Graduates, please use this post to comment on the thoughts and questions posed by Becky Wymer as we continue our discussion of Everything Is Miscellaneous.
From Becky Wymer -- November 1, 2009 3:56 PM I've appreciate the postings I've read and agree that the ability to tag records and create a "my library" experience does move the library as a whole toward a third-order experience for our users. As Breanne quotes "Tags let you remember things your way." Depending on the tagging mechanism and its configuration, you can add content to library records which either directly benefits you or benefits the library community as a whole. With this ability does come a number of concerns, however.
The first issue for most post 9/11 librarians is security. If tags help me remember and organize information my way, this implies that the tags are "remembered" and thus stored. If the tags are stored, they can be traced - and retrieved. While we are waiting for current Patriot Act revisions to take place that will offer greater protections to our users, it takes but one election or legislative revision to return to a seizure mentality. How does the library balance security/patron privacy with the desire to offer the "my library" experience?
Another issue concerning tagging is the subjectivity of such labeling. While having the freedom to label things "my way" is important to the user and if tags are shared among users either through shared lists or word clouds, what if one user finds it important to include certain profanities found in the text? Not the there are profanities or “language” but the words used themselves are tagged? Who gets to decide – or monitor for that matter – the appropriateness of the tags submitted? If a term is rejected are we guilty of violating intellectual freedom? What if the terminology tagged is not politically correct or racist or any of the other “bad” things that we can think of? How do we relinquish control to the patrons and not upset our community leaders, board members, and tax payers in the process? Theory is always easier than practice. Are these legitimate concerns or the whining of "second-order" thinking? I look forward to your responses!
Weinberger (2007) briefly touches on the issue of privacy and “bread crumbs”, asking “How much of the implicit digital metadata people inevitably create should an organization track, keep and use?” When does this practice become “intrusive and even creepy”? (The subject of digital data mining has been written about in depth by Stephen Baker in his 2009 book The Numerati). While touching on this topic, Weinberger mentions how Amazon uses implicit metadata to customize the browsing experience and offer customers further suggestions for purchase. If online library catalogs want offer a similar experience, I wonder if there is a way to bar these data miners from culling information based on a patron’s browsing history or user profile—or, at the very least, educate users about the brave new world of “cloud mining” and possible intrusions into their privacy. You could argue that libraries have an obligation to protect users’ privacy from these dodgy data miners, since they are the ultimate neutral ground and have no commercial or ideological biases.
As Weinberger says, “…We are in transition in our idea of privacy and we are still discovering ways to make sense of the implicit traces people leave behind.” The rise of the so-called Numerati obviously has brought with it a tangle of thorny ethical issues that libraries will most likely have to deal with in the coming years as its services become fully integrated into the cloud.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
The issue of privacy is one that libraries constantly struggle with. Features such as tagging are a personal expression of someone’s interpretation of an item, materials, etc. Being able to retrieve the information at a later date is the entire purpose of using tags. When patrons use a tagging feature in a library setting, they assume that anything they post will be confidential and not shared with anyone or any entity: just like their library account itself. I am not familiar enough with technology, but I would think that there is a way to remove identifiable information from a tag after it has been stored in the library’s server, similar to having any record of an item having been checked out to a patron is removed. As Weinberger says, “unless a user has given explicit permission, her tracks through a site should never, ever be shared with any other organization” (2007, p. 164).
Many libraries today require a user to log in to use a computer, even when limited to only library resources. However, libraries can easily set up “guest” accounts (and many have) that patrons can use to log into these machines. This way, if a patron is concerned with their paths being tracked, the system only recognizes a generic guest user, not a specific person’s account. Unfortunately, “we are in transition in our idea of privacy” (Weinberger 2007, p. 164) and many people do not consider the ramifications of actions taken online. Ultimately though, any user is responsible for the content they either post or contribute, including tags. They have made the decision to engage in a service and have an obligation to themselves to be aware of any potential complications. Libraries should do everything in their power to help minimize any negative impact a patron’s actions may have by providing ways of getting around the system, so to speak, such as providing anonymous accounts or eliminating search histories.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: A Holt Paperback.
Becky raises some great points about privacy. I feel, as a user, that Amazon comes close to encroaching on my privacy by tracking my clicks but I also appreciate the idea of being introduced to new titles that I may not be aware of. While searching for leather bound books this week I visited a number of new websites, anonymously I assumed, that were linked by Amazon, but within hours I started to receive unsolicited emails from these booksellers. Weinberger states that "unless the user has given explicit permission, her tracks through a site should never, ever be shared with another organization" (2007,p 164).
Another point raised is the possibility of inappropriate or racist tags. My view may boarder on censorship, but on a library site I think that publicly viewed tags have to be above reproach. Just like cross-referencing is done by library professionals, so should publicly viewed tags. You can do whatever you want on your own private accounts and websites, but for an institution that runs on public or governmental funds, you have to be politically correct to avoid alienating your users.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
In this profession, we offend people on a regular basis by our decision to have or not to have certain items in our libraries. We make people mad by not having access to certain resources that they want. We are not open the hours that they would like us be. So to address the question of political correctness and appropriateness of tags, I would submit that we can never make everyone happy by allowing open tagging. We can however, prove our relevance in the information world by helping people find what they need by loosening up some of our traditional practices. In regard to political correctness, I’d like to refer to Weinberger’s discussion of race and the American census in Chapter 10 of Everything is Miscellaneous. (2007, pp 219-222) He discusses how the different names used to describe races have changed throughout the decades. Personally, I found many of these terms very offensive. However, one has to understand the different time periods and the way people viewed what was going on around them. Weinberg states that, “The attributes we choose for dividing up the world depend on our assumptions and interests.” (p. 221) I don’t see how we can keep people from thinking the ways that they do about certain things or how they choose to describe them. What we can allow in libraries is the ability of people to use the terms that are most meaningful to them to find the information they need. Are we going to offend some patrons? We certainly will - but we already do it, and the alternative is to become obsolete by not being effective in the information world. What I would propose to handle the tagging situation is for the library to educate the public on the benefits of tagging. Have information available by every computer that runs the OPAC. I believe that most people will use it correctly if they see the way it can be of assistance to find information. However, there still needs to be monitoring because of the few that might think it’s funny to add profanity or other truly inappropriate words. You will have some people (probably children as per my experiences) that will tag a book about dogs and bunnies with cookies and golf just because they can. Once again, if incorrect tags limit people’s access to information, they need to be removed. When a tag is found that is questionable, I believe that a committee of library staff and community members should discuss it and decide if it should be removed. Due to biases, a decision like this cannot be left in the hands of one person. Additionally, my suggestion for handling protests about removed tags would be to have a policy in place just like we do with other materials. I would recommend about six pages of forms to fill out, plus an essay of at least 300 words about why the tag should be there. I think that would take care of most of the protests!
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
There are many articles that encourage libraries to embrace tagging, be it adding descriptive metadata to books in the OPAC or tagging websites that librarians suggest to their patrons. In a 2008 American Libraries magazine article, author Dinah Sanders said, "Library systems have great 'findability' for trained searchers; the challenge now is how to make them work equally well for untrained ones." She goes on to say that "one of the greatest innovations changing the library discovery experience is the addition of user participation in findability through the use of user-contributed keywords or 'tags' associated with particular materials." Library system creators such as Innovative Interface, who markets their Encore software, tout the wonders of tagging in libraries. The Encore website gives examples of patrons and librarians both adding tags to catalog records.
In Becky's first paragraph, she said that tags are stored, traced and retrieved, and I assume she is meaning this as a negative aspect. My first thought was of course, the whole point of tagging is to have assign the metadata to an item, store that metadata, and be able to trace and retrieve it later. If Becky is referring to the identification of the patron who assigned the tag, then I agree that there are privacy issues. Libraries have the express purpose of protecting a patron's privacy while the patron expands whatever area of knowledge they feel like expanding at the moment. Just as we can't have little cards in the front of books to show who has checked it out, we can't breach the privacy of a patron who assigned the tags "vampire" and "erotic" to a Laurell Hamilton book and it's quite likely that the patron would want to stay anonymous as well. This is a double edged sword: the library wants to offer tagging of materials in their collections so patrons could hypothetically find materials that suit their interests/needs by allowing those exact patrons to essentially keyword books they have experienced, but yet protecting their privacy about exactly what books they've tagged, yet still wanting to maintain a level of appropriateness for the public.
David Weinberger says on page 165 of his book, Everything is Miscellaneous, that "we don't even yet know if people will tag for themselves to refind pages or to help others find pages." If people are tagging books they want to find again by just using tags like 'good' or 'awful', these tags are probably worthless to anyone else. These would be tags that libraries probably wouldn't want in their catalog. If someone tagged a variety of books with 'Seattle' or 'widow', libraries probably wouldn't care as they are relatively benign keywords and could be used by the person who tagged it as well as others looking for books set in or about Seattle.
Many websites that present user-generated content, such as Flikr and YouTube, allow the creators of the website to moderate the content uploaded, taking off content that is inappropriate or illegal. There are also websites, such as CraigsList, that allow users to flag items for the moderators to review and decide whether the content is inappropriate or illegal. I think that having librarians as well as patrons offering suggestions as to what is appropriate would be entirely possible and not out of the question. Anyone with access to the catalog could essentially flag questionable or problematic tags. Just as librarians appreciate the value of controversial materials in their collections and not allowing parents to burn every copy of "Catcher in the Rye", they would need to moderate what patrons deem inappropriate, but it would still allow a lot of metadata to be added without requiring a librarian to approve all the metadata before it was posted. Requiring a librarian to review all metadata before it was posted would be impossible to keep up with, but I would think looking at the items flagged in the last few days would be manageable, right?
I'm trying to say that in terms of the subjectivity of labeling, there will no doubt be patrons who are not happy with the tags that others attach to catalog records but just as librarians value the range of materials and freedom of access, they would value the range of keywords used as tags. Sander's suggested that there will be abuse of the system, I have no doubt that you'll get the occasional thirteen year old boy who thinks it's cool to add four letter words to random records. I don't think there would be any question that these kinds of pranks do not add value to the catalog record and should be removed without further evaluation.
Sanders, Dinah. (2008). Tag--you're it! American libraries, 39(11), 52-54.
Weinberger, David. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
When I think about this statement there seems to be much of the time when we instruct or are instructed in everyday life. Knowledge does have to be passed on by parents, teachers and other authority figures. Society wants the instructed to know useful information, so they can use this knowledge spilling out at them. It is the general assumption of society somehow people will automatically synthesize this knowledge into a usable form. And they will get it. Society wants people to stop arguing and thinking, and agree what is taught is fact, “the body of knowledge about which we agree” (p. 215). If knowledge is a body of facts it must be applied as we instruct the recipients to use it, or knowledge is worthless fact. Understanding is something completely different. Understanding is shared with people in conversation, people who are like us. We want commonality. We know what we hear and “are mostly hearing more and louder echoes” (p. 201). We seek people who feel the same as we do about a given subject. This is knowledge applied and useful for daily life, not the inner struggle of a philosopher in an ivory tower. The common feeling, though subjective, is the definition of understanding we seek.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.
In response to the subjectivity of tagging and the language of tagging: Tagging is great within the context of "you and you alone" but when you open up your tags to others it can get messy. Sometimes, when I tag a photo in my photo album on my computer, I'll tag the basic information like who and where, but then I'll add the random stuff like how many cups of "soda" we'd drank, mood, and an up or down vote on how the night was up to that point. I don't want to share that with others. That's be awkward.
I like to think of tagging like tying lines to the tree. Weinberger (2007) talked about all sorts of trees in history, include the important "animal, vegetable, mineral" tree. What my tags do for my personal tree is connect tie lies across the branches. Think of it like shoots and ladders; (sorry to mix my metaphors) up one branch to a line connecting to another branch halfway across the tree. Then down another line and across to a third line and back to a solid branch on the other side. These are all connected to one another by my tags, but they are my tags for a reason. I understand them and you might not not. If we're tagging an OPAC, there might be all manner of miscellaneous tags that links books to one another by someone's mood, someone's break up book list, someone's "books I read to make my mother mad" list.
As far as profanity within tags, I think that if you're tagging your own information then swear away, but when there are others who will be reading your tags, some form of oversight should be in place. It might be as simple as all tags being sent to a moderator before being added to the item in the collection. It might be more difficult, but I think that even miscellaneous tagging should keep it clean for the kids.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
I apologize in advance because my brain always seems to embrace the technological side of issues. The current state of library technology frequently requires the patron to give up some of the online security (control) that is available. I frequently have to coach people through such tasks as clearing their browser cache and cookies, turning off pfishing filters and pop-up blockers, enabling cookies, enabling “not recommended” settings in their security features, and lowering their general security settings to at least medium-low. All of these things set the user up for potential security breaches and can make them uneasy with what is required of them to be able to access our “excellent resources.” But, especially if you are using EZProxy as your remote access tool, you will not have much of an option but to relinquish control to be able to effectively use library resources.
While the library community does have a responsibility to guard patron privacy, the rules governing privacy are continuously evolving. Just to sign up for a blogger account I had to create a new email account (my ancient Hotmail account was not accepted). So I sold my soul to Google. While some tell me to just get over it because the benefits of “membership” outweigh the loss of privacy, I’m still rather insecure about this decision. I won’t play games on Facebook because of the information gathered and forwarded to who knows where. Sometimes I like the Amazon experience, especially when shopping for books for my nephews, but I find it unsettling to access a site at a later date and be “remembered” or “cookied in.” What if I don’t want a record of having visited this site? Or easy access to “My Account” information stored on a machine? While I may be insecure, others have no problem with these privacy issues and plunge head-first toward the latest and greatest the web has to offer.
Part of the problem in our discussion of the catalog (Dewey or LOC in my opinion) is that librarians have been arguing for ages about what is the best access point for information – the catalog, index, or other tools such as pathfinders and guides. Now that so much more information is digital in nature, the solutions seem to grow more complex instead of simpler. Do we provide links to information in the catalog or download and store the original information so that it will “always” be available? Can we provide a single access point, such as a federated or integrated search feature, that can simultaneously search the catalog as well as other compatible databases? What about the other types of resources that are available but not federated search friendly? If we choose to provide linking to numerous resources through our catalog, how many services will we have to purchase to make sure that everything is up-to-date in the ever changing subscription lists of databases? What role with WorldCat Local or Google play in displaying Library resources to the world? It looks like these discussions will be relevant for ages to come.
Due to the amazingly vast and complex information resources that we want to make available to our users, and their desire to access information seamlessly and quickly, it would seem that while we have similar goals of providing/accessing information, the coordination of all this technology is daunting at best. It makes me tired to even think about all the work to be done to improve the user experience. The decision making process will have to continually evaluate the balance of privacy verses access or usability as we pick our services and resources.
While “control” can be shared with users in the way of tagging or “My Library” experiences, this scenario makes me think of baking cookies with my 9 year old daughter. When we bake cookies together, I bring years of experience, a love of cookies, a recipe, the correct ingredients, and the proper equipment. She gets to measure, dump, turn on the mixer, spoon the dough, and eat. Without all that I bring to the experience, her results would be rather limited (and very messy). When our users come to the catalog and desire a “tagging experience,” they are doing a little stirring of information already provided, customizing the storage of the information (spooning onto their own cookie sheet), and then consume the information. Because the librarian has already provided the correction ingredients through material selection, the proper equipment through technology choices, and has pre-organized using current cataloging and technological standards, the batter has value because it can be used. If the patron wants to throw in a few “personal touches” to the experience, the result can be richer – but only because the base was quality in the first place. I would like to think that there is room to “share control” instead of “giving up control.”
“Getting my Goat”: If we are using Library information/resources, there is most likely a way to either grant or deny tagging controls. The problem will come if we decide to leave the library world and connect to more general resources (Google Scholar and more) which can easy lead to data mining events. If this is a concern for your library population, you will need to make sure that data mining control doesn’t get overlooked while exploring all the “bells and whistles.”
Susan: I think more people need a good education concerning how the internet does not truly allow you to be anonymous. There are many ways to track users and the courts are ruling against the right of anonymity when charges of libel or slander arise. While most catalogs are set up to delete reading records for patrons, there is usually a way to trace who used a book last. When patrons use resources such as QuestionPoint, while they can refuse to list any personal information, their IP address is logged. I agree, however, that the while the world may give away their online privacy rights, the library community should do whatever is reasonable to protect their users – occasionally from themselves!
Rachel: If the Librarian is creating the public tags then we really haven’t given up control at all. How this could work is if there was a process to suggest tags for a record – possibly even submitting them online for consideration like you can do with online blogs – or having a broad library committee (complete with members from the teen board, library friends, book club, etc.) participate in the process. Most likely, unless using LibraryThing as an overlay, the tagging feature would be limited to personal tags created within your own account. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Check out what Gelman Library is doing at George Washington University. Their tagging option is for the users “My Library” account only. http://surveyor.gelman.gwu.edu/
Kkbrommer: I enjoyed your perspective as human history is full of the offensive and people are by nature bias. If we present a true history instead of a sanitized version, we will offend – though that should not be our goal! Tagging purists would argue against ever removing a tag as it is censorship and would negatively impact the trust relationship between the library and the patron. I’m not fully sold on that point of view and think your protest policy idea would dampen the position of those offended that their tag was not used. Six pages and an essay may be a little harsh. How about the question “Did you read the item before tagging it?” This answer alone may stop about half the protests.
Sarah: In my first paragraph I was simply stating that tags are stored, traced and retrieved. This is a neutral position because it is fact. My implication was that the user needs to be aware that they are creating stored information and library staff need to consider this fact as well while they are considering new technologies and how to manage them. I like your flagging idea if that is possible with the software selected. It would be much easier to monitor a few flagged items over scanning through all metadata. Unfortunately, someone is going to find something offensive (or questionable) in order to flag it. You will find that you will spend quite a bit of time calming the offended. Thank you for the article you cited. I will be sure to read it.
Deb: Interesting position. Sometimes the “common feeling” is not necessarily a good thing, especially if your library community is exclusive, bias, or wanting to engage in censorship. “Common feeling” can be a powerful tool if the goal is for the common good of all – even those outside the smaller, common group – instead of focusing only on the needs or desires of the common good. The single thing that may actually be common is that whatever binds you is acceptable and value to you. All of this needs to be considered when making decisions as to how the library can approach the needs of their community.
Jake: Thank you for bringing up the information tree section on organizing information. This was one of my favorite sections in the book. My current position on tagging is that it should be personal in nature. I want to be able to organize information and have that information stored for me. I don’t like the idea that others can “tag” me or my children any way they want and have that information out for everyone to see. In services such as Flickr or Facebook, anyone can put a picture of me up and I have no control of what is said or how that information is used. If you have ever had problems with an online stalker, psycho ex, or a vindictive person, personal information should be highly guarded. My son had three friends who “tagged” his car with toilet paper and graffiti. It was no big deal to us but it was to the 4 police officers who were called to the scene (not by us). My son was trying to capture photos of the event, probably to post to Facebook, when I remind him of the implications: three honor roll students who will be looking for college scholarships, college admittance, and future careers. All this can be affected by a kid with a cell phone, Facebook account, and the freedom to tag. While we can never control everything that is out there, it seems that we should be able to have a say about our privacy and how our information is used. The Library world is much more secure with regard to patron privacy and we should continue to battle for that privacy in the future. I will admit that I am rather conservative concerning this issue.
This is a blog site in support of TED4710-8716: Reference Resources & Services and ISLT 7314: Reference Sources & Services course offered by the cooperative MLS program from the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the University of Missouri.
13 comments:
From Becky Wymer
-- November 1, 2009 3:56 PM
I've appreciate the postings I've read and agree that the ability to tag records and create a "my library" experience does move the library as a whole toward a third-order experience for our users. As Breanne quotes "Tags let you remember things your way." Depending on the tagging mechanism and its configuration, you can add content to library records which either directly benefits you or benefits the library community as a whole. With this ability does come a number of concerns, however.
The first issue for most post 9/11 librarians is security. If tags help me remember and organize information my way, this implies that the tags are "remembered" and thus stored. If the tags are stored, they can be traced - and retrieved. While we are waiting for current Patriot Act revisions to take place that will offer greater protections to our users, it takes but one election or legislative revision to return to a seizure mentality. How does the library balance security/patron privacy with the desire to offer the "my library" experience?
Another issue concerning tagging is the subjectivity of such labeling. While having the freedom to label things "my way" is important to the user and if tags are shared among users either through shared lists or word clouds, what if one user finds it important to include certain profanities found in the text? Not the there are profanities or “language” but the words used themselves are tagged? Who gets to decide – or monitor for that matter – the appropriateness of the tags submitted? If a term is rejected are we guilty of violating intellectual freedom? What if the terminology tagged is not politically correct or racist or any of the other “bad” things that we can think of? How do we relinquish control to the patrons and not upset our community leaders, board members, and tax payers in the process? Theory is always easier than practice. Are these legitimate concerns or the whining of "second-order" thinking? I look forward to your responses!
Weinberger (2007) briefly touches on the issue of privacy and “bread crumbs”, asking “How much of the implicit digital metadata people inevitably create should an organization track, keep and use?” When does this practice become “intrusive and even creepy”? (The subject of digital data mining has been written about in depth by Stephen Baker in his 2009 book The Numerati). While touching on this topic, Weinberger mentions how Amazon uses implicit metadata to customize the browsing experience and offer customers further suggestions for purchase. If online library catalogs want offer a similar experience, I wonder if there is a way to bar these data miners from culling information based on a patron’s browsing history or user profile—or, at the very least, educate users about the brave new world of “cloud mining” and possible intrusions into their privacy. You could argue that libraries have an obligation to protect users’ privacy from these dodgy data miners, since they are the ultimate neutral ground and have no commercial or ideological biases.
As Weinberger says, “…We are in transition in our idea of privacy and we are still discovering ways to make sense of the implicit traces people leave behind.” The rise of the so-called Numerati obviously has brought with it a tangle of thorny ethical issues that libraries will most likely have to deal with in the coming years as its services become fully integrated into the cloud.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
The issue of privacy is one that libraries constantly struggle with. Features such as tagging are a personal expression of someone’s interpretation of an item, materials, etc. Being able to retrieve the information at a later date is the entire purpose of using tags. When patrons use a tagging feature in a library setting, they assume that anything they post will be confidential and not shared with anyone or any entity: just like their library account itself. I am not familiar enough with technology, but I would think that there is a way to remove identifiable information from a tag after it has been stored in the library’s server, similar to having any record of an item having been checked out to a patron is removed. As Weinberger says, “unless a user has given explicit permission, her tracks through a site should never, ever be shared with any other organization” (2007, p. 164).
Many libraries today require a user to log in to use a computer, even when limited to only library resources. However, libraries can easily set up “guest” accounts (and many have) that patrons can use to log into these machines. This way, if a patron is concerned with their paths being tracked, the system only recognizes a generic guest user, not a specific person’s account. Unfortunately, “we are in transition in our idea of privacy” (Weinberger 2007, p. 164) and many people do not consider the ramifications of actions taken online. Ultimately though, any user is responsible for the content they either post or contribute, including tags. They have made the decision to engage in a service and have an obligation to themselves to be aware of any potential complications. Libraries should do everything in their power to help minimize any negative impact a patron’s actions may have by providing ways of getting around the system, so to speak, such as providing anonymous accounts or eliminating search histories.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital
disorder. New York: A Holt Paperback.
Becky raises some great points about privacy. I feel, as a user, that Amazon comes close to encroaching on my privacy by tracking my clicks but I also appreciate the idea of being introduced to new titles that I may not be aware of. While searching for leather bound books this week I visited a number of new websites, anonymously I assumed, that were linked by Amazon, but within hours I started to receive unsolicited emails from these booksellers. Weinberger states that "unless the user has given explicit permission, her tracks through a site should never, ever be shared with another organization" (2007,p 164).
Another point raised is the possibility of inappropriate or racist tags. My view may boarder on censorship, but on a library site I think that publicly viewed tags have to be above reproach. Just like cross-referencing is done by library professionals, so should publicly viewed tags. You can do whatever you want on your own private accounts and websites, but for an institution that runs on public or governmental funds, you have to be politically correct to avoid alienating your users.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
In this profession, we offend people on a regular basis by our decision to have or not to have certain items in our libraries. We make people mad by not having access to certain resources that they want. We are not open the hours that they would like us be. So to address the question of political correctness and appropriateness of tags, I would submit that we can never make everyone happy by allowing open tagging. We can however, prove our relevance in the information world by helping people find what they need by loosening up some of our traditional practices.
In regard to political correctness, I’d like to refer to Weinberger’s discussion of race and the American census in Chapter 10 of Everything is Miscellaneous. (2007, pp 219-222) He discusses how the different names used to describe races have changed throughout the decades. Personally, I found many of these terms very offensive. However, one has to understand the different time periods and the way people viewed what was going on around them. Weinberg states that, “The attributes we choose for dividing up the world depend on our assumptions and interests.” (p. 221) I don’t see how we can keep people from thinking the ways that they do about certain things or how they choose to describe them. What we can allow in libraries is the ability of people to use the terms that are most meaningful to them to find the information they need. Are we going to offend some patrons? We certainly will - but we already do it, and the alternative is to become obsolete by not being effective in the information world.
What I would propose to handle the tagging situation is for the library to educate the public on the benefits of tagging. Have information available by every computer that runs the OPAC. I believe that most people will use it correctly if they see the way it can be of assistance to find information. However, there still needs to be monitoring because of the few that might think it’s funny to add profanity or other truly inappropriate words. You will have some people (probably children as per my experiences) that will tag a book about dogs and bunnies with cookies and golf just because they can. Once again, if incorrect tags limit people’s access to information, they need to be removed. When a tag is found that is questionable, I believe that a committee of library staff and community members should discuss it and decide if it should be removed. Due to biases, a decision like this cannot be left in the hands of one person.
Additionally, my suggestion for handling protests about removed tags would be to have a policy in place just like we do with other materials. I would recommend about six pages of forms to fill out, plus an essay of at least 300 words about why the tag should be there. I think that would take care of most of the protests!
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
There are many articles that encourage libraries to embrace tagging, be it adding descriptive metadata to books in the OPAC or tagging websites that librarians suggest to their patrons. In a 2008 American Libraries magazine article, author Dinah Sanders said, "Library systems have great 'findability' for trained searchers; the challenge now is how to make them work equally well for untrained ones." She goes on to say that "one of the greatest innovations changing the library discovery experience is the addition of user participation in findability through the use of user-contributed keywords or 'tags' associated with particular materials." Library system creators such as Innovative Interface, who markets their Encore software, tout the wonders of tagging in libraries. The Encore website gives examples of patrons and librarians both adding tags to catalog records.
In Becky's first paragraph, she said that tags are stored, traced and retrieved, and I assume she is meaning this as a negative aspect. My first thought was of course, the whole point of tagging is to have assign the metadata to an item, store that metadata, and be able to trace and retrieve it later. If Becky is referring to the identification of the patron who assigned the tag, then I agree that there are privacy issues. Libraries have the express purpose of protecting a patron's privacy while the patron expands whatever area of knowledge they feel like expanding at the moment. Just as we can't have little cards in the front of books to show who has checked it out, we can't breach the privacy of a patron who assigned the tags "vampire" and "erotic" to a Laurell Hamilton book and it's quite likely that the patron would want to stay anonymous as well. This is a double edged sword: the library wants to offer tagging of materials in their collections so patrons could hypothetically find materials that suit their interests/needs by allowing those exact patrons to essentially keyword books they have experienced, but yet protecting their privacy about exactly what books they've tagged, yet still wanting to maintain a level of appropriateness for the public.
David Weinberger says on page 165 of his book, Everything is Miscellaneous, that "we don't even yet know if people will tag for themselves to refind pages or to help others find pages." If people are tagging books they want to find again by just using tags like 'good' or 'awful', these tags are probably worthless to anyone else. These would be tags that libraries probably wouldn't want in their catalog. If someone tagged a variety of books with 'Seattle' or 'widow', libraries probably wouldn't care as they are relatively benign keywords and could be used by the person who tagged it as well as others looking for books set in or about Seattle.
[part two of my really long comment]
Many websites that present user-generated content, such as Flikr and YouTube, allow the creators of the website to moderate the content uploaded, taking off content that is inappropriate or illegal. There are also websites, such as CraigsList, that allow users to flag items for the moderators to review and decide whether the content is inappropriate or illegal. I think that having librarians as well as patrons offering suggestions as to what is appropriate would be entirely possible and not out of the question. Anyone with access to the catalog could essentially flag questionable or problematic tags. Just as librarians appreciate the value of controversial materials in their collections and not allowing parents to burn every copy of "Catcher in the Rye", they would need to moderate what patrons deem inappropriate, but it would still allow a lot of metadata to be added without requiring a librarian to approve all the metadata before it was posted. Requiring a librarian to review all metadata before it was posted would be impossible to keep up with, but I would think looking at the items flagged in the last few days would be manageable, right?
I'm trying to say that in terms of the subjectivity of labeling, there will no doubt be patrons who are not happy with the tags that others attach to catalog records but just as librarians value the range of materials and freedom of access, they would value the range of keywords used as tags. Sander's suggested that there will be abuse of the system, I have no doubt that you'll get the occasional thirteen year old boy who thinks it's cool to add four letter words to random records. I don't think there would be any question that these kinds of pranks do not add value to the catalog record and should be removed without further evaluation.
Sanders, Dinah. (2008). Tag--you're it! American libraries, 39(11), 52-54.
Weinberger, David. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
When I think about this statement there seems to be much of the time when we instruct or are instructed in everyday life. Knowledge does have to be passed on by parents, teachers and other authority figures. Society wants the instructed to know useful information, so they can use this knowledge spilling out at them. It is the general assumption of society somehow people will automatically synthesize this knowledge into a usable form. And they will get it. Society wants people to stop arguing and thinking, and agree what is taught is fact, “the body of knowledge about which we agree” (p. 215). If knowledge is a body of facts it must be applied as we instruct the recipients to use it, or knowledge is worthless fact.
Understanding is something completely different. Understanding is shared with people in conversation, people who are like us. We want commonality. We know what we hear and “are mostly hearing more and louder echoes” (p. 201). We seek people who feel the same as we do about a given subject. This is knowledge applied and useful for daily life, not the inner struggle of a philosopher in an ivory tower. The common feeling, though subjective, is the definition of understanding we seek.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous. New York: Times Books.
In response to the subjectivity of tagging and the language of tagging: Tagging is great within the context of "you and you alone" but when you open up your tags to others it can get messy. Sometimes, when I tag a photo in my photo album on my computer, I'll tag the basic information like who and where, but then I'll add the random stuff like how many cups of "soda" we'd drank, mood, and an up or down vote on how the night was up to that point. I don't want to share that with others. That's be awkward.
I like to think of tagging like tying lines to the tree. Weinberger (2007) talked about all sorts of trees in history, include the important "animal, vegetable, mineral" tree. What my tags do for my personal tree is connect tie lies across the branches. Think of it like shoots and ladders; (sorry to mix my metaphors) up one branch to a line connecting to another branch halfway across the tree. Then down another line and across to a third line and back to a solid branch on the other side. These are all connected to one another by my tags, but they are my tags for a reason. I understand them and you might not not. If we're tagging an OPAC, there might be all manner of miscellaneous tags that links books to one another by someone's mood, someone's break up book list, someone's "books I read to make my mother mad" list.
As far as profanity within tags, I think that if you're tagging your own information then swear away, but when there are others who will be reading your tags, some form of oversight should be in place. It might be as simple as all tags being sent to a moderator before being added to the item in the collection. It might be more difficult, but I think that even miscellaneous tagging should keep it clean for the kids.
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous:The power of the new digital disorder. New York: Times Books.
I apologize in advance because my brain always seems to embrace the technological side of issues. The current state of library technology frequently requires the patron to give up some of the online security (control) that is available. I frequently have to coach people through such tasks as clearing their browser cache and cookies, turning off pfishing filters and pop-up blockers, enabling cookies, enabling “not recommended” settings in their security features, and lowering their general security settings to at least medium-low. All of these things set the user up for potential security breaches and can make them uneasy with what is required of them to be able to access our “excellent resources.” But, especially if you are using EZProxy as your remote access tool, you will not have much of an option but to relinquish control to be able to effectively use library resources.
While the library community does have a responsibility to guard patron privacy, the rules governing privacy are continuously evolving. Just to sign up for a blogger account I had to create a new email account (my ancient Hotmail account was not accepted). So I sold my soul to Google. While some tell me to just get over it because the benefits of “membership” outweigh the loss of privacy, I’m still rather insecure about this decision. I won’t play games on Facebook because of the information gathered and forwarded to who knows where. Sometimes I like the Amazon experience, especially when shopping for books for my nephews, but I find it unsettling to access a site at a later date and be “remembered” or “cookied in.” What if I don’t want a record of having visited this site? Or easy access to “My Account” information stored on a machine? While I may be insecure, others have no problem with these privacy issues and plunge head-first toward the latest and greatest the web has to offer.
Part of the problem in our discussion of the catalog (Dewey or LOC in my opinion) is that librarians have been arguing for ages about what is the best access point for information – the catalog, index, or other tools such as pathfinders and guides. Now that so much more information is digital in nature, the solutions seem to grow more complex instead of simpler. Do we provide links to information in the catalog or download and store the original information so that it will “always” be available? Can we provide a single access point, such as a federated or integrated search feature, that can simultaneously search the catalog as well as other compatible databases? What about the other types of resources that are available but not federated search friendly? If we choose to provide linking to numerous resources through our catalog, how many services will we have to purchase to make sure that everything is up-to-date in the ever changing subscription lists of databases? What role with WorldCat Local or Google play in displaying Library resources to the world? It looks like these discussions will be relevant for ages to come.
Due to the amazingly vast and complex information resources that we want to make available to our users, and their desire to access information seamlessly and quickly, it would seem that while we have similar goals of providing/accessing information, the coordination of all this technology is daunting at best. It makes me tired to even think about all the work to be done to improve the user experience. The decision making process will have to continually evaluate the balance of privacy verses access or usability as we pick our services and resources.
While “control” can be shared with users in the way of tagging or “My Library” experiences, this scenario makes me think of baking cookies with my 9 year old daughter. When we bake cookies together, I bring years of experience, a love of cookies, a recipe, the correct ingredients, and the proper equipment. She gets to measure, dump, turn on the mixer, spoon the dough, and eat. Without all that I bring to the experience, her results would be rather limited (and very messy). When our users come to the catalog and desire a “tagging experience,” they are doing a little stirring of information already provided, customizing the storage of the information (spooning onto their own cookie sheet), and then consume the information. Because the librarian has already provided the correction ingredients through material selection, the proper equipment through technology choices, and has pre-organized using current cataloging and technological standards, the batter has value because it can be used. If the patron wants to throw in a few “personal touches” to the experience, the result can be richer – but only because the base was quality in the first place. I would like to think that there is room to “share control” instead of “giving up control.”
“Getting my Goat”: If we are using Library information/resources, there is most likely a way to either grant or deny tagging controls. The problem will come if we decide to leave the library world and connect to more general resources (Google Scholar and more) which can easy lead to data mining events. If this is a concern for your library population, you will need to make sure that data mining control doesn’t get overlooked while exploring all the “bells and whistles.”
Susan: I think more people need a good education concerning how the internet does not truly allow you to be anonymous. There are many ways to track users and the courts are ruling against the right of anonymity when charges of libel or slander arise. While most catalogs are set up to delete reading records for patrons, there is usually a way to trace who used a book last. When patrons use resources such as QuestionPoint, while they can refuse to list any personal information, their IP address is logged. I agree, however, that the while the world may give away their online privacy rights, the library community should do whatever is reasonable to protect their users – occasionally from themselves!
Rachel: If the Librarian is creating the public tags then we really haven’t given up control at all. How this could work is if there was a process to suggest tags for a record – possibly even submitting them online for consideration like you can do with online blogs – or having a broad library committee (complete with members from the teen board, library friends, book club, etc.) participate in the process. Most likely, unless using LibraryThing as an overlay, the tagging feature would be limited to personal tags created within your own account. It will be interesting to see how this develops in the future. Check out what Gelman Library is doing at George Washington University. Their tagging option is for the users “My Library” account only. http://surveyor.gelman.gwu.edu/
Kkbrommer: I enjoyed your perspective as human history is full of the offensive and people are by nature bias. If we present a true history instead of a sanitized version, we will offend – though that should not be our goal! Tagging purists would argue against ever removing a tag as it is censorship and would negatively impact the trust relationship between the library and the patron. I’m not fully sold on that point of view and think your protest policy idea would dampen the position of those offended that their tag was not used. Six pages and an essay may be a little harsh. How about the question “Did you read the item before tagging it?” This answer alone may stop about half the protests.
Sarah: In my first paragraph I was simply stating that tags are stored, traced and retrieved. This is a neutral position because it is fact. My implication was that the user needs to be aware that they are creating stored information and library staff need to consider this fact as well while they are considering new technologies and how to manage them. I like your flagging idea if that is possible with the software selected. It would be much easier to monitor a few flagged items over scanning through all metadata. Unfortunately, someone is going to find something offensive (or questionable) in order to flag it. You will find that you will spend quite a bit of time calming the offended. Thank you for the article you cited. I will be sure to read it.
Deb: Interesting position. Sometimes the “common feeling” is not necessarily a good thing, especially if your library community is exclusive, bias, or wanting to engage in censorship. “Common feeling” can be a powerful tool if the goal is for the common good of all – even those outside the smaller, common group – instead of focusing only on the needs or desires of the common good. The single thing that may actually be common is that whatever binds you is acceptable and value to you. All of this needs to be considered when making decisions as to how the library can approach the needs of their community.
Jake: Thank you for bringing up the information tree section on organizing information. This was one of my favorite sections in the book. My current position on tagging is that it should be personal in nature. I want to be able to organize information and have that information stored for me. I don’t like the idea that others can “tag” me or my children any way they want and have that information out for everyone to see. In services such as Flickr or Facebook, anyone can put a picture of me up and I have no control of what is said or how that information is used. If you have ever had problems with an online stalker, psycho ex, or a vindictive person, personal information should be highly guarded. My son had three friends who “tagged” his car with toilet paper and graffiti. It was no big deal to us but it was to the 4 police officers who were called to the scene (not by us). My son was trying to capture photos of the event, probably to post to Facebook, when I remind him of the implications: three honor roll students who will be looking for college scholarships, college admittance, and future careers. All this can be affected by a kid with a cell phone, Facebook account, and the freedom to tag. While we can never control everything that is out there, it seems that we should be able to have a say about our privacy and how our information is used. The Library world is much more secure with regard to patron privacy and we should continue to battle for that privacy in the future. I will admit that I am rather conservative concerning this issue.
Post a Comment