In a recent Library Journal article on 'Community Publishing' Jill O'Neil, director of planning and communications for the National Federation of Advanced Information Services and Ben Vershbow, editorial director of the Institute for the Future of the Book, discuss the changing role of authorship, technology and success in 'Community Publishing'.

While acknowledging Wikipedia as an obvious success, they point out other emerging attempts such as Elsevier's Scirus, Nature Publishing Group's Nature Network and the Urban Dictionary. Which focus on organization, access and discussion as value-add services.

Jill's hunch is that, "economic leverage will eventually be found in the contexts surrounding texts, not in the texts themselves. Access to a high-quality discussion or supplementary, para-textual material, or quality filtering, or social services and infrastructures around texts".

Ben cautions publishers that it's not the technology that makes Wikipedia a success. He states that, "Wikipedia is a success in spite of its technology. The technology basically sucks".

He believes it's the complex social protocols, governance structures, use guidelines, role definitions, an inspiring mission and general usefulness—i.e. all the people stuff—that make it flourish.

So for publishers looking to implement a social-based digital product, they are advised to consider these first:

1. What can this tool or technology be used for?
2. Who, within the community being served, needs or uses this tool?
3. How does this tool or this content format fit into the workflow of the community? and finally
4. What are the costs and considerations of implementation?