So, good readers, I just wrapped up watching this hour-long video, and I thought I would share some thoughts I had while watching it:The video presents some interesting points, but it is by the creator of LibraryThing, and he spends a fair amount of time really just describing that site. Let me cut to the chase for you, so you don’t have to watch the whole thing - if you don’t want to.
I think the salient points that can be gleaned from this presentation follow:
First, the major advantage of social cataloging is that it’s free. I know Mr. Spalding doesn’t mention this in his presentation, but I feel as if it is the first good point about social cataloging. Fees are involved with the use of OCLC and its data - and I feel that if there is a legitimate free alternative, it should be explored by libraries.
Second, social cataloging adds a very social and personal element to the library catalog - user contributed, and shared data.
Third, tagging and subject classification in social cataloging lead to better-tailored, more responsive subject classification for books - eliminating the synonym mindset. That was a bit abstruse, I know - so allow me to break that down. The terms gleaned from social tagging in cataloging is more important to them, and indicative of what they feel about a book - so that two words or terms that mean basically the same thing actually have different significance for users - something that is lost in a controlled vocabulary.
Fourth, traditional cataloging will change, but not disappear. Mr. Spalding makes the point (which I agree with) that cataloging in its current form and presentation is geared toward the creation of catalog records in a physical form. To wit, most catalog records have between three and six subject headings attached to them - as that is the number that would fit on a physical card. Also, the subject headings rarely, if ever change - and only then are subject headings chosen by a select group - librarians. Spalding also makes the assertion that social software (and the data is generates) will become increasingly important to libraries and library systems.
Still on the fourth point, but a different thought - the physical library was more human than the library in its present form. The card catalog in itself was impersonal, but the interaction we had with that object (worn cards indicating a much-used resource) gave the library a more human feeling. The utilization of technology effectively de-humanized the library. Social cataloging can help to re-humanize the library catalog by allowing everyone to have their input and re-humanize the catalog.
Fifth, Spalding asserts that the most important thing about the library is the stuff it holds. I disagree with this - I think that first slot is shared with the library staff that works there, as well as the stuff it holds. After all, what good is a bunch of “stuff” if you can’t find what you need?
Sixth, Spalding describes what libraries can do to incorporate good social cataloging in their catalogs, as well as re-humanize the library. First, libraries need to go with the grain of the internet, meaning that libraries should not be in competition with search engines, or each other - that their data (in the form of their catalog) should be open and free to all. OCLC must lock its data up in order to compel libraries to pay to use their services, and as an indirect result, WorldCat is a very lightly used resource on the internet. Second, libraries must trust people with the tags, and well-designed social cataloging platforms can help combat the “shenanigans.” Recently, I read a post about just such a problem, with a good solution. If you would like to read about it, go here:
http://laureltarulli.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/social-tagging-in-the-catalogue-you-allow-that/
Third, these social cataloging platforms should be open source.
Spalding concludes with what I think is the best part of his presentation: he points out three areas in which social cataloging meshes with some of the best traditions of librarianship:
Radical openness. Libraries have always lent out their collection and their expertise - and this should be the same way with their cataloging data.
A spirit of focusing on public needs. Libraries can better focus on trends and needs within their patron base if data is shared and created by library users.
I think overall the idea is great - but there really need to be some set standards in place if we are going to share all the data created by social cataloging. What do you think?
I posed that question to my friend and librarian extraordinaire Ryan Tainter (click his name to visit his website), and here is an excerpt from his response:
As librarians the general curve of cataloging reduces the need for redundant information while still controlling records on a local level. One of the things that I did ... is to catalog the records with standard LCSH subjects and what not, but also include subjects that have been produced socially (somewhat like tagging). In this sense the patron can both experience subject unification & subjective/democratic subjects based more on experience. There are other senses that something like this can be useful, such as local subjects. For example, a professor can tag multiple entries for her class without the idea of those subjects being universally relevant. One thing about having both systems at the same time is that it better mimics or system of government (values). While we have national authorities, the scope of democratic metadata has never reached very far.
So, as I said before, what do you think?
