Can we give up control?
I think we can all agree that librarians (or at least the cataloguers anyways) like to be in control. They cling to their classification schemes and controlled subject vocabulary, preferring order instead of chaos, control instead of anarchy. OPACs contain carefully constructed records that follow the rules and fit neatly into the system. But what would happen if we gave up that control? What if, instead of dictating to the public what each resource is about, we started listening to what they perceive that resource to be?
I found the PennTags website interesting because it allowed users to add their own tags. In contrast, the other library websites using delicious tag clouds were somewhat limited in this respect because the users can merely view the tags that the librarians have added but are not able to contribute in any way. This raises the issue of whether the library wants to retain control of the tagging or whether they want to open it up to the public and get the patrons involved. It seems to me that one of the key ideas behind Web 2.0 (and also Library 2.0) is that it is interactive… users are able to participate instead of being spoon fed content.
Without allowing users to tag the items in the ways that they want to, the system is really not that much different that standard library catalogues where librarians assign controlled vocabulary in ways that they deem appropriate. A much more dynamic system would include user-generated tags that describe what the users sees as important.
- lorna's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Hi Lorna, I am interested in
Hi Lorna,
I am interested in what you've had to say about our classification schemes as librarians and for example how bibliographic information appears to OPAC users. I have been working on a project at work that has caused me to conduct research through Library and Archives Canada. LAC is conducting research to find out how their inter-library loan services are received by certain service providers. In the midst of knowing about this research I had cause to examine their listing of bibliographic information on their inter-library loan interface. It was not user friendly (for the general public) at all! Any librarian or information professional would understand what it says, but it was codified in a manner that most "regular" people would not likely understand. This causes me to think of social bookmarking. I realize that although librarians do need to collect, display, and codify certain information in a meticulous manner for the purpose of recall, I think that we can be behind the times in communicating this information in a user friendly format to the general public. Perhaps we can learn a thing or too from social bookmarking sites like del.icio.us.
Kristen, I completely agree
Kristen, I completely agree that libraries have a lot to learn about when it comes making their catalogues user-friendly! And even if we do design a better interface, what works for one patron may not necessarily work for another. I wonder if it's possible to personalize how catalogue records appear for each patron through the use of things like social software and tagging and bookmarking, in order to create a much more interactive interface.
Lorna, Kristen, I think being
Lorna, Kristen,
I think being surrounded by the same type of people can lead to industry jargon being equated with common use.
Since everyone around you knows what you are talking about, librarians don’t realized people outside of their workplace might not have a clue when what you are talking about.
I guess for personalized catalogues, it'll depend on the cost of the software and maintenance. They have a new personlized course reserve list for student at the academic library I'm at and since it's completely personalized based on what courses the students are registered in, so there's not way for the reference staff to look at their records if there's a problem.