This week's readings have provided me with a lot to consider. What are the implications of Web 2.0 for organizing and cataloging information? I had not really thought about the difficulties of conducting searches in libraries compared with the ease of Amazon or Google searches, as discussed in Michael Casey's "Looking Toward Web 2.0." Certainly, I believe that libraries, including school libraries, must develop more user-friendly ways for patrons to search and access information. It is curious that vendors have been so slow to respond or that libraries have been reluctant to demand the technologies that are needed. I am sure that for librarians, budget constraints represent a great problem. I also suppose that software vendors have a lot to lose monetarily speaking if they relinquish their exclusivity with library systems.
Amazon or Google, by contrast, function as a for-profit organizations, and they thus possess more resources in pursuing the most up-to-date searches available. After dishing out the money to update their services, they have every hope of recouping expenses. Libraries, especially those in cash-strapped areas, will undoubtedly grapple with the comparative ease of conducting searches with commercial sites.
Folksonomies are also bound to change cataloging and the categorization of information. The tags which individuals are able to assign to websites will have the effect of changing the organization of information. This revolution will come, however, from the bottom up, as everyday users of information forge new links, some original, all somewhat unique to the person, between sets of information. As the YouTube video "The Machine is Us/Using Us" pointed out, the links connect people more so than information, but the systems and methods of disseminating information undoubtedly will respond to the trend towards folksonomies and user-based tagging.
One thing that I feel I can say with certainty is that being able to evaluate information and its sources will continue to be a vital skill. As the Courtney text has pointed out, folksonomies have no controlled vocabulary and will have "low precision rates" (p. 98). As people search folksonomies, they will have to determine whether or not the information provided is actually pertinent to and reliable for their intended search topic. The author of the chapter, Ellyssa Kroski, however, argues fairly strongly for the advantages of user-based tagging, if only embracing what seems to be the inexorable trend.
Despite Kroski's optimism, she has appeared to overlook certain populations in her assertions. She has declared that "folksonomies include everyone's vocabulary and reflect everyone's needs without cultural, social, or political bias"(p. 94). Again, she has stated that "Folksonomies are democratic; everyone has the opportunity to add something to the whole"(p. 96). While user-based systems may be more democratic or inclusive than standard taxonomies, everyone brings a bias of some sort to the table, be it physical or virtual, and their work cannot help but be colored by their background and/or experience.
Does the collective nature of the Internet cancel out these biases? It may mitigate those biases, but to imply that it eradicates those biases overstates the case.
What about populations that have limited exposure to the Internet or to technology in general? Will they not be overlooked by the techno-savvy members of society? I think that Kroski's statements certainly need to treated with attention, for if they are to be true (and it would be nice to think that they could be), librarians must be among those who advocate strongly for ALL members of a society to have free and open access to the Internet. We must labor to make the Internet truly reflective of the world's inhabitants, not just the richest populations which have the ability to access information electronically. While Internet cafes are available in many places, poverty of property and education is still a reality. Our own country's balance of majority rule with minority rights is a tenuous one at times; if only the richest (or youngest, or best-educated) members of a population are heard, how representative of all of society is user-based tagging? Are minority voices being heard and valued in discussions?
Commercial search engines, folksonomies, and user-based tagging will undoubtedly change the way people retrieve information, and yes, that information will be cataloged and shaped from a grassroots perspective (more so than in the past). Watching library systems evolve to accommodate these changes will provide a magnificent ride over the next few years, one on which the least of societies should not be forgotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment