge-sharing Hostility in Russian rms,
California management review, 45, (3): 59–77.
Midgley, G. 2008. Systems inking, Complexity and the Philosophy of Science.
Emergence Complexity, 10: 55–73.
Mikic, S.; White, G.; Razak, A. 2009. A Knowledge Review: Implications for
Future Research and Practical Application. International Journal of Business
and Management, 4(1): 26–31.
Mikulskiene, B.; Pitrenaite, B. 2012. Participatory Policy Modelling for Operational
Policy Stream: the Stakeholders and Public Administration Perspective. e
30th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, St. Gallen,
Switzerland, pp 1–14.
Milgram, S. 1967. e Small-World Problem. Psychology Today, 1: 60–67.
Miller, D. C.; Salkind, N. J. 2002. Handbook of research design and social
measurement. ousand Oaks: Sage.
Mingers, J.; Brocklesby, J. 1997. Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for
Mixing Methodologies.Omega, 25(5): 489–509.
Minsk, M. 1997. e Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Mintzberg, H. 1980. Structure in 5s: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization
Design. Management Science, 26(3): 322–41.
Mintzberg, H. 2001. e Yin and the Yang of Managing. Organizational dynamics,
29: 306–312.

602
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Mintzberg, H.; Mchugh, A. 1985. Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(2): 160–97.
Mondak, J. J.; Canache, D.; Seligson, M. A.; Hibbing, M. V. 2011. e Participatory
Personality: Evidence from Latin America. British Journal of Political Science,
41(1): 211–21.
Mondak, J. J.; Hibbing, M. V.; Canache, D.; Seligson, M. A.; Anderson, M. R. 2010.
Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study
of Trait Eects on Political Behavior. American Political Science Review, 104:
85–110.
Monge, P. R.; Contractor, N. S. 2003. eories of Communication Networks. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Montesinos, P.; Carot, J. M.; Martinez, J.M.; Mora, F. 2008. ird Mission
Ranking for World Class Universities: Beyond Teaching and Research. Higher
education in Europe, 33(2-3): 259–271.
Montola, M.; Stenros, J.; Waern, A. 2009. Pervasive Games: eory and Design.
Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann.
Montoya-Weiss, M.; Massey, A.P.; Song, M. 2001. Getting It Together: Temporal
Coordination and Conict Management in Global Virtual Teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(6): 1251–1262.
Moor, A.D.; Aakhus M. 2006. Argumentation Support: From Technologies to
Tools. Communications of the ACM. 49(3): 93.
Moran, T. P.; Carroll, J. M. eds. 1996. Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques,
and Use. Computers. Cognition, and Work, ed. G.M. Olson, J.S. Olson, and B.
Curtis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah NJ USA.
Morgenthau, H. 2011. Politika tarp valstybių: kova dėl galios ir taikos. Vilnius:
Margi raštai.
Morozov, E. 2009. Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution”.Dissent, 56(4): 10–14.
Morozov, E. 2013. To Save Everything Click Here. New York: Public Aairs.
Mould, O. 2009. Parkour, the City, the Event. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space, 27(4): 738–750.
Mukhopadhyay, S.; Banerjee, S. 2010. Cooperating Swarms: A Paradigm for
Collective Intelligence and its Application in Finance. International Journal of
Computer Applications, 6: 31–41.
Müller, R. 2011. Chronologie der Begrie, Mueller Science [interactive].
2014 [accessed 2014-10-22]. <http://www.muellerscience.com/
SPEZIALITAETEN/Methoden/Sozialtechnologie_Uebersicht.htm>.
Müller, S. 2009. Die Geschichte des Intelligenz-Begris und die aktuelle Debatte
zum Enhancement der Intelligenz. Dominik Groß and Axel Karenberg
(Ed.): Medizingeschichte im Rheinland. Beiträge des „Rheinischen Kreises der
Medizinhistoriker“, Kassel.

603
◆ References ◆
Mumford, D. M. et al. 2009. A framework for understanding collective leadership.
e leadership Qurterly: 20(6): 933–958.
Murphy, T. UNICEF asks people to stop “liking” things on Facebook & send
money. Humanosphere [interactive]. 2013 [accessed 2013-05-22]. <http://
www.humanosphere.org/2013/04/unicef-sweden-wants-your-money-not-
your-likes/?utm_source=buer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Bu
er%3A%2Bviewfromthecave%2Bon%2Btwitter&buer_share=b8cfe>.
Nacke, L. E.; Bateman, C.; Mandryk, R. L. 2011. BrainHex: Preliminary Results
from a Neurobiological Gamer Typology Survey. ICEC, (2011): 288-293.
Nagler, M. 2012. Playing Well with Others: e Role of Social Capital in Trac
Accident Prevention.Eastern Econ J, 39(2): 172–200.
Narayan, D. 1999. Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty (Policy Research
working paper 2167). Washington: World Bank.
Nefas, S. 2007. Funkcionali vietos bendruomenė Lietuvos kaimuose ir miesteliuose,
daktaro disertacija. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas.
Nefas, S. 2007. Savivaldžių (vietos) bendruomenių raida ir perspektyva
šiuolaikinėje Lietuvoje. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 20: 70.
Nefas, S. ir kt. 2011. Demokratija ir vietos bendruomenė Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Mykolo
Romerio universitetas.
Nelson, R. R. 2002. Bringing Institutions into Evolutionary Growth eory.
Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12: 17–28.
Nelson, R. R.; Sampat, B. N. 2001. Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping
Economic Performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 44:
31–54.
Nevyriausybinių organizacijų informacijos ir paramos centras [interactive]. Vilnius,
2014 [accessed 2013-05-06]. <http://www.3sektorius.lt/docs/Ataskaita_
pilietiskumas_santrauka_2013‐01‐7_15_59_37.pdf>.
Nevyriausybinių organizacijų politika [interactive]. LR Socialinės apsaugos
ir darbo ministerija. [accessed 2014-09-05]. <http://www.socmin.lt/lt/
nevyriausybiniu-organizaciju-sektorius.html>.
Newey, W. K.; Stoker, T. M. 1993. Eciency of Weighted Average Derivative
Estimators and Index Models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric
Society, 1199–1223.
NGIS Australia. 2009. Social media helping emergency management: Final report.
NGIS Australia. [accessed 2014-12-02] <http://gov2.net.au/les/2009/12/
Project-14-Final-Report.doc>.
Nguyen, NC; Bosch OJH; Maani KE. 2012. Creating “Learning Laboratories” for
Sustainable Development in Biospheres – A Systems inking Approach.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(1): 51–62.
Nielsen, J. Participation Inequality: Lurkers vs. Contributors in Internet
Communities. Nielsen Norman Group [interactive]. Fremont, 2010 [accessed

604
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
2010-06-28]. <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html>.
Nimon, S. 2007. Generation Y and Higher Education: e other Y2K. Journal of
Institutional Research, 13(1): 24–41.
Noorbakhsh, F. 1998. A Modied Human Development Index. World Development,
26(3): 517–528.
North, D.; Wallis, J. 1994. Integrating institutional change and technological change
in economic history: a transaction cost approach. Journal of Institutional and
eoretical Economics, 150: 609–624.
Norvaišas, S.; Mažeika, A.; Paražinskaitė, G.; Skaržauskienė, A.; Šiugždaitė, R.;
Tamošiūnaitė, R. 2011. Networked business informatics studies: methodical
guidelines. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universiteto Leidybos centras.
Novikovas, A. 2007. Socialinės technologijos ir jų taikymas savivaldybių veikloje,
užtikrinant vietos gyventojų saugumą. Jurisprudencija Mokslo darbai, 6(96):
59–62.
O‘Leary, D. E. 2008. Wikis: „From Each According to His Knowledge“. Computer,
41(2): 34–41.
O’Donovan, S., Gain, J., Marais, P. (2013). A case study in the gamication of a
university-level games development course. SAICSIT “13 Proceedings of the
South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists
Conference, pp 242–251.
O’Mahony, S.; Ferraro, F. 2007. e Emergence of Governance in an Open Source
Community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1079–1106.
O’Reilly, T. 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Soware. O’Reilly Media, Inc. [interactive]. 2005 [2014-
12-03] <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/
what-is-web-20.html>.
OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of
Personal Data. OECD [interactive]. Paris, 2013. [accessed 2013-05-26].
<http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotection
ofprivacyandtransborderowsofpersonaldata.htm>.
Ocial Statistics Portal Lithuania, 2013. ICT use in households in I quarter
2013. Available at: http://osp.stat.gov.lt/pranesimai-spaudai?eventId=1717
[Accessed March 1, 2014].
Open Government: Fostering Dialogue with Civil Society. OECD [interactive].
2003. [accessed 2013-06-20]. <http://213.253.134.43/oecd/pdfs/browseit/
4203011E.PDF>.
Opinion 5/2009 on online social Networking, Brussels, Belgium [2009]
Orji, R.; Mandryk, R. L.; Vassileva, J.; Gerling. K. 2013. Tailoring Persuasive
Health Games to Gamer Type. CHI’13, April 27 – May 2, 2013, Paris, France.
Ormerod, R. J. 2008. e Transformation Competence Perspective. e Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 59: 1435–1448.

605
◆ References ◆
Ossimitz, G. 2000. Entwicklung systemischen Denkens. München: Prol.
Osterloh, M.; Frey, B. S. 2000. Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational
Forms. Organization Science, 11: 538–550.
Oudenampsen, M. 2013. Aldo van Eyck and the City as Play-ground. http://
merijnoudenampsen.org/2013/03/27/aldo-van-eyck-and-the-city-as-
playground/.
Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible Research and Innovation:
From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.Science and
Public Policy, 39(6): 751–760.
Page, S. 2007. Diversity Trumps Ability eorem. In e Dierence: How the Power
of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, pp. 131–174.
44 Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pagon, M.; Banutai, E.; Bizjak, U. 2008. Leadership Competencies for Successful
Change Management. University of Maribor, Slovenia, EUPAN, 1–2.
Palen, L. 2008. Online Social Media in Crisis Events. EDUCAUSE Quarterly.
31(3): 76–78.
Palfrey J.; Deibert R.; Rohozinski R.; Zittrain J. 2008. Access Denied: e Practice
and Politics of Global Internet Filtering. MIT Press.
Parjanen, S. 2012. Experiencing Creativity in the Organization: From Individual
Creativity to Collective Creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,
Knowledge, and Management, 7: 109–128.
Paroutis, S.; Al Saleh, A. 2009. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing using Web 2.0
technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13: 52–63.
Pässilä, A.; Oikarinen, T. 2014. Research-based eater as a Facilitator of
Organizational Learning. Learning Organizations, pp. 203–221. Netherlands:
Springer.
Patel, A; Balakrishnan, A. 2009. Generic framework for recommendation system
using collective intelligence, Internet Technology and Secured Transactions,
2009. ICITST 2009. International Conference for. London, UK, p. 1–6.
Paton, R. A.; McLaughlin, S. 2008. Services innovation. European Management
Journal, 26(2): 77–83.
Pelikan, P. 2003. Bringing Institutions into Evolutionary Economics: Another
View with Links to Changes in Physical and Social Technologies. Journal of
Evolutionary Economy, 13: 237–258.
Percy-Smith B.; Tomas N. (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Children and Young People’s
Participation. London-New York: Routledge
Pereira, Ch.; Romero, F. 2012. Non-Technological Innovation: Current Issues and
Perspectives, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, p. 418–428.
Pereira, T.; Santos, H. 2014. Challenges in Information Security Protection.
International Conference ECCWS, Greece.

606
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Pérez, E. 2014. Gamication and performance: design challenges when using games
to enable alternative ways of engaging with theatre. I Congreso de la Sociedad
Española para las Ciencias del Videojuego.
Perry, B.; Shaw, R.; Takeuchi, Y. 2012. Utilisation of Social Media in the East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami and its eectiveness. Journal of Natural Disaster
Science. 34(1): 3–18.
Pham, D. T.; Ghanbarzadeh, A.; Koc, E.; Otri, S.; Rahim, S. et al. 2006. e Bees
Algorithm – A Novel Tool for Complex Optimisation Problems. Proceedings
of IPROMS 2006 Conference.
Pickard, G.; Pan, W.; Rahwan, I.; Cebrian, M.; Crane, R.; Madan, A.; Pentland, A.
2011. Time-critical social mobilization. Science, 334(6055): 509–512.
Picon, A. 2008. Toward a City of Events: Digital Media and Urbanity. New
Geographies, 0: 32–43.
Pine, B. J.; Gilmore, J. H. 1999. e Experience Economy: Work is eatre & Every
Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Pink, D. H. 2005. A Whole New Mind: Moving from the information age into the
conceptual age. Allen & Unwin.
Pirola-Merlo, A.; Mann, L. 2004. e relationship between individual creativity and
team creativity: aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, pp. 235–257.
Pirola-Merlo, A.; Härtel, C.; Mann, L.; Hirst, G. 2002. How Leaders Inuence the
Impact of Aective Events on Team Climate and Performance in R&D Teams.
e Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561–581.
Pitrenaite-Zileniene, B.; Mikulskiene, B. 2012. Requirements for Participatory
Framework on Governmental Policy Level. European journal of
interdisciplinary studies, 4(1): 3–14.
Plant, R. 2004. Online Communities. Technology in Society, 26: 51–65.
Poder, T. 2011. What is Really Social Capital? A Critical Review.e American
Sociologist, 42(4): 341–367.
Pomerlau, D. Twitter and the Global Brain. 2009 [accessed 2014-10-17] <https://
docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AT9namoRlUKMZGM3eG40ZHNfN2Z3ajJ
0eGNw&hl=en&pli=1>.
Porter, C. E. 2004. A Typology of Virtual Communities: A Multi-Disciplinary
Foundation for Future Research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion, 10(1): 00–00.
Portes, A. 1998. Social Capital: its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.
Annual Review Sociology, 24: 1–24.
Portes, A. 2000. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern
Sociology.LESSER, Eric L. Knowledge and Social Capital. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann, pp.43–67.

607
◆ References ◆
Pragere, K.; Nagel, U. J. 2008. Participatory Decision Making on Agri-environ-
mental Programmes: A Case Study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany). Land
Use Policy, 25: 106–115.
Prahalad, C. K.; Hamel, G. 2006. e Core Competence of the Corporation.
Strategische Unternehmungsplanung – Strategische Unternehmungsf\
”uhrung, 68: 275–292.
Prahalad, C. K.; Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation Experiences: e Next Practice
in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18: 5–14.
Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Preece, J.; Maloney-Krichmar, D.; Abras, C. 2003. History of Online Communities.
Encyclopaedia of Community: From Village to Virtual World. ousand Oaks:
Sage Publications, pp. 1023–1027.
Preece, J.; Nonnecke, B.; Andrews, D. 2004. e Top Five Reasons for Lurking:
Improving Community Experiences for Everyone. Computers in Human
Behavior, 20(2): 201–223.
Preece, J.; Shneiderman, B. 2009. e Reader-to-leader Framework: Motivating
Technology-mediated Social Participation. AIS Transactions on Human-
Computer Interaction, 1(1): 13–32.
Prić, J.; Taeihagh, A.; Melton, J. 2014. Crowdsourcing the Policy Cycle. Collective
Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Promise and Problems of E-Democracy. Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement.
OECD [interactive]. Paris, 2012 [accessed 2012-10-30]. <http://www.oecd.
org/governance/public-innovation/35176328.pdf>.
Przybylski, A. K, Rigby, C. S., Ryan R. M. (2010). A Motivational Model of Video
Game Engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2).
Public Opinion Survey “e Concept of Public Spirit”. Vilmorus. [accessed 2013-
02-12] <http://www.3sektorius.lt/docs/Ataskaita_pilietiskumas_santrauka_
2013‐01‐17_15_59_37.pdf >
Putnam, R. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. 2001. Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences.Canadian
Journal of Policy Research, 2(1): 41–51.
Putnam, R.; Leonardi, R.; Nanetti, R. 1993.Making Democracy Work. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Quarantelli, E. 2008. Conventional Beliefs and Counterintuitive Realities. Social
Research: An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences, 75(2): 873–904.
Raipa, A. 2001. Viešasis administravimas ir piliečių dalyvavimas. Viešojo administ-
ravimo efektyvumas. Kaunas: Technologija, pp. 345–346.
Ransbotham, S.; Kane, G. C. 2011. Membership Turnover and Collaboration
Success in Online Communities: Explaining Rises and Falls from Grace in
Wikipedia. MIS Quarterly-Management Information Systems, 35(3): 613.

608
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Ratkiewicz, J.; Conover, M.; Meiss, M.; Gonçalves, B.; Flammini, A.; Menczer, F.
2011. Detecting and Tracking Political Abuse in Social Media. ICWSM.
Ray, A. K. 2008. Measurement of Social Development: An International
Comparison. Social Indicators Research, 86(1): 1–46.
Razak, R. A. 2009. e Scenarios of Enterprise Architecture in Malaysian
Organizations. In Knowledge Management and Innovation in Advancing
Economies: Analyses and Solutions. e 13th International Business Information
Management Association Conference. Marrakech, Morocco, pp. 9–10.
Resindex: Regional Social Innovation Index. 2013. SINNERGIAK Social
Innovation (UPV/EHU), Innobasque – 2013, Basque Innovation Agency
[interactive]. [accessed 2014-08-07]. <http://www.sinnergiak.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/cuaderno_resindex_cast.pdf >.
Rheingold, H. 1996. Comunidade Virtual. Lisboa: Gradiva.
Rheingold, H. 2000. e Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic
Frontier. MIT Press: London.
Rheingold, H. 2002. Smart Mobs: e Next Social Revolution. Local: Perseus.
Richmond, B. 2001. An Introduction to Systems inking. e Systems inker,
8(2).
Riin, J. 2000. e Age of Access: the New Culture of Hypercapitalism, where all of
Life is a Paid-for Experience. New York: J. P. Tarcher/Putnam.
Roberts, J. A.; Hann, I. H.; Slaughter, S. A. 2006. Understanding the Motivations,
Participation, and Performance of Open Source Soware Developers: A
Longitudinal Study of the Apache Projects. Management Science, 52: 984–999.
Robinson, F. Oettinger Says ank Me For Blocking EU-Google Deal. e Wall
Street Journal [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-10-15]. <http://blogs.wsj.
com/brussels/2014/09/30/oettinger-says-thank-me-for-blocking-eu-google-
deal/>.
Rodprasert, R.; Chandarasupsang, T.; Chakpitak, N.; Yupapin, P. 2014. Green
Energy Community with Smart Society for Sustainable Living.Energy
Procedia, 56: 678–689.
Rodriguez, M. A. 2005. e Hyper-Cortex of Human Collective-Intelligence
Systems. Report: ECCO Working Paper 06-2005, Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory.
Ronfeldt, D. 1992. Cyberocracy is Coming. e Information Society, 8(4): 243–96.
Ronfeldt, D.; Varda, D. e Prospects for Cyberocracy. iRevolution [interactive].
Waltham, 2009 [accessed 2012-05-01]. <http://irevolution.net/2009/01/17/
the-prospects-for-cyberocracy/>.
Rosen, J. 2012. e Right to be Forgotten.Stanford law review online, 64, p.88.
Rosenhead, J.; Mingers, J. 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited:
Problem Structuring Method for Uncertainty and Conict. Chichester (UK):
John Wiley & Son.

609
◆ References ◆
Rosete, D.; Ciarrochi, J. 2005. Emotional intelligence and its relationship to
workplace performance outcomes of leadership eectiveness. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26 (5).
Rothschild, L.; Darr, A. 2005. Technological incubators and the social construction
of innovation networks: an Israeli case study. Technov atio n , 25: 59–67.
Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control
of Reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General Applied, 80: 1–46.
Rotter, J. B. 1990. Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement. A Case
History of a Variable. American Psychologist, 45: 489–493.
Rowley, T.; Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-
and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. e Academy of
Management Review, 28(2): 204–19.
Rubright. J. D.; Nandakumar, R.; Glutting, J. J. 2014. A Simulation Study of
Missing Data with Multiple Missing X’s. Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation, 19(10).
Russo, S.; Amnå, E. 2014. Do Personality Traits Predict Civic Engagement and
Political Participation? Understanding Oine and Online Engagement and
Participation. 2014 European Consortium for Political Research.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55: 68–78.
Rycro, R. W.; Kash, D. E. 2004. Self-organizing Innovation Networks: Implications
for Globalization. Techno vati on, 24: 187–197.
Sabatini, F. 2009. Social Capital as Social Networks: a New Framework for Measure-
ment and an Empirical Analysis of its Determinants and Consequences.e
Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(3): 429–442.
Sachs, J. 2003. e Global Innovation Divide. Innovation Policy and the Economy,
3: 131–141.
Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S. 2002. State-of-the-art Report on Current Methodologies
and Practices for Composite Indicator Development. EUR 20408 EN,
European Commission-JRC: Italy.
Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S.; Schulze, N.; Cherchye, L.; Moesen, W.; Van Puyenbroeck,
T. 2005. Knowledge Economy Indicators. State-of-the-Art Report on
Composite Indicators for the Knowledge-based Economy. Workpackage 5,
54 p. [interactive]. [accessed 2014-08-30]. <http://kei.publicstatistics.net/
KEI%20D5_1.pdf>.
Salamon, L. M.; Sokolowski, S. W. 2001. Volunteering in Cross-National Perspektive:
Evidence from 24 Countries. Baltimore: e John Hopkins Center for Civil
Society Studies.
Salamon, L.; M.; Anheier, H. K.; List, R.; Toepler, S.; Sokolowski, W. S.; and
Associaties. 1999. Global Civil Society. Dimensions of the Nonprot Sector.
e John Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, Baltimore.

610
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Salamzadeh, A.; Salamzadeh, Y.; Daraei, M. 2011. Toward a Systematic Framework
for an Entrepreneurial University: A Study in Iranian Context with an IPOO
Model. Global Business and Management Review: An International Journal,
3(1): 30–37.
Salganik, M. J.; Levy, K. E. 2012. Wiki surveys: Open and Quantiable Social Data
Collection.
Salminen, J. 2012. Collective Intelligence in Humans: A Literature Review. MIT,
Collective Intelligence 2012.
Salminen, J. 2014. Wisdom of Crowds in Practice. Collective Intelligence 2014,
MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Sanders, K.; Kianty, A. 2006. Organisationstheorien: Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaen.
Savage, N. 2012. Gaining Wisdom from Crowds. Communication of the ACM,
55(4): 13–15.
Sawhney, M.; Verona, G.; Prandelli, E. 2005. Collaborating to Create: e Internet
as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 19: 5–17.
Sawyer, K. 2007. Group Genius: e Creative Power of Collaboration. New York:
Basic Books.
Sawyer, R. K. 2012 Explaining Creativity: the Science of Human Innovation. Oxford
University Press. 2nd ed.
Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. 1994. Computer Support for Knowledge-building
Communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3 (3): 265–283.
Schank, R. C., Cleary, C. 1995. Making Machines Creative. In: S Smith, T B Ward &
R A Finke (eds) e Creative Cognition Approach. MIT Press, 229-247.
Schell, J. 2008. e Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. Elsevier Inc. Burlington,
USA.
Schmitz, P. 2011. Everyone Leads: Building Leadership from Community Up. San
Francisco: Jossey – Bass.
Schoder, D.; Gloor, P.; Metaxas, P. 2013. Social Media and Collective Intelligence:
Ongoing and Future Research Streams. Kunstliche Intelligenz, 27(1): 1–14.
Scholz, T. 2013. Digital Labor: the Internet as Playground and Factory. New York:
Routledge.
Schooley, C. 2009. e Millenials are here! Are you prepared? Forrester Research.
Schotter, A. 1981. e Economic eory of Social Institutions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schumpeter, J. 1934. e eory of Economic Development, 7th ed. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Schut, M. C. 2010. On Model Design for Simulation of Collective Intelligence.
Information Sciences, 180: 132–155.

611
◆ References ◆
Schwab, K. 2013.e Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014. Cologny/Geneva:
World Economic Forum.
Schwartz, S. H.; Bardi, A. 1997). Inuences of Adaptation to Communist Rule on
Value Priorities In Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 18: 385–410.
Seang-Tae, K. Vision and Plans for Coming Smart Society. Slideshare [interactive].
2011 [accessed 2014-10-15]. <http://www.slideshare.net/issunige/vision-
and-plans-for-coming-smart-society>.
Secundo, G.; Passiante, G.; Gianfreda, F.; Passabì, S. 2014. Managing intellectual
Capital in Entrepreneurial University: A Collective Intelligence Approach.
Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Intellectual Capital: ECIC 2014,
p. 209-216.
Sederer, L. 2011. Lessons from New York City’s 9/11 Mental Health Response.
Hungton Post. [accessed 2014-12-01] <http://www. hungtonpost.com/
lloyd-i-sederer-md/>.
Segaran, T. 2007. Programming Collective Intelligence: Building Smart Web 2.0
Applications. O’Reilly Press.
Seifert, K. H.; Bergmann, C. 1993. Testmanual zum Fragebogen zur Messung
beruicher Werthaltungen (BWH - Fragebogen). Linz: Universitat Linz.
Seligman, M. E. P. 2002. Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Senge, P. 1990. e Fih Discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Shang, S. S. C.; Li, E. Y.; Wu, Y. L.; Hou, O. C. L. 2011. Understanding Web
2.0 Service Models: A Knowledge-creating Perspective. Information and
Management, 48: 178–184.
Sherwood, D. 2002. Seeing the Forest for the Trees: A Manager’s Guide to Applying
Systems inking. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Shimazu, H.; Koike, S. 2007. KM 2.0: Business Knowledge Sharing in the Web 2.0
age. NEC Technical Journal, 2(2): 50–54.
Shin, J.; McClomb, G. E. 1998. Top Executive Leadership and Organizational
Innovation: An Empirical Investigation of Nonprot Human Service
Organizations (HSOs). Administration in Social Work, 22(3): 1–21.
Shirky, C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: e Power of Organizing Without
Organizations. e Penguin Press, New York.
Shirky, C. 2010. Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into
Collaborators. e Penguin Press, New York.
Shirky, C. 2001. Cognitive surplus: creativity and generosity in a connected age.
Penguin Press: New York.
Shneiderman, B. A 2009. National Initiative for Social Participation. Science. 323:
1426–1427.
Shoemaker, D.; Conklin, Wm. 2011. Cybersecurity: e Essential Body Of
Knowledge. Farmington Hills: Cengage Learning.

612
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Shultz, J. et al. 2011. Triple reat Trauma. Evidence-based media health response
for the 2011 Japan disaster. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 26 (3): 141–154.
Sibbet, D. 2010. Visual Meetings: How Graphics, Sticky Notes and Idea Mapping
Can Transform Group Productivity. John Wiley & Sons.
Siemens, G. 2005. Connectivism: A Learning eory for the Digital Age.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1):
3–10.
Silva, C.; Ramos, I. 2011. Crowdsourcing Innovation: A Strategy to Leverage
Enterprise Innovation. Proceedings of 7th ECIE, pp. 624–631.
Silvia, P. J.; Kaufman, J. C.; Pretz, J. E. 2009. Is Creativity Domain-specic? Latent
Class Models of Creative Accomplishments and Creative Self-descriptions.
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3): 139–148.
Silvia, P. J.; Winterstein, B. P.; Willse, J. T. 2008. Rejoinder: e Madness to our
Method: Some oughts on Divergent inking.
Šimašius, R. 2007. Ne pelno organizacijos. Vilnius: Prigimtis ir reglamentavimas.
Simmel, G. 1997. e Metropolis and Mental Life. In Simmel on culture: selected
writings, edited by David Frisby and Mike Featherstone, 174–185. London;
ousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Skaržauskienė A.; Palaima, T. 2010. Systems inking as a Platform for Leadership
Performance in a Complex World. Baltic Journal of Management, 5(3): 330–
355.
Skaržauskienė, A. 2013. Social Technologies for Increasing Entrepreneurship
in Public Administration Organizations. ICIE 2013: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, hosted by
the Hashemite University, in cooperation with the Arab Administrative
Development Organization, Amman, Jordan on the 4-5 March 2013. Academic
Conferences and Publishing International Limited, p. 102–108.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Kalinauskas, M. 2014. Fostering collective creativity through
gamication. e proceedings of the ISPIM Americas Innovation Forum
(October 2014) : Montreal, Canada on 5-8 October 2014.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Paunksnienė, Ž.; Paražinskaitė, G.; Tvaronavičienė, A. 2013.
Risk and Opportunities for Developing Collective Intelligence in Networked
Society. SOCIN 2013: Social Technologies’13. Development of Social Technologies
in the Complex World: Special focus on e-Health: conference papers, p. 137–156.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Pitrėnaitė-Žilienė, B.; Leichteris, E. 2013. Following Traces of
Collective Intelligence in Social Networks: Case of Lithuania. ICICKM 2013:
the proceedings of the 10th international conference on intellectual capital
knowledge management and organisational learning: the George Washington
University, Washington, DC, USA: 24-25 October 2013. Vol. 2 / edited by
Annie Green. Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International
Limited. P. 411-419.

613
◆ References ◆
Skaržauskienė, A.; Štitilis, D.; Mačiulienė, M.; Paražinskaitė, G.; Tvaronavičienė, A.
2014. Online Community Projects in Lithuania: Cyber Security Perspective.
Proceedings of the international conference on Analytics Driven Solutions
ICAS 2014: 29-30 September 2014 / IBM Centre for Business Analytics and
Performance at the Telfer School of Management University of Ottawa Canada.
Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, p. 93–101.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Tamošiūnaitė, R.; Žalėnienė, I. 2013. Dening Social
Technologies. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on IS
Management and Evaluation: ICIME 2013, p. 239. Academic Conferences
Limited.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Tvaronavičienė, A.; Paražinskaitė, G. 2014. Cyber Security
and Civil Engagement: Case of Lithuanian Virtual Community Projects. In
Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Cyber warefare and Security:
ECCWS 2014 (p. 181). Academic Conferences Limited.
Skaržauskienė, A.; Žalėnienė, I. Socialinės technologijos – nauja tarpdisciplininė
vadybos mokslo šaka. Mykolo Romerio universitetas [interactive]. Vilnius,
2014. [accessed 2014-09-14]. <http://www.mruni.eu/mru_lt_dokumentai/
fakultetai/socialiniu_technologiju_fakultetas/soc_technologijos.pdf>.
Skarżyńska, K. 2002. Zaufanie, więzi społeczne i poczucie skuteczności a życie w
demokracji. Kolokwia Psychologiczne, 10: 197–212.
Skarżyńska, K. 2005. Czy jesteśmy prorozwojowi? Wartości i przekonania ludzi a
dobrobyt i demokratyzacja kraju. In: M. Drogosz (ed.), Jak Polacy przegrywają,
jak Polacy wygrywają, 69–92. Gdańsk: GWP.
Small, H.; Kasianovitz, K.; Blanford, R.; Celaya, I. 2012. What Your Tweets Tell Us
About You: Identity, Ownership and Privacy of Twitter Data. International
Journal of Digital Curation, 7(1): 174–197.
Smart Society Project.About [interactive]. 2013 [accessed 2014-10-04]. <http://
www.smart-society-project.eu/about/>.
Smart Society Project.Factsheet [interactive]. 2013 [accessed 2014-10-04]. <http://
www.smart-society-project.eu/about/factsheet/>.
Smilor, R.W. 1987. Commercializing Technology through New Business Incubators.
Research Management, 30(5): 36–41.
Smith, J. B. 1994. Collective Intelligence next Term in Computer-Based Collaboration.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. 2002. Acad Manag Rev., 27: 17–40.
Social Progress Index. 2014. Methodological Report. 2014. e Social Progress
Imperative [interactive]. Washington, 2014 [accessed 2014-08-10]. <http://
www.socialprogressimperative.org/publications>.
Social technology. is page was last modied on 26 February 2013 at 23:29.
Wikipedia the free Encyclopedia [interactive]. [accessed 2013-03-18]. <http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_technology>.

614
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Social-ist.eu. Social-IST | Proceedings – Social-IST nal conference [interactive].
2014 [accessed 2014-10-04]. <http://social-ist.eu/proceedings-social-ist-
nal-conference/>.
Solf, A. Schultheiss, D. Staeudtner S. (2014).e Application of Gamication
Mechanics on Social Media Platforms for Creative Crowdsourcing. 2014 Ase
Bigdata/cocialcom/cybersecurity conference, Stanford University, May 27-31,
2014.
Solomon, R.; Flores, F. 2002. Construa conança. São Paulo: Record.
Spencer, J. 2005. Procter and Gamble’s Innovation Success: New Research, New
Products, New Markets. Strategic Direction, 21(7): 11–13.
Spillane, J. P.; Diamond, J. B. 2007. Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Spohrer, J.; Maglio, P. P. 2010. Service Science: Toward a Smarter Planet.
Introduction to Service Engineering, pp. 3–30. New York: Wiley.
Stacey, R. 2000. e Chaos Frontier. Great Britain: Redwood Press Limited.
Stach, R. 2006. Optymizm. Badania nad optymizmem jako mechanizmem
adaptacyjnym. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ.
Stahl, B.; Eden, G.; Jirotka, M. 2013. Responsible Research and Innovation in
Information and Communication Technology: Identifying and Engaging
with the Ethical Implications of ICTs. Responsible Innovation, 199–218.
Stanišauskas G. 2011. Konstitucinė referendumo butaforija. [accessed 201301-19]
<http://www.valstietis.lt/Pradzia/Naujienos/Lietuvoje/Konstitucine-
referendumo-butaforija>
Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. 2002. Toward a Community-oriented Design of Internet
Platforms. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3): 71–95.
Starbird, K. 2012. What “Crowding” Obscures: Exposing the Dynamics of
Connected Crowd Work during Disaster. Proceedings of the Collective
Intelligence 2012 conference, Cambridge MA.
Stasiukynas, A.; Žuromskaitė, B. 2014. Jaunimo nevyriausybinės organizacijos
LKJBS „Žingsnis“ vertybės – sėkmingos veiklos pagrindas. Mokslo studija:
Veiksmingos vadybos gairės: teorinės įžvalgos ir Lietuvos organizacijų atvejai,
96–119.
Sterman, J. D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a
complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Sternberg, R. J. (ed.) 1988. e nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological
perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. 1985. Beyond IQ: A Triarchic eory of Human Intelligence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J.; Grigorenko, E. L. 2006. Cultural Intelligence and Successful
Intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31(1).

615
◆ References ◆
Stiles, E.; Cui, X. 2010. Workings of Collective Intelligence within Open Source
Communities. Advances in Social Computing, 6007: 282–289.
Štitilis D.; Gutauskas V.; Malinauskaitė, I. 2012. Personal data protection in virtual
social networks: legal environment. Societal Innovations for Global Growth, 1(1).
Štitilis, D. 2013. Kibernetinio saugumo teisinis reguliavimas: kibernetinio
saugumo strategijos. Socialinės technologijos, 3(1): 189–207.
Štitilis, D.; Pakutinskas, P.; Daubaraitė, I.; Laurinaitis, M. 2011. Legal Enivonment
against online identity the: comparative analysis of USA‘s and Lithuanian
legislation. Socialinės technologijos, 1(1): 61–80.
Strelau, J. 1998. Psychologia temperamentu. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Strelau, J. 2006. Temperament jako regulator zachowania. Z perspektywy półwiecza
badań. Gdańsk: Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.
Sugden, R. 1989. Spontaneous order. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 85–97.
Sultan, N. 2013. Knowledge Management in the Age of Cloud Computing and
Web 2.0: Experiencing the Power of Disruptive Innovations. International
Journal of Information Management, 33: 160–165.
Support.google.com, 2014. [interactive] Demographics and Interests Data
Collection and resholds - Analytics Help. [accessed 2014-12-10]. <https://
support.google.com/analytics/answer/2954071?hl=>.
Surowiecki, J. 2004. e Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the
Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and
Nations. New York: Doubleday.
Surowiecki, J. 2005. Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Szu, H.; Chanyagorn, P.; Hwang, W.; Paulin, M.; Yamakawa, T. 2004. Collective and
Distributive Swarm Intelligence: Evolutional Biological Survey.International
Congress Series, 1269: 46–49.
Szuba, T. 2001. A Formal Denition of the Phenomenon of Collective Intelligence
and its IQ Measure. Future Generation Computer Systems, 17: 489–500.
Szuba, T. 2001. Computational Collective Intelligence. New York: Wiley.
Szuba, T. 2002. Universal Formal Model of Collective Intelligence and Its IQ
Measure. Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence, 2296: 303–312.
Tamošiūnaitė, R. 2013. Collective Decisions” Features in Face-to-face and
Networked Decision Making Process. Contemporary Research on Organization
Management and Administration, 1: 49–59.
Tamošiūnaitė, R.; Skaržauskaitė, M. 2012. eoretical Insights for Developing the
Concept of Social technologies. Social Technologies, 2(2): 263–272.
Tapscott, D.; Williams, A.D. 2006. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything. New York: Portfolio.

616
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Taylor, M. et al. 2012. e role of social media as psychological rst aid as a
support to community resilience building. A Facebook study for “Cyclone
Yasi Update”. e Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 27(1): 20–26.
Taylor, M. P. 2012. e Entrepreneurial University in the Twenty-rst Century.
London Review of Education, 10(3), 289–305.
e Economist. Orban the Unstoppable [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-11-
08]. <http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21620246-criticised-abroad-
viktor-orban-going-strength-strength-home-orban-unstoppable>.
e Guardian [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-10-15]. <http://www.theguardian.
com/us-news/the-nsa-les>.
e Review of Development of Information Society. 2013. Information
Society Development Committee under the Ministry of Transport and
Communications. [accessed 2014-04-11] <http://www.ivpk.lt/uploads/
Statistika/2013%20m.%20III%20apzvalga.pdf>
e Review of Development of Information Society. Information Society
Development Committee under the Ministry of Transport and Communications
[interactive]. Vilnius, 2013 [accessed 2013-06-04]. <http://www.ivpk.lt/
uploads/Statistika/2013%20m.%20III%20apzvalga.pdf>.
e World Competitiveness Yearbook 2004. Lausanne: International Institute for
Management Development [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-08-30]. <http://
www02.imd.ch/wcc/pressreleases>.
eiss-Morse, E. 1993. Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political
participation. Political Behaviour, 15: 355–380.
omas, K.; Grier, C.; Paxson, V. 2012. Adapting social Spam Infrastructure for
Political Censorship. Proceedings of the 5th USENIX conference on LEET.
omas, L. 1974. e Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. e Viking Press.
urstone, L. L. 1938. Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Tidikis, R. 2003. Socialinių tyrimų mokslo metodologija. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio
universitetas, p. 474−518.
Tinati, R.; Simperl, E.; Luczak-Roesch. M.; Van Kleek, M.; Shadbolt, N. 2014.
Collective Intelligence in Citizen Science – A Study of Performers and Talkers.
Collective Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Torney-Purta, J.; Barber, C. H.; Richardson, W. K. 2004. Trust in Government-
Related Institutions and Political Engagement among Adolescents in Six
Countries. Acta Politica, 39: 380–406.
Tragårdh, L.; Witoszek, N.; Taylor, B. 2013. Civil Society in the Age of Monitory
Democracy. Berghahn Books.
Travis, J. 2008. Science by the masses. Science, 319(5871): 1750–1752.
Trianni, V.; Tuci, E.; Passino, K. M.; Marshall, J. A. R. 2011. Swarm Cognition:
an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Self-organizing Biological
Collectives. Swarm Intelligence, 5: 3–18.

617
◆ References ◆
Trichkovska C. 2011. Legal and privacy challenges of social networking sites.
[accessed 2013-03-15] <https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/
22928/CvetankaxTrichkovskaxesis.pdf?sequence=1>
Trichkovska, C. 2011. Legal and Privacy Challenges of Social Networking Sites:
Facebook. University of Oslo.
Tsokhas, K. 2001. A Search for Transcendence: Philosophical And Religious
Dialogues In W. K. Hancock’s Biography Of J. C. Smuts. e Round Table,
90(358): 67–88.
Tsoukas, H. 2005. Do We Really Understand Tacit Knowledge? In H. Tsoukas
(Ed.). Complex knowledge: Studies ir organizational epistemiology, 141–161.
New Yourk: Oxford University Press.
Tvaronavičienė, A.; Paražinskaitė, G. 2013. Legal Presumptions of Usage of
Social Technologies for Virtual Communities” Involvement in the Decision
Making Process in Lithuanian Republic Legal System. SOCIN 2013: Social
Technologies’13. Development of Social Technologies in the Complex World:
Special focus on e-Health: conference abstracts: 10-11 October, 2013. Vilnius:
Mykolas Romeris University, p. 56–57.
Tvaronavičienė, A.; Paražinskaitė, G. 2013. Socialinių technologijų naudojimo
virtualių bendruomenių įtraukimui į sprendimų priėmimo procesą teisinės
prielaidos Lietuvos Respublikos teisės sistemoje. SOCIN 2013: Social
Technologies’13. Development of Social Technologies in the Complex World:
Special focus on e-Health: conference papers, p. 104–122.
Twenge, J. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans aremore condent,
assertive, entitled—and more miserable - than everbefore. New York: Free Press.
U.S. Department of Education Oce of Educational Technology, 2011. Resources
and Tools for Evaluation of Online Communities of Practice. [accessed 2014-
12-10]. <http://connectededucators.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/707_
COCP-Evaluation-Brief-July_2011.pdf>.
Unceta and Castro Spila. 2012. Indicators of social Innovation: Conceptualization
and exploratory model. Sinnergiak Social Innovation Centre, University of
Basque Country, Spain.
Urmonas, A. 2007. Socialinių technologijų konceptualių modelių pritaikymo
administracinėje teisėje paieška. Jurisprudencija Mokslo darbai, 6(96): 9–15.
Van Baalen, P.; Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.; van Heck, E. 2005. Knowledge sharing in an
emerging network of practice. European Management Journal, 23(3): 300–14.
van Beuningen, J.; Schmeets, H. 2013. Developing a Social Capital Index for the
Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 113(3): 859–886.
van den End, J. W. 2006. Indicator and Boundaries of Financial Stability. De
Nederlandsche Bank NV. Working Paper 097(2006).
Van der Vegt, G. S.; Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and Performance in
Multidisciplinary Teams: the Importance of Collective Team Identication.
Academy of Management Journal, 48: 532–547.

618
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
van Westrenen, F. 2011. Urbanism Game. In Game Urbanism: Manual for Cultural
Spatial Planning, edited by Hans Venhuizen. Valiz Book and Cultural Projects.
Vanderhaeghen, D.; Fettke, P. 2010. Organizational and Technological Options
for Business Process Management from the Perspective of Web 2.0: Results
of a Design Oriented Research Approach with Particular Consideration of
Self-Organization and Collective Intelligence. Business & Information Systems
Engineering, 2: 15–28.
Vandermerwe, S.; Rada, J. 1988. Servitization of Business: Adding Value by
Adding Services. European Management Journal, 6(4): 314–324.
Vargas, J. A. 2008. Obama Raised Half a Billion Online. e Washington Post, 20.
Vargo, S. L.; Lusch, R. F. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(January): 1–17.
Vargo, S. L.; Maglio, P. P.; Akaka, M. A. 2008. On Value and Value Co-creation:
Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective. European Management
Journal, 26(3): 145–52.
VBA innovation initiative. the White House [interactive]. Washington, 2013
[accessed 2013-06-03]. <www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/vaii>.
Viešasis valdymas. 2010. Ats. Red. V. Smalskys. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universi-
tetas.
Vie weg, S. et al. 2008. Collective Intelligence in Disaster: An Examination of the
Phenomenon in the Aermath of the 2007 Virginia Tech Shooting. Proceedings
of the 5th International ISCRAM Conference, Washington, DC, USA.
Vipartienė D. 2013. Demokratijos sukūrimo svertas – pilietinis aktyvumas ir
bendradarbiavimas. [accessed 2013-01-19] <http:///www.aidas.lt/lt/teise-ir-
teisingumo-vykdymas/article/1789-07-08-demokratijos-sukurimo-svertas-
pilietinis-aktyvumas-ir-bendradarbiavimas>
Visuomenei susipažinti. Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas [interactive]. Vilnius,
2014. [accessed 2014-04-14]. <http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_
r=5931&p_k=1>.
Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H, Moser RP, Hesse B, Steele WR et al. 2006.
Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. J Health Commun.
11(Suppl 1) P. 1–17.
Viswanath, K. 2005. Science and Society: the Communications Revolution and
Cancer Control. Nature Reviews Cancer, 5(10): 828–835.
Vivacqua, A. S. B.; Marcos, R. S. 2010. Collective Intelligence for the Design of
Emerge ncy Response, Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design
(CSCWD). 14th International Conference on, Shanghai, China, pp. 623–628,
14-16 April 2010.
Von Ahn, L.; Maurer, B.; McMillen, C.; Abraham, D.; Blum, M. 2008. Recaptcha:
Human-based Character Recognition via Web Security Measures. Science,
321(5895): 1465–1468.

619
◆ References ◆
Von Bertalany, L. 1968. General System eory: Foundations, Development,
Applications. Brazilier, New York.
Von Hippel, E. 2001. Perspective: User Toolkits for Innovation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 18: 247–257.
Von Hippel, E.; Von Krogh, G. 2003. Open Source Soware and the “Private-
collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science. Organization
Science, 14: 209–223.
Von Hipplel, E. 2001. Open Source Shows the Way: Innovation by and for Users –
No Manufacturer Required! Sloan Management Review, summer.
Von Schomberg, R. 2011. Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the
Information and Communication Technologies and Security Technologies
Fields.Available at SSRN 2436399.
Vorley, T.; Nelles, J. 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the Academy: Institutional
Development of and beyond the ird Mission. Higher Education management
and Policy, 20(3): 119.
Vukovic, M.; Bartolini, C. 2010. Towards a Research Agenda for Enterprise
Crowdsourcing. Leveraging applications of formal methods, verication, and
validation, pp. 425–434. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Waever, O. 1996. European Security Identities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market
Studies, 34(1): 103–132.
Waever, O.; Kelstrup, M. 1993. Europe and its Nations: Political and Cultural
Identities. Identity, migration and the new security agenda in Europe, 62–92.
Waldman, K. Facebook’s Unethical Experiment Manipulated Users’ Emotions.
Slate Magazine [interactive]. 2014 [accessed 2014-10-15]. <http://www.slate.
com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/06/facebook_unethical_
experiment_it_made_news_feeds_happier_or_sadder_to_manipulate.
html>.
Walton, D. N.; Krabbe, E. C. W. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts
of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Waltz, K. 1979. eory of International Politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Wang, E. T. G.; Ying, T. C.; Jiang, J.J.; Klein, G. 2006. Group Cohesion in
Organizational Innovation: an Empirical Examination of ERP Implementation.
Information and Soware Technology, 48: 235–44.
Wang, K. 2014. Collective Innovation: e Known and the Unknown. Collective
Intelligence 2014, MIT Center for Collective intelligence, Boston.
Wasko, M. M.; Faraj, S. 2005. Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and
Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly,
35–37.
Watts, D.; Strogatz, S. 1998. Collective Dynamics of “Small-world” Networks.
Nature, 393: 440–442.

620
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Wechsler, D. 1939. e Measurement of Adult Intelligence. Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins.
Weick, K. E.; Roberts, K. H. 1993. Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful
Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 357–381.
Weiss, A. 2005. e Power of Collective Intelligence. netWorker, 9: 16–23.
Wellman, B. 2003. e Encyclopaedia of Community: From the Village to the
Virtual World. Sage Publications, ousand Oaks, CA.
Wellman, B.; Berkowitz, S. D. 1988. Social structures: a network approach. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Wellman, B.; Hampton, K. 1999. Living Networked on- and Oine. Contemporary
Sociology, 28(6): 648–654.
Wellman, B.; Quan-Haase, A.; Boase, J.; Chen, W.; Hampton, K.; Muyata, K. 2003.
e Social Aordances of the Internet for Networked Individualism. Journal
of Computer Mediated Communication, 8(3).
Wendt, A. 2005. Tarptautinės politikos socialinė teorija. Vilnius: Eugrimas.
We nz l , R . 2 00 6 . Freiwilligenarbeit Im Dritten Sektor - Motive und Determinanten der
Freiwilligenarbeit: Studienarbeit. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Auage 1.
Weschsler, D. 1971. Concept of collective intelligence. American Psychologist, 26:
904–907.
Wessels, W. 1996. Institutions of the EU System: Models of Explanation. e
European Union and Member States, Towards Institutional Fusion, 20–37.
Wexler, M. N. 2011. Reconguring the Sociology of the Crowd: Exploring
Crowdsourcing, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 31(1): 6–20.
Wigley, M. 2001. Network Fever. Grey Room, (04): 82–122.
Wignaraja, G.; Lezama, M.; Joiner, D. 2004. Small States in Transition: From
Vulnerability to Competitiveness. United Kingdom: Commonwealth
Secretariat.
Wikipedia [interactive]. 2010 [accessed 2010-05-20]. < http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Main_Page>.
Williams, R.; Williams, G.; Burton D. 2012. e Use of Social Media in Disaster
Recovery. University of Missouri. [accessed 2014-11-25] <http://extension.
missouri.edu/greene/documents/PlansReports/using%20social%20
media%20in%20disasters.pdf>.
Williams, W.; Sternberg, R. 1988. Group Intelligence: Why Some Groups are
Better than Others. Intelligence, 12(4): 351–377.
Willke, H. 2007.Smart Governance. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Wimmer, R. 2006. Mass Media Research: An Introduction (9ed). California:
omson Wadsworth.
Wise, S.; Paton, R. A.; Gegenhuber, T. 2012. Value Co-creation through Collective
Intelligence in the Public Sector: A Review of US and European Initiatives.
Vine, 42(2), 251–276.

621
◆ References ◆
Wise, S.; Valliere, D.; Miric, M. 2010. Testing the Eectiveness of Semi-predictive
Markets: are Fight Fans Smarter than Expert Bookies? Procedia: Social and
Behavioural Sciences, 2(4): 6497–6502.
Witesman, E. M.; Fernandez, S. 2013. [interactive] Nonprot and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly. [accessed 2014-09-15]. <http://nvs.sagepub.com.skaitykla.
mruni.eu/content/42/4/689.full.pdf+html>.
Witt, M.; Scheiner, C.; Robra-Bissantz, S. 2011. Gamication of Online Idea
Competitions: Insights from anExplorative Case. Informatik 2011 - Informatik
scha Communities 41. Jahrestagung der Gesellscha für Informatik, Berlin.
Wolfers, J; Zitzewitz, E. 2004. Prediction Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
18(2): 107–126.
Woodley M. A.; Bell, E. 2011. Is Collective Intelligence (mostly) the General
Factor of Personality? A Comment on Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi
and Malone (2010). Intelligence, 39: 79–81.
Woolley, A. W.; Chabris, C. F.; Pentland, A.; Hashmi, N.; Malone, T. W. 2010.
Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human
Groups. Science, 330(6004): 686–688.
Wu, F.; Wilkinson, D. M.; Huberman, B. A. 2009. Feedback Loops of Attention
in Peer Production. Computational Science and Engineering, 2009. CSE’09.
International Conference on. 4: 409–415. IEEE.
Yee, N. 2006. Motivations for Play in Online Games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior:
the Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and
Society, 9(6):772–775.
Yu, L. L.; Nickerson, J. V.; Sakamoto, Y. 2012. Collective Creativity: Where we are
and where we might go. In Proceedings of Collective Intelligence.
Yuizono, T.; Xing, Q.; Furukawa, H. 2014. Eects of Gamication on Electronic
Brainstorming Systems Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing.
Communications in Computer and Information Science, 460: 54–56.
Zack, M. H.; McKenney, J. L. 1995. Social Context and Interaction in Ongoing
Computer-supported Management Groups, Organization Science, 6(4): 394–
422.
Zalewska, A.; Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B. 2011.Psychologiczne portrety młodych
obywatelied., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SWPS Academica.
Žalimienė, L.; Rimšaitė, E. 2007. Nevyriausybinių organizacijų metamorfozės –
nuo labdaringos pagalbos vargšams XVIII amžiuje iki socialinių paslaugų
rinkos dalyvio šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje. Socialinis darbas, 6(1): 83–95.
Zawadzki, B.; Strelau, J. 1997. Formalna Charakterystyka Zachowania – Kwestio-
nariusz Temperamentu (FCZ-KT). Podręcznik. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów
Psychologicznych PTP.
Zettsu, K.; Kiyoki, Y. 2006. Towards Knowledge Management Based on Harnessing
Collective Intelligence on the Web. Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence,
4248: 350–357.

622
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE ◆ Monograph
Zhong, N.; Liu, J. M.; Yao, Y. Y. 2003. Web Intelligence. Berlin: Springer.
Zhou, A. Z.; Fink, D. 2003. Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital:
an Empirical Examination of Current Practice in Australia. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 1(2): 86–94.
Zhou, C. 2008. Emergence of the Entrepreneurial University in Evolution of
the Triple Helix: e Case of Northeastern University in China. Journal of
Technology Management in China, 3: 109–126.
Zhu, H.; Zhang, A.; He, J.; Kraut, R. E.; Kittur, A. 2013. Eects of Peer Feedback
on Contribution: a Field Experiment in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2253–2262. ACM.
Zhu, R.; Dholakia, U. M.; Chen, X.; Algesheimer, R. 2012. Does Online Community
Participation Foster Risky Financial Behavior? Journal of Marketing Research,
49(3): 394–407.
Zichermann, G.; Cunningham, C. 2011. Gamication by Design: Implementing
Game Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps. O’Reilly Series. O’Reilly Media.
Žiliukaite, R.; Ramonaite, A.; Nevinskaite, L.; Beresneviciute, V.; Vinogradnaite, I.
2006. Neatrasta galia: Lietuvos pilietines visuomenes žemėlapis (Undiscovered
Power: Map of the Civil Society in Lithuania).
Žiliūkaitė, R.; Ramonaitė, A.; Nevinskaitė, L.; Beresnevičiūtė, V.; Vinogradnaitė, I.
2006. Neatrasta galia: Lietuvos pilietinės visuomenės žemėlapis. Vilnius: Versus
aureus.
Zittrain, J.; Palfrey, J. 2008. Internet Filtering: e Politics and Mechanisms of
Control. Access denied: e Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering,
29–57.
Zmerli, S.; Newton, K. 2008. Social Trust and Attitudes toward Democracy.Public
Opinion Quarterly, 72(4): 706–724.
Zott, C.; Amit, R.; Massa, L. 2011. e Business Model: Recent Developments and
Future Research, Journal of Management, 37: 1019–1042.
Zupan, N.; Kaše, R. 2007. e Role of HR Actors in Knowledge Networks.
International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4): 243–259.

Editor in Chief Aelita Skaržauskienė
Jacqui Ewart, Beata Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, Edgaras Leichteris, Algimantas Mačiulis,
Hamish McLean, Algis Mickūnas, Birutė Mikulskienė, Gintarė Paražinskaitė,
Žaneta Paunksnienė, Birutė Pitrėnaitė-Žilėnienė, Rasa Rotomskienė, Andrius Stasiukynas,
Anna Zalewska, Inga Žalėnienė, Michiel de Lange, Benas Brunalas, Laura Gudelytė,
Marius Kalinauskas, Monika Mačiulienė, Olga Navickienė, Viktorija Stokaitė,
Rūta Tamošiūnaitė, Agnė Tvaronavičienė, Taurimas Valys
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND
COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Monograph
Layout Daiva Šepetauskaitė
SL 585. 02 04 2015.
Number of copies published 100 egz. Order 25 278
Mykolas Romeris University
20 Ateities str., Vilnius
Website: www.mruni.eu
E-mail: leidyba@mruni.eu
Prepared for release by JSC “Baltijos kopija”
13B Kareivių str., Vilnius, Lithuania
Website: www.kopija.lt
E-mail: info@kopija.lt
Printed by JSC “Vitae Litera”
Savanorių av. 137, Kaunas, Lithuania
Website: www.bpg.lt
E-mail: info@bpg.lt
Ewart J., Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz B., Leichteris E., Mačiulis A., McLean H.,
Mickūnas A., Mikulskienė B., Paražinskaitė G., Paunksnienė Ž., Pitrėnaitė-
Žilėnienė B., Rotomskienė R., Skaržauskienė A., Stasiukynas A., Zalewska A.,
Žalėnienė I., Lange M., Benas B., Gudelytė L., Kalinauskas M., Mačiulienė M.,
Navickienė O., Stokaitė V., Tamošiūnaitė R., Tvaronavičienė A., Valys T.
SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE. Mono-
graph– Vilnius: Mykolas Romeris University, 2015. 628 p.
Bibliogr. 570–623 p.
ISBN 978-9955-19-708-9 (print)
ISBN 978-9955-19-707-2 (onl