Skip to main content

Museums and the Web

An annual conference exploring the social, cultural, design, technological, economic, and organizational issues of culture, science and heritage on-line.

PhilaPlace to AnyPlace: Building a Reusable Community Platform for Mapping and Sharing History

Matthew Fisher and Stacey Mann, Night Kitchen Interactive; Kim Sajet, Historical Society of Pennsylvania; and Minda Borun, Museum Solutions, USA


Recent advances in open-source technologies, advances in GIS mapping, and increased access to archival and community-curated content hold great potential for situating and visualizing the history of place in innovative ways. The 2010 launch of PhilaPlace, a collaborative and interactive community-oriented Web site, integrated two such open source solutions: Google Maps and Collective Access collections management system. Connecting stories to places across time throughout Philadelphia neighborhoods, PhilaPlace  supports a rich feature set that facilitates an interpretive mosaic of historical records as well as stories, photos, and video shared by ordinary people of all backgrounds to create an enduring record of collective heritage. Herein we explore how the open-source solutions and institutional partnerships for PhilaPlace might inform an AnyPlace approach to mapping and interpreting place-based historical narratives for communities and historical sites, with an eye towards issues of sustainability, institutional capacity, and the changing pace of technological innovation.

Keywords: place-based storytelling, GIS mapping, collective memory, crowdsourcing, open-source, iterative design

1.   Introduction

Just as personal and collective memories imbue artifacts with significance, so also is it with place. From urban neighborhoods to rural communities to sites of historical import, the places we inhabit represent dynamic microcosms of the American experience: sites of exchange and industry, communion and cohesion, conflict and change. They also represent powerful places of nostalgia and identity. But how best to capture the stories, reflections, and insights of those community members who represent living history? A technology-based collaboration among The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP), The Philadelphia Department of Records (PDR), the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design, and Night Kitchen Interactive sought to explore this role of place as a repository of memory and change through the pairing of open-source tools and community curation. Realized as a place-based story-sharing platform utilizing the open source tools Collective Access (for interpretative information and media) and Google Maps API, PhilaPlace addresses challenges within the public history sphere: specifically, the development of innovative ways to present interpretive historical content, and the need to incorporate community input and negotiate meaning between myriad stakeholders. The success of these efforts has since prompted HSP and Night Kitchen Interactive to begin exploring how PhilaPlace might be extended not only to support a diverse group of local cultural heritage organizations, but also to provide a standardized version of this platform, aka AnyPlace, which might be utilized elsewhere.

The central interpretive idea underlying PhilaPlace, and the iterative AnyPlace, is that place is an important touchstone for memory, history, and culture, and that by exploring the memories and records of place, we educate the public about the past to promote and protect neighborhood spaces, sites, and stories that hold meaning in the present. Moreover, this interpretive model provides rich opportunities for members of the community to participate in the capturing of meaningful historical narratives associated with those places featured within the site.

So, what might this mean for current public history projects within the museum and cultural heritage sector? In addition to supporting their core missions of public education and engagement, this design approach draws on contemporary scholarship in learning design, digital archives, and Web-based technologies, to leverage the latest innovations and facilitate new connections between time, geography, and the public. Unlike other media outlets, the Internet (and by extension, Web-based interpretive tools) allow for holistic integration of personal and public media. The use of “reciprocal technology” (Underberg, 2006) affords a collaborative approach where content providers and individual community participants forge relationships strengthened by give and take. Additionally, the democratizing potential of interactive digital media (Cohen and Rosenzweig, 2006) holds great potential for transforming historical and cultural practice. By de-centralizing the text (Landlow, 1997), decisions about content and presentation are shared between the institution and the community partners, distributing authority among myriad participants and enriching the collective historical narrative.

Herein we review the program goals and technological platforms that informed the development of PhilaPlace, discuss existing challenges to its viability as a self-sustaining and reproducible product, and explore opportunities for expanding the iterative AnyPlace model.

2.   PhilaPlace

Designing for partnership and participation

Originally conceived as a collaborative neighborhood history and culture project, PhilaPlace created resources to illuminate the history and culture of Philadelphia’s unique neighborhoods.

Fig 1: The Homepage for the PhilaPlace Web site ( Fig 1: The Homepage for the PhilaPlace Web site (

Key goals for the project included:

  1. capturing the rich multiethnic diversity and perspectives of Philadelphia neighborhoods over space and through time,
  2. linking disparate historical resources and content in a central map-based presentation, and
  3. creating a model for online interaction between ‘experts’ (historical authorities) and ‘amateurs’ (neighborhood residents), augmenting the city’s historical record with residents’ own memories.

The resulting platform provided an avenue for ethnographic storytelling and robust interactivity to facilitate understanding of the relevance of history to the present, and to encourage meaningful participation through easy-to-use Web-based tools. Drawing on oral histories, photographs, residents’ memories, historical documents, and images of contemporary life, the PhilaPlace site offers a vivid portrait of how Philadelphia neighborhoods have changed over time.

Equally as important as the role of community participation was the collaborative partnership of local organizations with complementary strengths of historical and cultural knowledge, rigorous scholarship, and technical expertise. As project lead, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP) brought a rich collection of archival photographs and documents that span three centuries of Philadelphia history, documenting industry and business, civic life, as well as ethnic and immigrant experience. Similarly, the Philadelphia Department of Records (PDR) was able to provide population data, maps, and an unparalleled collection of photographic evidence of neighborhood life. Additional partners, including the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Design and Night Kitchen Interactive, contributed technical expertise related to geographic information systems (GIS), cartographic modeling, and open-source Web solutions.

Overall, the project eased access to collections normally inaccessible to all but a handful of researchers and curators; and by sharing their stories, local residents continue to help construct a collaborative image of Philadelphia’s past. By connecting extensive HSP and PDR archives to the contributions of local citizens, PhilaPlace leverages the combined resources of the partners and local communities to deliver a Web-based exploration of identity, place, and experience that is far richer than any one partner could offer alone. Moreover, continued grass-roots community involvement is facilitated by the inclusion of neighborhood associations and local community scholars on an advisory committee, contributing content, resources, and ideas to the project.

Technological solution

The technological underpinnings of PhilaPlace seek to marry innovations in content management and information sharing with developments in Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) - adopting a flexible, responsive, hybrid approach that brings the historical record into dialogue with local knowledge, memory, and culture. The project’s design solution can be broken down into three primary aspects: Collective Access, an open-source collections management system (CMS); Google Maps API, an open-source mapping function with base map tiles; and a custom PHP ‘middleware’ that integrates these features and serves them to the client browser.

Fig 2: Using the PhilaPlace map feature visitors can jump to neighborhoods, filter story pins by topic and take thematic tours ( 2: Using the PhilaPlace map feature visitors can jump to neighborhoods, filter story pins by topic and take thematic tours (

Collective Access  represents a mature open-source platform with a wide user base, including art museums, film archives, and historic sites. It is supported and maintained by its creator, Whirl-i-gig, who customized the installation for PhilaPlace to support myriad metadata with a few features not included in the base install, such as enhanced use of sets to better support a neighborhood tour feature. The strengths of Collective Access - and hence the reason for its selection as part of the PhilaPlace design solution - include strong support for many media types (particularly video), a flexible metadata model, and reliability. In addition, the choice reflected the fact that Collective Access is a truly free and open source platform (though support contracts are available for organizations that might want them).

Google Maps API  needs little explanation, beyond that it not only provides the accurate and speedy delivery of map tiles, but also can be used with any properly tiled map. In the case of PhilaPlace, the project integrated four historic map layers into the same map interface, allowing visitors to compare the evolution of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods, streets and blocks over a 100-plus-year timeframe. These additional map layers were tiled and served up through a third-party historical organization, the Greater Philadelphia GeoHistory Network (managed and operated by the Athenaeum of Philadelphia) which partnered with HSP on the project.

Fig 3: Visitors may view stories listed by topic, sorted by most viewed, author and title ( 3: Visitors may view stories listed by topic, sorted by most viewed, author and title (

The Custom PHP ‘middleware’ - also referred to as the PhilaPlace Web site - consists of a robust series of server-side scripts that manage the tasks of mapping interpretative metadata and media from the CMS on to the map layers. These scripts allow visitors to navigate, browse, and filter interpretative pins marking ‘places’ directly on the Map view (Figure 2). Visitors can explore these pins and access summary view pop-ups available à la carte or via sequential groupings (called Tours). Additionally, the site displays comprehensive detail pages for stories associated with each place. Each story page includes an interpretative narrative, images and videos, references, annotations, related images, keywords, and more. These data records serve as the primary building blocks for the site. In addition to appearing within the map, they are viewable via the Topic view - a filterable, sortable listing of all stories on the site (Figure 3). Alternately, the site also provides a Collection view (Figure 4), in which all media records (images, audio and video) can be browsed, filtered and sorted, with each media object having its own detail page with caption, credits, and keywords. In sum, these three ‘views’ support a unique curatorial opportunity to create multiple interpretive paths to the same content, thereby encouraging exploration according to personal user preferences.

Fig 4: Faceted collections allow for browsing of photographs, videos and audio ( 4: Faceted collections allow for browsing of photographs, videos and audio (

Beyond the core features identified above, the PhilaPlace Web site provides visitors with the option to save places and to submit their own stories. The MyPhilaPlace feature (Figure 5) enables visitors to save ‘places’ for later retrieval or to send up to 20 saved places to Google Maps, where they can access and print comprehensive directions (driving or walking). The Add a Story feature encourages visitors to submit their own story (including associated media) for moderation and publication on the site. This multi-step submission form completes a record that is saved to Collective Access in a ‘for moderation’ queue, where it is retrieved by HSP employees, reviewed for adherence to their guidelines, categorized by topic, and published to the site.

Fig 5: Visitors save favorite places and send locations to Google maps for directions ( 5: Visitors save favorite places and send locations to Google maps for directions (

As of the time of this publication, all the above features have been included in the preliminary AnyPlace prototype ( ) being developed as part of HSP and Night Kitchen Interactive’s iterative design work. An additional PhilaPlace feature set, associated with the display of historical demographic GIS data reflecting the evolution of these neighborhoods over time, was also managed through PHP middleware, but was specific to this project and therefore not addressed in this paper or integrated into the prototype. This does not preclude, however, the exploration of additional data-layering features in subsequent design iterations of the AnyPlace platform.

Lessons learned

Recent popular works have extolled the virtues of online communities and the potential power of crowdsourcing as means of creating greater value for not only individual participants but also those organizations which successfully engage this community swell (Li & Bernoff, 2008; Shirky, 2008). This trend is reflected in the seemingly urgent integration of online digital tools (Facebook, Twitter, et al.) into the Web communications of organizations across the business and non-profit spectrum. At the same time, debate continues to surround the notion of “shared authority” (Frisch, 1990), with many educational entities (museums, historical sites, cultural institutions) wary of ceding their authoritarian voice to the untrained interpretation of the layperson.

There are well-founded arguments on both sides, and overall HSP and its partners attempted to bridge those two spaces with the implementation of PhilaPlace. The crowdsourcing component of the PhilaPlace project was significant, but not because it was a primary aspect of the project or because it was wildly popular. Neither is the case. An early review of visitor participation on other community history sites (e.g. New York City’s City Lore ) informed realistic expectations about how much user-contributed content might be expected. Few online visitors consider themselves expert enough to contribute to a historically rigorous project, and in truth a certain amount of courage is required to publish personal memories to a public forum such as this. Nevertheless, the ‘Add a Story’ component was significant because it opened doors to an interpretative process typically closed at a venerated historical society, and allowed the public to join in that process.

Also at issue are the resourcing requirements associated with the successful promoting and moderating of community-generated content: they can be significant. The grassroots involvement is only as good as the organizational effort invested in both outreach and maintenance. In short, although PhilaPlace  is an online project, there was significant investment behind-the-scenes in relationship-building - a community advisory board, partner organizations, personal relationships between staff and community members - the development of which takes time and involves a fair amount of trust. Visitors need to know that their contributions are valued, to benefit from having this behavior modeled in accessible ways, and to feel a sense of shared stake, or ownership, in the project outcomes.

For those users who visited PhilaPlace to browse and/or create content, the overall reaction to the site and its features was overwhelmingly positive (Borun, 2010). As part of the original product design, an embedded online questionnaire was integrated into the launch to facilitate HSP’s collection of user feedback regarding the overall site and mapping components. The survey provided a free-response opportunity for the user, as well as closed-ended questions; responses were harvested using a Web-based tool (e.g. Survey Monkey). Results indicate a successful and well-constructed Web site that is highly valued by its users. Visitors to PhilaPlace gave the site extremely high ratings on a 5-point scale, with averages ranging from 4.47 - 4.88. Users found the information on the site interesting and easy to understand, with map views most frequently cited as favorite pages. When asked what they liked best about PhilaPlace, people commented on the content, the use of technology, and the design. When asked what they would like to change, many people asked for “more” (e.g. more neighborhoods, content, stories, pictures); this is as sure a sign that the site is enjoyed as it is an appeal to keep the site evergreen. Almost all respondents plan to visit the Web site again.

In addition to the formal evaluation, Google Analytics provides useful data reflecting the continued popularity of the site. Beyond the initial spike the month after launch, site visitation has remained consistently in the range of approximately 4,000 visits a month.

Gratified by these evaluation results, we remain fully aware of the hurdles associated with leveraging this type of online tool for greater community engagement. Current efforts to think through a conversion to AnyPlace most certainly require that staffing requirements be taken into consideration in the defining of sustainable models. While the staffing requirements for managing the site and moderating visitor-contributed content are modest, consideration must be given to the significant resources required to create authoritative content both for launch, and for ongoing use. In addition, marketing and continued outreach efforts around garnering new visitor-authored content are vitally important factors of the equation.

In the case of PhilaPlace, original project funding covered a pilot launch that sought to extensively cover two neighborhoods whose rich history was steadily being threatened by urban redevelopment. Subsequent recession-related funding and staffing cuts led HSP to begin exploring alternate models for communal content creation, with an emphasis on distributing ownership and responsibility for PhilaPlace ’s growth among members of a consortium of like-minded organizations. Managed through an active oversight board, with member organizations driving decisions regarding which neighborhoods and themes to focus on next and in what way, Phase II of PhilaPlace necessitates revisiting the associated hosting and custodial needs. These developments inform the models for implementation of the AnyPlace platform by other individual organizations, or collaborations, as detailed below.

3.   AnyPlace

A modular approach to place-based history

As with any iterative design process, there exist many challenges to a successful transition from one context to another. In this case, re-envisioning PhilaPlace as AnyPlace required rethinking the design requirements to allow for broader application across organizations and locales. In the end, the objective of AnyPlace remains: to provide a flexible, affordable platform for appropriate historical and cultural institutions to share place-based interpretive projects online. The envisioned AnyPlace design solution remains true to those underpinnings developed for PhilaPlace and consists of an installed Web site software solution (similar to Wordpress or Drupal) rather than a Web Service (like GoogleDocs or Flickr), and as such it must be hosted on a Web server. The proposed platform allows organizations to build on the existing platform and codebase to create interpretive Web sites, using their own brand and visual aesthetic, and engaging visitors in exploration of their places, topics, curation, and media. Each organization’s instance of AnyPlace would provide its visitors with a rich online tool for browsing place-based stories, images and videos on a map, by topic, or as collections. Visitors could filter content geographically and thematically, take virtual tours, save favorite places, print Google directions and submit their own stories and media for consideration.

Fig 6: The AnyPlace prototype ( provides the core functionality of PhilaPlace to any organization, anywhereFig 6: The AnyPlace prototype ( provides the core functionality of PhilaPlace to any organization, anywhere

Additionally, the process entailed an assessment of the needs and constraints of potential partner organizations, bearing in mind the issues of sustainability, institutional capacity, and the changing pace of technological innovation. To facilitate adoption by other organizations, be they museums or heritage sites, urban or rural, domestic or international, any proposed solution needs to support culturally-specific content and diverse audiences. Limited resources, both staff and financing, would likely impact institutional ability to manage the content and associated platform (data entry, research and curation, technical support). Furthermore, the need for customization and ‘ownership’ would certainly vary from institution to institution.

To that end, three viable scenarios for AnyPlace  have been identified and are currently being explored:

  1. an Individual  (self-hosted) model,
  2. a Communal  (parent-hosted) model, and
  3. a Subscription  (Web-service) model

The Individual model would be downloaded and installed on the user organization’s server, allowing full customization, but carrying the responsibility for all staffing and technical resources. Alternately, the Communal and Subscription models would require one lead or ‘parent’ organization, a consortium of partner organizations or ‘members’, shared staffing resources, and flexible funding options (fee-based or grant-supported). Each model presents its own unique benefits, challenges, and varying degrees of flexibility and personalization, depending on the individual needs of the organization.

Model 1: individual (self-hosted)

Fig 7: The individual, self-hosted model is a good fit for organizations with more resources and custom requirementsFig 7: The individual, self-hosted model is a good fit for organizations with more resources and custom requirements

The Individual (self-hosted) model would be a software package that could be downloaded from the Internet and installed on the organization’s Web server. As part of this model, the organization would also install Collective Access and utilize an AnyPlace installation profile. This profile would create the database schema and metadata model for the catalog, essentially customizing their version of Collective Access to provide the correct data fields for AnyPlace (such as stories, places, and geolocator info). From here, the organization would be able to customize, or ‘theme’, the interface, adding a top banner and customizing the CSS.

As currently envisioned, this model would be low-cost and easily customizable, with associated costs covered by a one-time single-host licensing fee. Unlike commercial software licensing structures, where the codebase is typically locked and upgrades and maintenance are provided by the seller on a fee basis, this one-time cost is paid to HSP in exchange for sharing of the codebase. Purchasers would have autonomy and responsibility to manage and maintain the software themselves. Any organization opting for this model would also have the possibility of integrating their AnyPlace install with other databases on their organization’s Web site, and creating new features, such as a mobile version. This model, however, would require dedicated internal or third-party resources with technical expertise in order to install and configure the software, create graphics, and manage content. These requirements might pose challenges for smaller non-profit organizations with limited internal resources.

Given this limitation, we foresee this model as a better fit for larger organizations, for which customization is a priority and which have ample internal resources or the ability to hire outside vendors. Exemplified by the current PhilaPlace project, this solution would work well for large urban or regional organizations with unique place-based content that could benefit from a customizable platform. Ongoing work with prospective partners continues to inform the development of the self-hosted model.

Model 2: communal (parent-hosted)

Fig 8: The communal, parent-hosted model is a good fit for groups of smaller organizations in the same region, sharing resources and featuresFig 8: The communal, parent-hosted model is a good fit for groups of smaller organizations in the same region, sharing resources and features

The Communal model consists of a group of organizations coming together with one parent organization acting as custodian of the site. The parent organization would install a self-hosted Web site, similar to the Individual model above, but would share the platform with multiple organizations. The custodial organization, or parent entity, would provide Web-based access to the Collective Access database, with varying permissions ensuring data integrity and security for all members. It would host multiple instances of the AnyPlace Web site, each configured and branded for the respective member organizations. The parent organization would also offer a consolidated staffing resource for technical support, data entry, and training, as well as the possibility for assistance with research and content.

In its current state, this model would likely follow a phased approach. Phase I would establish a local consortium of organizations to agree on the feature set of AnyPlace 1.0, including layout and configuration. The parent organization installs a self-hosted Web site but shares content authoring access with the consortium. Each member organization selects a unique, branded face or theme for its place-based project Web site, and its Web site displays its unique interpretative stories and data. To visitors to the member sites, the experience is seamless, much the same as if they were visiting the Web site of an organization using the Individual model. On the front end, beyond each site’s unique look and feel, all features, themes and functions are shared across all members. However, on the back end, all member data is maintained in a single database, accompanied by a web-based admin tool to allow members to easily manage their own content. In this model, member organizations rely on the parent organization for hosting and technical support services at a minimum, with optional services including data importing, data entry, and content creation.

With respect to funding, there are two likely options:

  1. All organizations could contribute an initial investment to support the project, either financial support or resources; or,
  2. the project could be funded by a single entity or grant.

If grant-funded, the parent organization could seek the grant independently, or the consortium could pursue a consolidated grant application, though logistics and grant-use limitations might make this approach challenging.

One clear advantage to the Communal model is that shared resources could be pooled to optimize and extend the platform for all members. For example, in preparation for upgrading the platform to AnyPlace 2.0, the consortium could conduct a summative evaluation, identify possible improvements to the feature set, such as the addition of a mobile version, and share in the costs of the upgrade. It is feasible that upgrades made to such a shared platform could be licensed to other Individual or Communal users, potentially allowing the upgrader(s) to recoup costs.

Other advantages of the communal model are that it does not require as many internal resources as the Individual solution, but still allows for the key customizations of brand and identity for each member. The parent entity provides project support, and the organizations can ‘theme’ their interface.

We recognize, however, the challenges associated with funding for this model: to be feasible, it would require all members to secure funding in a shared timeframe. This funding method, although minimized through cost-sharing, could remain a potential barrier to participation for smaller organizations, or those that remain cash-strapped in the current economic climate.

Within the initial phase, this model is best utilized by a group of smaller, likeminded organizations within one geographic location, such as a group of regional historic or cultural sites, with one organization providing leadership. Currently this model is being explored by HSP to support a wide range of Philadelphia-region cultural and historical organizations. As above, this ongoing collaboration continues to inform the final design and development of this model and the variation described below. Assuming interest, we anticipate further refining of design requirements towards the creation of an affordable and easily reproducible place-based historical interpretation tool.

Model 3: subscription (Web service)

Conceived as a simplified version of the hosted Web site and database solution, this variation could easily serve as a feature or extension of the Individual or Communal models described above. In this version, a hosted Collective Access database serves as the repository for place-based story collections, and the host organization makes available a RESTful API ( ) to allow content data to be shared on other organizations’ Web sites. These Web services allow each organization with content stored in Collective Access to control the permissions levels for their content, ensuring it is shared according to their requirements.

This model would work well for organizations in a single geographic area, as they could share content about the same communities and places. Of all three models, this version supports the least amount of customization and provides the least flexibility. This approach would be optimal for organizations with map-based projects interested in accessing and displaying content from another cultural heritage resource in their area. It is also suitable for organizations with regional interest in cultural storytelling, such as local newspapers and media providers, regardless of their use of the mapping features. For example, HSP is exploring this approach with partners in the Philadelphia area interested in publishing content from PhilaPlace on their respective Web sites. Regardless of the subscriber organization, this model is dependent on a Parent or Individual organization hosting the instance of Collective Access, contributing content, and managing permissions for subscribers to access that content.

4.   Conclusion

From the start, PhilaPlace sought to be neither a strictly heritage visitor site nor a comprehensive atlas, but rather to use densely layered community-generated case studies and archival records to illustrate relationships over time, and encourage interaction and dialogue with the material on the part of users. In expanding the vision to AnyPlace, user feedback and an expanded design review supported the idea that this approach could serve as a viable model for broader application. Further discussion of the needs of varied organizations led to development of different models to address institutions’ diverse needs and resources, with the objective remaining the intentional leveraging of open-source digital tools to allow historical and cultural institutions to share place-based interpretive projects online through a flexible and affordable platform. In the end, the successful pairing of a collections management system with Google API allows place-based interpretation to occur almost anywhere (anywhere on Google maps, that is) and provides a standardized, user friendly means for visitors to explore and interpret these places. Broader application beyond history museums and heritage sites is limited only by the imagination.

5.   Acknowledgements

We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge the diligent work of Joan Saverino in the conception and development of HSP’s PhilaPlace project. She in turn was supported by Melissa Mandell, Dwight Swanson, the PhilaPlace Advisory Board, the staff of partner organizations, and countless volunteers and interns. For information please see the credits on the PhilaPlace site ( Additionally, we must recognize the expert contributions of University of Pennsylvania’s Professor Amy Hillier and Joan Decker, Commissioner, City of Philadelphia Records Department, throughout the development process. We would also like to acknowledge Emogene Schilling’s invaluable assistance in organizing, researching, and drafting this paper.

7.   References

Borun, M. (2010). PhilaPlace Summative Evaluation. Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania Philadelphia.

Cohen, D. J., & R. Rosenzweig (2006). Digital History: A Guide to Gathering, Preserving, and Presenting the Past on the Web. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Frisch, M. H. (1990). A shared authority: Essays on the craft and meaning of oral and public history. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania (2006). Quality of Project and Project Planning. Philadelphia: Author.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania (2007). Philaplace: A Neighborhood History and Culture Project. Philadelphia: Author.

Historical Society of Pennsylvania (2009, December). Annual Report for PK-50023-07: PhilaPlace Project. Philadelphia: Author.

Landow, G. P. (1997). Hypertext 2.0: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Li, C. and J. Bernoff (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Representational State Transfer. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Last updated Monday, 31-Jan-2011. Retrieved Monday, 31-Jan-2011. Available

Salomon, G., & A. Tamar (1998). “Educational Psychology and Technology: A Matter of Reciprocal Relations”. Teachers College Record v100 n2, 222-41.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin Group.

Underberg, N. (2006). “Virtual and Reciprocal Ethnography on the Internet: The East Mims Oral History Project Web site”. Journal of American Folklore Summer, 119:473.

Cite as:

Fisher, M. et al., PhilaPlace to AnyPlace:Building a Reusable Community Platform for Mapping and Sharing History. In J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds). Museums and the Web 2011: Proceedings. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics. Published March 31, 2011. Consulted