Folksonomies and Tagging

Along with crowdsourcing, we have also discussed the creation of folksonomies through social tagging as another means of creating a collective social intelligence.  Through tagging, users are able to add information about a digital object in the form of a keyword, thereby creating additional content and allowing increased access to the object.  This is an effective method of engaging the user with a collection as well as enabling an institution to expand on its description of a particular item.  A great example of this can be found at Steve Central: Social Tagging for Cultural Collections.  The site is a conglomeration of cultural objects from 21 institutions, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which allows users to tag items with keywords that they believe to be an appropriate description of the object.

A fellow student, Ms. Crumpton, discussed the site in her blog, and reading her comments made me realize that tagging not only provides additional information to the user about the actual object, but it also allows us a glimpse into other users' minds.  As an example, she used this bust of a young boy titled "Gamin," from the Cleveland Museum of Art.

This object has been tagged by users, and a tag cloud has been generated as a visual "map" of the information.

I found it fascinating to read the diverse descriptions provided by users.  Two adjectives used to describe the sculpture are "inquisitive" and "engrossed," which imply, although perhaps nuanced, different perceptions of the boy's facial expression.  This illustrates the fact that tagging can be a way to learn about varying interpretations of a work of art.  Art is interactive, combining the creative process of the artist with the viewers perceptions and interpretations.  Artists often comment on the fluid nature of their work and the adaptability of its meaning to each viewers personal experience of it.  I am struck by the idea that tagging could potentially be used as a method to study the infinite and evolving nature of how people view art.

Crowdsourcing and the idea of a "Sharium"

Finally, this semester, I feel that all of the information I've been ingesting since I began graduate school is starting to come together and form the beginnings of a cohesive understanding of librarianship and the field of LIS.  All three of my classes this semester seem to be overlapping in some respects, which solidifies the impression of a general body of related information.  Many of the ideas presented in my Digital Libraries class are particularly relevant to, if not directly related to, Emerging Trends in Technology.

One example of this confluence is the idea of a "sharium".  In Emerging Tech., we have been discussing Web 2.0.... what it is, what differentiates it from Web 1.0, etc.  A predominant characteristic of Web 2.0 is the idea that it harnesses the "collective intelligence".  One particular way this is accomplished is through "crowdsourcing", which is when the collective mind of users is mobilized to solve a particular problem or achieve a particular task.  This practice coincides with the idea of a "sharium" (introduced in my Digital Libraries class), where people collaborate to help solve information problems.  Both can include user contributions to library or museum content, item descriptions, and, in the case of digital libraries, even the addition of items to a collection.  This kind of potential user participation in the creation of knowledge is exciting... it feels a bit like a science fiction, futuristic vision of what knowledge creation and sharing and a real "collective intelligence" could be.  However, it also raises some concerns with the authenticity and reliability of information.  When non-professional, non-scholarly users are permitted to add content to library and museum collections, the reputation and integrity of the institution may be compromised.  Research on crowdsourcing has shown that information provided by users is almost always accurate, but even the smallest amount of inaccurate information provided by a respected and trusted institution may call their authority into question.  Despite the potential questions that these ideas raise, the thought that, through collaboration, they both may facilitate the creation of knowledge is exciting.

Technolust vs. Thoughful Implementation

A new term that I learned, and love, is the idea of "Technolust", which is defined by Michael Stephens as the "irrational love for new technology combined with unrealistic expectations for the solutions it brings".  The indiscriminate implementation of technology without careful consideration of the actual benefits and costs seems to be a result of this technolust, that affects not only some of our comrades in librarianship but also many citizens at large.  One might suspect, perhaps rightly so, after reading my initial posts, that I am a technophobe.  I admit to even wondering myself, at times, if I simply have an unexplainable aversion to new technology and an extreme reverence for "the good old days" when children played outside after school.  Upon further contemplation, I have realized that what I dislike is not technology per se, but the thoughtless and wholesale application of it.  Daily, I watch my children gobble it up and swallow it whole, and I admit that this gives me pause.  Which is why I love the term technolust, and all that it implies.  I appreciate and enjoy, as much as the next guy, applying new technology to simplify my life and to save myself time and energy on tedious yet necessary tasks.  I also understand that new technologies can be used in innovative and creative ways to communicate, collaborate, and embrace the global environment in which we live.  However, as Stephens goes on to say, "technology is a tool", and in my opinion, is best used as such.

I heard an interesting story on NPR that lead me to ponder this topic further.  It's called "Amish Community Not Anti-Technology, Just More Thoughtful", and here is a link to the audio and the transcript of the story:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/09/02/217287028/amish-community-not-anti-technology-just-more-thoughful


References:
Stephens, M. Taming technolust: Ten steps for planning in a 2.0 world. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47 (4), p. 314-317.

The Biblio-mat... cool new use of old-school technology

This is for all of you bibliophiles out there living in the land of Web 2.0 technology.  I'm a little late to the party here, which is no surprise given the chaos of my life, but it seems that a couple of innovative and hip guys created a vending machine that dispenses random old and obscure books for the ridiculously small price of a $2 coin. It's called the Biblio-mat, and is an incredibly cool idea.  What a great metamorphosis of the run of the mill vending machine, which usually contains some sort of processed food or drink product, into a conduit for ideas and knowledge.  I realize that the main purpose of this blog is to comment on Web 2.0 applications and their relevance to librarianship; however, I simply could not resist including this little gem floating in our sea of technology.  I would personally love to have the chance to experience the mystery and suspense of the Biblio-mat and am currently wondering how I can make that a reality.  Hmm.. Toronto in the fall?  Since that is definitely not going to happen, I guess I'll just have content myself by watching the video demonstration that follows (oh, and the Tom Waits, who I imagine is a bibliophile extraordinaire, soundtrack is an added bonus!)...

My very limited Web 2.0 experience...

As a frame of reference, I must confess to having very limited experience working with Web 2.0 technologies and software... although that is quickly being remedied by the many demands of a MLIS program.  When I was contemplating returning to school to get a Master's degree, I took an online class to test the waters and to see if I was up to the challenge of using my brain again after staying at home with two young children for several years.  In order to do this, I had to 1) Purchase my first laptop... my very own computer, not to be tampered with by any little fingers, and 2) Become proficient in using Blackboard Collaborate.  This was my first serious venture into the world of Web 2.0 and using computers and technology to achieve specific objectives.  I had, of course, dabbled with facebook, and read some blogs, but that was pretty much the extent of my experience.   As I embark on my second year in graduate school, I have already learned a tremendous amount about technology and the virtually infinite ways it can be employed to accomplish particular tasks and to connect with others in the electronic realm.  In my first post, I mentioned my concerns about the social and cultural implications of all this technology; however, I will also admit to, rather strangely, feeling exuberant at times as I cautiously investigate this phenomenon called Web 2.0.