Folksonomies--or Why a senior-sounding term is at the height of fashion

When first hearing the word “folksonomy,” one’s reaction might be to respond with “Gesundheit.” While folksonomy itself is an unfamiliar term, computer and internet users around the world use folksonomies extensively. A folksonomy is any user-generated content, or tag, put on a website, picture, book, and everything in between. These tags differ from “taxonomy”, which is a pre-defined set of hierarchal terms that are used to classify items and information. Library taxonomies typically refer to the Library of Congress Subject Headings or the Dewey decimal classification system, though it can really be any set of standardized headings.

Folksonomies and tags are just a small part of the Web 2.0 movement. Facebook, YouTube, and LibraryThing represent just a tiny fraction of the websites available that thrive on user-generated content (http://www.facebook.com, http://www.youtube.com, http://www.librarything.com). The celebrity-like status of these sites, especially to those of a younger generation, is unneeded proof that internet and social trends will stay on the path of direct, hands-on, participatory involvement.

No matter what personal opinion is on specific Web 2.0 applications or social networking sites, tagging and other user-generated content is a real-life way to organize and recall information. Even the Library of Congress (LC), possibly the largest supplier of library-based taxonomies in the world, has voiced their support tagging in library catalogs. The LC’s Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control, a group organized to “study the present state of cataloging in libraries and to make recommendations for the future,” officially recommended adding “tags and other user-supplied data to their catalogs” (Rolla, 2009). The LC gives two reasons for their support: relevancy and accessibility (Rolla, 2009). These reasons are arguably issues that libraries of all types struggle with. Research and application of tagging in libraries has shown exactly what the LC says, that using tags in library catalogs makes the catalogs more relevant and makes information more accessible.

continued after the break...

Folksonomies--Relevancy

Relevancy

As library and information science professionals, we have an obligation to organize and disseminate information in order to be of the greatest benefit to our users. The Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (2008) states:

We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. We have a special obligation to ensure the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations.

This free-flow of information, unfortunately, can be hindered by our current library catalogs. An average internet user has a certain set of expectations, ones that are based in current use of Google-type search engines and social networking sites. Unfortunately, the majority of information and resources in libraries are still stored and displayed in out-dated fashion. Sanders (2008) describes that a relevant library catalog “should be able to interpret [a library patrons] search and give useful, relevance-ranked results”. Information displayed in this way is not only more familiar, but allows the patron to feel more connected to his or her library. Tagging enforces this feeling of connection because the patrons have had a part in creating the vocabulary to describe the information. Sanders also notes that library patrons have “participated in the social life of the Web and been exposed to its culture of participation and mentorship. Patrons are not only ready for new possibilities in library interfaces; they have begin to demand them.” Having a library environment that supports the sharing of ideas and the participation of the community it serves is essential.

Keeping up with Web 2.0 trends and helping patrons feel involved is not the only way libraries can stay relevant. Tagging definitely adds a familiar feel to library catalogs by helping patrons search for information in a way they are familiar with. However, tagging can also help library catalogs keep-up with relevant and current vocabulary. Tagging can act as a bridge or even translator for professionally assigned, and often very confusing, subject headings. The LC Working Group noted that “while pre-coordination [of terms] can offer users an implicit indication of the relationship between subject terms, the carefully crafted subject strings created by catalogers are often misunderstood or incomprehensible to users and reference librarians” (Rolla, 2009). Using terminology created by users, for users, can add a level of understanding to a piece of information that might not exist otherwise.

continued after the break...

Folksonomies--Accessibility

Accessibility

Cataloging with user-generated tags supports a library’s commitment to accessibility. A cataloger’s main purpose is to provide enough description in a bibliographic record for a patron to access it and assess its content according to his or her needs. However, Rolla (2009) found that the way a patron approaches subjects is very different than the way a cataloger approaches subjects. Allowing patrons to add tags to existing library catalogs is a way to bridge this difference. West says in Webb & Nero (2009), “By using tags, the library users are given the choice to create their own ‘minicatalog’ of resources. They can create keywords they are personally familiar with and want to use”. Having a relevant, easy-to-use ‘minicatalog’ that utilizes current phraseology can eliminate the need for patrons to understand subject headings as librarians do. Sanders (2008) says, “Library systems have great ‘findability’ for trained searchers; the challenge now is how to make them work equally well for untrained ones.” Tagging can help create accessible, familiar paths to library materials that patrons will be able to find independently and perhaps more accurately than if they tackled taxonomized subject terms alone.

Using folksonomy tagging can also increase accessibility because it can add more description and meaning to a work. Patrons may be able to find more obscure meanings in a work because they have used it personally, versus a cataloger that might have had to make his or her best guess. Library of Congress subject headings often limit catalogers to assign headings based on what the work is. Tagging can help assign phrases based on what the work contains. As Rolla (2009) says, tagging allows for “abstract concepts or adjectives rather than just nouns”. An abstract concept could include issues that are community specific, such as a local referendum. Tagging can reach beyond authorized terms and allow citizens to identify materials about this referendum. These community-specific tags can aide greatly in the access of relevant and timely information to the community a library serves.

A large part of providing access, however, is also helping patrons assess the information they retrieve. Often, locating the information is only the first step. As Bell (2009) notes, library users “can challenge themselves to find the best words to describe the images, sounds, videos, and other media that they encounter online. They can also benefit from seeing the tags recommended by others. This ability to name and classify is an essential skill as we try to access, understand, and manage the proliferation of information that caroms at us all every day via the internet”. Information is only truly accessible when one can understand its true meaning.

continued after the break...

Folksonomies--Conclusion

Conclusion

User involvement on a basic level is something libraries have always sought to have. Thankfully, current internet trends and the Web 2.0 movement show that user involvement is the way of the present, not just the future. Librarians should embrace folksonomy tagging in order to promote the library’s role as the center for information retrieval. Tagging is not just a trend but also a relevant tool to help people be more involved and connected to their world. Tagging promotes the free-flow of information by displaying that information in a relevant way. Tagging provides a multiplicity of potential pathways to information by using local phraseology. Folksonomies can bridge the language gap and allow for obscure meanings in information to stand out. The most efficient way to provide information to a community is to involve them in the process. All of these traits prove that folksonomy tagging and user-based input are obvious assets to a library’s goal of providing relevant and accessible information and services.

Library Humor--Tagging

Library Humor--Oliver Twist

 This is a personal favorite of mine, as I was once a theatre major!

It’s Tax Time! —The renewable value of taxonomies

While time does not allow me to compose a full-fledged research article on the value of taxonomies, I did want to include a short list emphasizing it’s important place in the library world. Much of my research existed in the article Folksonomy Folktales by Tom Reamy, which is accessible here through St. Kate’s WilsonWeb database.

• There are many other taxonomies other than Dewey Decimal and LCSH, and using these two as examples is “as if you did an analysis of boats and picked the Titanic as your example. It’s really big and cumbersome, and it’s made of brittle steel held together with bad rivets. It costs too much and is too difficult to build. It’s slow and hard to steer, runs into icebergs and kills lots of people” (Reamy 2009). Pretty great analogy, right?
• User tags can come from specific populations, which might reinforce stereotypes (Rolla). Unlike folksonomies, taxonomies are not the “authority of the majority” (Reamy 2009).
• Taxonomies have consistent grammatical form, tense, etc.
• Taxonomies still relevant, SLA just formed an organization for taxonomies and controlled subject headings. (Taxonomy Comes to SLA)
• Good taxonomies will look at the past and the present trends and allow easy change for future (Reamy 2009).
• Study shows that many tags were “personal tags” not meant to benefit all users (Rolla 2009).

As a library student, I believe in the importance of great descriptive cataloging and accurate, descriptive subject headings. Though I see many problems with LCSH, I know that librarians themselves, or at least my peers in school, seek to be fair, democratic, unbiased, unprejudiced, and most of all successful in leading users to the information they seek. There is great merit in trained professionals evaluating an item by its content and cataloging it based on set vocabulary. But good, efficient, fair, and relevant vocabulary needs to exist first. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I do think it’s a combination of many existing and emerging forms of organizing knowledge. I look forward to the opportunity to have my part in it.

Library Humor--User Friendly

Folksepticons and Taxotobots: can they coexist?

My five-year-old son has a new obsession almost every week. My favorite was the Star Wars phase when he loved R2-D2, pronouncing it “R-tootie-2". Recently, his obsession has turned to Transformers. We rented a DVD of these Robots in Disguise (or as he says, Robots in the Skies) for him to live off of during the recent holiday weekend. After he watched a few episodes by himself, my son came running joyously into the kitchen declaring, “Optimus Prime and Galvatron are friends!” Now, my son is one smart kid, but I just knew he got this wrong somehow. Optimus Prime and Galvatron (formerly Megatron) are sworn enemies. It wasn’t possible for them to be on the same side, and even less possible for them to become friends. But being the good mother I am, I sat down to replay the episode that had my son so overjoyed. To my astonishment, he was right! Optimus Prime and Galvatron join forces. They even shake hands. They become united by their common enemy: the megabot Unicron. Why, my fellow library students, am I telling you this story? I learned that day that if Autobots and Decepticons could join forces and fight for the greater good, other sworn enemies could unite, too. And if this can exist in the library world, amazing things could happen. Maybe libraries will do-away with fines and patrons will turn in their materials early. Maybe Internet grants from the government would say not to include filters. And maybe, just maybe, authorized subject headings can coexist with user-made tagging.

As discussed in other articles, authorized vocabularies, or taxonomies, and user-made vocabularies, or folksonomies, are both significant and relevant methods of cataloging. However, popular opinion would suggest that each school of thought is so different, so at-odds with the other, that it would be impossible for the two to unite. I am happy to say that in my research, I have found many examples of taxonomies and folksonomies working together in websites that allow users to find the information they seek.

In Smith’s (2008) article “Tagging: Emerging Trends”, he lists many examples of such efforts to coexist. Community-driven controlled vocabularies are one such example. LibraryThing employs this concept in it’s user-based cataloging (http://www.librarything.com/). In these cases, tag-equivalencies can be made and unmade by members. Once two tags are made equivalent, the more popular tag becomes the term that is used. Equivalencies can occur through spelling variations, such as “humor” and “humour”, or truncated variations, such as “world war 2” and “wwii” (Smith, 2008).

In the online store for handmade goods, Etsy, exists another fine example of user-made tags and controlled vocabulary; something called an “auto-manual folksonomy” (Smith, 2008, http://www.etsy.com/). When a merchant first sets up a page, in which he or she can sell their handmade items, the merchant can pick from a pre-defined list of describers to help potential customers find the items the merchant is selling. Users or shoppers on the site can then add their own tags to the merchandise. The result is a successful mix of both styles, with predetermined vocabulary acting as a heading, and user-based vocabularies acting as subheadings.

These are just two of the many examples already existing in our world. But there are also many theories that propose this alliance of taxonomies and folksonomies. Catalogers contributing to tagging, presenting controlled vocabularies in a recognizable format similar to current Internet trends, and taxonomy software that allows for tagging, are all existing schemes to combine taxonomies and folksonomies.

With the brainpower that exists in the library and information science community, I am excited and hopeful for what is to come. I look forward to the day when I see the Authority shake hands with the User, when their powers unite against the struggle that is the Catalog. As Sanders (2008) says, “Taxonomy vs. folksonomy is a false dichotomy.”


Wow, if this coexisting trend continues, maybe there’s hope for Berman and the LC after all.

Library Humor--Silence

Bibliography

American Library Association. (2008, January). Code of Ethics of the American Library Association. Retrieved December 12, 2009 from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifgroups/cope/Code%20of%20Ethics%202008.pdf


Bates, M. E. (2009). Authority control to the people! EContent, 32(3), 43. Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.


Bell, M. A. (2009). Playing tag is good for you! MulitMedia & Internet@Schools, 16(5), 40-42. Retrieved from Library, Information Science, & Technology Abstracts (LISTA).


Earley, S. (2009). The new versus old schools of taxonomies, metadata, and information architecture. Online, 33(2), 37-38. Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.


Hedden, H. (2008). How semantic tagging increases findability. EContent, 31(8). Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.

Reamy, T. (2009). Folksonomy folktales. KM World, 18(9), 6-8. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Rolla, P.J. (2009). User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject access to library collections? Library Research and Technical Services Abstracts, 53(3), 174-184. Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.

Sanders, D. (2008). Tag—You’re it!  American Libraries, 39(11). Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.

Smith, G., (2008). Tagging: Emerging trends. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 34(6), 14-17. Retrieved from WilsonWeb database.

Special Libraries Association. (2009). Taxonomy comes to SLA. Library Journal, 33(6), 8. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Webb, P. L., & Nero, M. D. (2009). OPACs in the clouds. Computers in Libraries, 29(9), 18-22. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.

Glossary—So many terms, so little time

       I have chosen the following definitions from Wikipedia because that site contained the most up-to-date and concise definitions I found. Hopefully, this glossary will help disambiguate the contents of this blog, especially to those unfamiliar with the library and information science field.

A folksonomy is a system of classification derived from the practice and method of collaboratively creating and managing tags to annotate and categorize content; this practice is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy is a portmanteau of folk and taxonomy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy)

In online computer systems terminology, a tag is a non-hierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as an internet bookmark, digital image, or computer file). This kind of metadata helps describe an item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are generally chosen informally and personally by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata))

Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification. The word finds its roots in the Greek τάξις, taxis (meaning 'order', 'arrangement') and νόμος, nomos ('law' or 'science'). Taxonomy uses taxonomic units, known as taxa (singular taxon).

In addition, the word is also used as a count noun: a taxonomy, or taxonomic scheme, is a particular classification ("the taxonomy of ..."), arranged in a hierarchical structure. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy)

In library and information science, authority control is the practice of creating and maintaining headings for bibliographic material in a catalog. Authority control fulfills two important functions. First, it enables catalogers to disambiguate items with similar or identical headings. For example, two authors who happen to have published under the same name can be distinguished from each other by adding middle initials, birth and/or death (or flourished, if these are unknown) dates, or a descriptive epithet to the heading of one (or both) authors. Second, authority control is used by catalogers to collocate materials that logically belong together, although they present themselves differently. For example, authority records are used to establish uniform titles, which can collocate all versions of a given work together even when they are issued under different titles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_control)

A bibliographic or library database is a database of bibliographic records. It may be a database containing information about books and other materials held in a library (e.g. an online library catalog, or OPAC) or, as the term is more often used, an electronic index to journal or magazine articles, containing citations, abstracts and often either the full text of the articles indexed, or links to the full text. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliographic_database)