You are hereBlogs / chris's blog / Th-th-th-that's all, folks-onomies!
Th-th-th-that's all, folks-onomies!
First off, I found the that the
readings this week filled my head with all sorts of different thoughts on what
folksonomies are and their usefulness, and some big words were thrown in for
good measure (Kroski talks about ‘ontology’ and I nearly fell out of my chair).
So, after reading the articles and looking elsewhere for some definitions, I
have come up with my own definition for what ‘folksonomy’ means (with thanks to
Kroski and Funk and Wagnalls):
Folksonomy (folks-on-o-me): 1. The sum of the words ‘folks’
+ ‘taxonomy’ = folksonomy; 2. A non-hierarchical specification of a
conceptualization that is created as a result of user-added data-about-data, or
tagging; 3. What a concept!
Seriously,
though, building upon what we discussed last week in tagging, it seems as if
folksonomies are becoming a rapidly-accepted form of descriptors that are being
employed in any number of places. The key, though, is to ensure that the tags
being created by users are actually relevant to the item/material being
described. I found that the tags in the Ann Arbor catalogue for the Harry
Potter record were somewhat pointless (especially the ‘21july2007’ tag – what else
could this descriptor possibly be used for in a library catalogue) and I fear
that allowing these folksonomies to run amok will result in all sorts of
messiness where OPACs are concerned. True, our traditional LOC subject headings
can be frustrating to the general public when they are trying to find something
in the OPAC, but isn’t that what we librarians are there for – to help users find
what they are looking for in the OPAC?
Having had some cataloguing
experience myself, I am aware that once you find the right subject heading, you
can maximize the usefulness of the OPAC and make it work well for your users.
Allowing them to add their own descriptors to materials in the collection is
nice, but I think that in some ways, this concept is pointless. On top of that,
you have to have a dedicated user base that is committed to adding the tags and
I am not sure just how gung-ho users (at least in a public library setting) are
going to be to add their own tags to help others find relevant materials. Call
me a wet blanket if you want, but I’ve been called worse. I do not believe, as
some might, that allowing the user to describe the materials will mean the end
of cataloguers and cataloguing; however, I do fear that in some libraries, that
will be the case and it may mean that some of us who are working as cataloguers
are going to suffer and have to look for new jobs.
So, in closing, I say let’s
not be too hasty in allowing users to go crazy with this ‘folksonomy’ idea and
let’s keep the descriptions up to the cataloguers.
- chris's blog
- Login to post comments
Hi Chris,
It's funny that you also noticed the collection of useless tags on the newest Harry Potter book in the AADL catalogue....my favorite was 'Do you control tagging?' I am left wondering if one of our classmates added that one...
Anyway, I think I have to agree with you that we shouldn't be too hasty about implementing tagging in the library setting. As was evidenced by the AADL case study, it seems a great idea in theory, but I don't see those tags serving much of a function for the vast majority of users. Most people who add tags probably don't think the way we librarians do and simply add any tags they can think of, even if they make only make sense to that person.
I do think that folksonomies can work for some library environments, but only in the right circumstances....for example, they may work for the users of a special library where all material is very specific and users are trained and working in a specific scientific field and are more familiar with the useful keywords for given subject matter. In such a case, giving tagging power to the user may actually add value.
Thanks for the post!
Chris,
my initial thoughts on folksonomies and tagging were extremely positive, especially with accompanied readings that show several points of advantage. However, like you, I can see this creating chaos in our libraries and really not taking off. I do though think that a program such as LibraryThing in a catalogue is pretty cool, but wouldn't use it as a starting point for searching. Its more of a browsing tool. Also, adding on to Rebecca's comment, its true that tagging works better in some areas than others. Think of an academic setting, I doubt (but of course not certian), we'd be searching for "death" or "21july2007." It would almost be more useful to search according to more specific and authorized terms. Either way, like you say, librarians are there to help!
Hi Chris,
You've brought up a lot of thought-provoking points. Like you and Rebecca, I also noticed the uselessness of some of the tags. Coming up with a relevant tag is no easy thing to do! I agree that "buy-in" can be an issue too. Most people don't have the time or interest to add tags for the benefit of others. But I do think that many would tag material if they saw personal benefit in doing so. I believe people will tag books that they are interested in, if only to make it easier in the future to re-find material on topics of interest to them.
I had not thought about cataloguers jobs being threatened by tagging. I envision tagging and cataloguing as being complimentary but maybe I am naive.
I think that in theory, when the tagging reaches a certain point (ie enough people are doing it) in the OPAC, these tags which are useless to the majority of the community will be "washed-out" by more useful and popular tags. The Ann Harbor catalogue is a good example of the main reason people tag- for personal reasons, so they can find things easier later on, the social aspect is almost always secondary. I think that if the tagging concept catches on at Ann Harbor it will be a helpful way for users to find what they are looking for.
Hey Chris:
Like Amy says, I think that most tagging systems will disregard minority tags. Personally, as someone who's studied folklore, I find the "superfluous" tags intriguing as they say something about the people who post them. Like, just how popular is the June21st tag and what does that say of the importance of Harry Potter to our society. I realize this is outside of the concerns of cataloging and OPACs, but it is an interesting use of tags to note.
I'm of the mindset that tags will not soon replace traditional controlled vocabulary and it would be difficult to have it replace the traditional system. It also doesn't occur to me that tags are particularly taxing on any system--save for the additional bytes of information that each tag would store--so I've never been fully convinced of the "dangers" of it to the LIS profession or the organizational systems of libraries.
"Everything I say is a lie...
... in fact, I'm lying to you right now..."
I agree, Brent, that tagging and folksonomy won't soon replace controlled vocabulary and traditional classification, but I can see great potential for the two systems to work complementarily. I also think that once patrons have engaged with the idea of using tags, the tags used will be better - wasn't there an article that said a stable tagging pattern seems to emerge after 100 people have tagged it? Couldn't the same be applied in a library OPAC?