Can the Inmates Help Run the Asylum

From LIS5313

An Examination of User-Generated Classification in the Academic Library Context

        by Brian Avery

---

Abstract

For as long as libraries have existed, they have not only collected information but also organized these collections. Traditionally, the task of organizing materials has been the sole province of library professionals. However, with the development of online tagging systems, it is now possible for libraries to allow patrons to create their own classification systems. This article explores the idea of user-generated classification systems in the academic library context. Particular attention is paid to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Tags system as an example of how academic libraries can develop tagging systems and how these systems can be used.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Definitions 3 Demonstration 4 Disadvantages of folksonomies 5 Advantages of folksonomies 6 Penn Tags 7 Other tagging programs 8 Putting folksonomies into practice 9 Conclusion 10 Relevant Websites 11 References

[edit] Introduction

The Library 2.0 movement offers a number of different examples of new and robust ways in which libraries and patrons can interact. One Library 2.0 phenomenon in particular presents the potential for the basic interaction between library and patron to be permanently and radically transformed. Folksonomies have the potential to revolutionize the library world because they democratize the classification process by allowing library patrons to create their own metadata. This represents a new way for patrons to help each other find information, and to make information generally more accessible.

[edit] Definitions

A number of definitions are in order. First, Library 2.0 has been defined a number of different ways, but at its core represents “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections”. (Maness 2006a, §1.7) The movement reflects a desire on the part of the library community “to change its services continually, to find new ways to allow communities, not just individuals, to seek, find and utilize information.” (Maness 2006b, p. 140) Secondly, metadata is a term for “structured descriptors of information resources, designed to promote information retrieval. That is, at the most basic level, metadata describe information resources... and are placed together to serve an indexing function in information retrieval.” (Smiraglia 2005, p. 2) (emphasis added) Thirdly, folksonomy refers to the “phenomenon of users generating metadata by tagging pieces of digital information with their own searchable keywords”, (Dye 2006, p. 38) called tags. Essentially, folksonomies are “personalized information organization systems, instituted by the user, for the user, and for other users.” (Eden 2005, p. 49) A patron may tag items for his or her own benefit, or else may tag items for the benefit of others. In either case, the entire community stands to benefit from the additional metadata which the patron generates. Finally, because of the communal benefits of folksonomies, programs which allow users to create tags are called social bookmarking programs.

[edit] Demonstration

The definitions above make social bookmarking sound complicated and confusing. In point of fact, social bookmarking programs are often quite easy to use. Here is a video demonstration of how tags are created and used at the University of Pennsylvania libraries: An Introduction to Penn Tags

[edit] Disadvantages of folksonomies

    Folksonomies differ from most classification systems used by libraries in two important respects. First, folksonomies are decentralized systems. Whereas classification has traditionally been done only by trained information professionals, folksonomies allow anyone to contribute. The democratic nature of folksonomies means that tags created by seven year-olds are given equal footing with those created by librarians. Second, folksonomies are bottom-up rather than top-down classification systems. Top-down systems conform rather well to the idea of “a place for everything and everything in its place”. A controlled vocabulary, most commonly the Library of Congress Subject Headings, is usually employed in order to make sure that each item is classified logically and predictably. With folksonomies, by contrast, classification is decentralized, which means there is no predicting what tags will be assigned to an object- nor is there any guarantee that these tags will be logical.

    Even when tags are perfectly logical, sometimes they can nonetheless be hard to find. Spelling variations can prevent connections between items from being formed. Likewise, the use of synonyms can create artificial divisions. For instance, an item tagged “inception” might be closely related to an item tagged “beginning” (and also to an item tagged “begining"). Because these three tags are all different, however, the items will not be connected in the folksonomy; for a connection to be made, these items would need to hold tags in common. If someone were to revise the tags on each item to include both “inception” and “beginning”, only then would the three items be considered similar for the purposes of the folksonomy.

[edit] Advantages of folksonomies

As with many things in life, the very weaknesses of a folksonomy are closely intertwined with its strengths. For instance, decentralization allows for a greater diversity of perspectives to be represented. Classifications made by a user which may not make sense to a trained librarian may nonetheless prove sensible (and valuable) to another user. Because two patrons may think similarly, a folksonomy allows them to communicate with one another without a librarian serving as an intermediary. Likewise, the bottom-up nature of folksonomies allows classification to grow organically. It’s certainly possible, and indeed likely, that many connections between similar works may be missed because of the lack of a controlled vocabulary; on the other hand, many new connections will invariably be drawn which would have gone unnoticed in a top-down system. Because of the nature of tagging, one item may become tied to another by means of a common tag even if no person or group of people has made a formal effort to correlate the two items. Finally, folksonomies more easily reflect the constant changes in language which are always occurring. If a new way of describing an existing phenomenon arises, it is much easier to simply add another tag to a folksonomy than it is to account for this new terminology in a controlled-vocabulary taxonomy.

[edit] Penn Tags

    Penn Tags is a tagging system developed at the University of Pennsylvania for the university’s campus libraries. This system is the first of its kind among academic libraries, and is one of the pioneers of integrative folksonomy irrespective of library type. The Penn Tags system allows any member of the University of Pennsylvania community to tag items which might be of use to other members of communities. These tags can be applied to websites, electronic resources (such as journal articles found in a database), and even the physical holdings of the library.

    According to one of Penn Tags’ creators, Laurie Allen, the idea for Penn Tags originated as a result of Penn librarians’ use of existing social bookmarking technologies. A handful of librarians had come to use social bookmarking sites like del.icio.us quite extensively and began to consider the possibility of creating a social bookmarking system designed specifically to suit the needs and interests of the University of Pennyslvania community.

    Penn Tags has been used to meet these needs in ways both expected and unexpected. The tagging system was originally developed as a tool to allow students to make annotated bibliographies for coursework. This is by no means, however, the primary use to which Penn Tags has been put. As should be expected, some users have taken to building a formal folksonomy to supplement the taxonomic classification employed by the library. The librarians themselves have found Penn Tags useful for creating resource guides which are easy to update and don’t require HTML skills. They have also found that they can use Penn Tags to speed up research consultations, since students can simply tag items during the course of conversation instead of having to write down the citation of the item in order to be able to locate it later. Patrons have also discovered a completely unexpected use of Penn Tags in real space. These patrons apply a specific tag all the items they want to examine physically in the library, and then print out a list of everything bearing that tag. Because the printout actually lists the call number of each item, the patrons can go to the library with a “shopping list” of sorts which allows them to locate items more easily.

    As more people in the University of Pennsylvania community come to learn about Penn Tags, the uses to which the system will be put will continue to grow. When professors or departments approach the library with potential collaborative projects, the librarians are often able to demonstrate how these projects can be undertaken using the Penn Tags system without the active involvement of the library staff. Indeed, the organic growth of Penn Tags has been quite remarkable. With the exception of working with students in the film studies course for which Penn Tags was initially developed, the librarians have not done anything to market the program. Instead, the majority of users have discovered the existence of Penn Tags on their own. As the volume of use of the tagging system continues to grow, so too does the diversity of use.

[edit] Other tagging programs

    Penn is not the only institution to employ social bookmarking in the library context. Other libraries which have tagging programs in place or are developing such programs include University of Florida libraries, Ann Arbor District Libraries, and Stanford Information Center. Tagging systems have also taken hold in museums, most notably through the STEVE project (Social Terminology Enhancement through Vernacular Engagement). Each of these examples represents a substantially different approach to social bookmarking. Nonetheless, they are all innovative approaches to classification which invite patrons to participate in the classification process.

[edit] Putting folksonomies into practice

    What does it take for a library to actually create a tagging system? Perhaps not as much as it might seem. For instance, the computer code for Penn Tags was written over the course of a single weekend. Moreover, not every folksonomy necessarily requires its own code. One option for a library interested in establishing a folksonomy would be to purchase commercially available cataloging software with tagging capacities, such as Primo. Another option would be to use online social bookmarking sites such as del.icio.us or LibraryThing. The choice of which of these options to pursue depends largely on the specific needs of the particular library, but in each case the financial outlay is most likely quite manageable.

    Of course, money is not the only resource needed to implement a new system. Indeed, a folksonomy by its very nature requires the participation of library users. While the library cannot control how patrons respond to a tagging program, it can educate users on what tagging is and how they can participate in creating the library’s folksonomy. Because user participation is the lifeblood of a folksonomy, the ultimate success of a tagging system lies outside the control of the library. The library can make patrons aware of the system and can encourage them to contribute, but ultimately the success of the system derives from the degree to which users take ownership of the folksonomy.

    Finally, a folksonomy requires an investment by the library staff. Staff members must not only understand the tagging system enough to make use of it themselves, they must also be able to help patrons who want to learn how to use it. Fortunately, folksonomies are generally designed to be quite usable, which hopefully means that staff and patrons alike should be able to learn how to use a new tagging system with relatively little effort.

[edit] Conclusion

The top-down approach has been the dominant and most effective model of classification for the entire history of the library. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that many librarians have not gone out of their ways to implement tagging systems in their libraries. Nonetheless, folksonomies offer tremendous potential to improve access to information without undermining the place of existing classification systems. Contrary to the fears of some doubters, folksonomy is by no means mutually exclusive with traditional taxonomic classification; rather, the two may work in concert with each other to provide patrons with more options for conducting their information searches. Moreover, tagging systems have many collateral benefits besides the creation of a folksonomy. Therefore, any academic libraries wanting to improve patrons’ access to information ought to weigh the costs and benefits of implementing a tagging system. Hopefully serious consideration of this option will lead many more academic libraries in the near future to incorporate this simple but powerful tool.

[edit] Relevant Websites

• Penn Tags

• Library Thing

• Ann Arbor Libraries

• University of Florida Libraries (Tagging program currently under development)

• Steve (A great example of tagging in the museum context)

[edit] References

Arch, Xan (2007), Creating the academic library folksonomy, College and Research Libraries News: 80-81

Cody, Sue, et al. (2007) Integrating a Digital Library and a Traditional Library: Librarians and Scientists Collaborating for Sustainability, Technical Services Quarterly: 15-27

Dye, Jessica (2006), Folksonomy: A Game of High-tech (and High-stakes) Tag, EContent: 38-43

Eden, Brad (2005), Current Issues and Developments Related to Metadata: Thoughts and Opinions, Library Technology Reports: 45-57

MacGregor, George and McCulloch, Emma (2006), Collaborative Tagging as a Knowledge Organization and Resource Discovery Tool, Library Review: 291-300

Maness, Jack (2006a), Library 2.0: The next generation of Web-based library services, Logos: 139-145

Maness, Jack (2006b), Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries, Webology [6]

Penntags: Creating and Using Social Bookmarking in a University Library. (2006), (audio recording), Dallas, EduCause. [7]

Peters, Isabella and Stock, Wolfgang (2007), Folksonomy and Information Retrieval, Proceedings of the 70th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: S1510-S1542

Smiraglia, Richard (2005), Introducing Metadata, Cataloging & classification quarterly: 1-15

Spiteri, Louise (2006), The Use of Folksonomies in Public Library Catalogues, The Serials librarian: 75-89