Folksonomies: taxonomies by and for the people

I started this week thinking I would learn a little about del.icio.us and figure out what "adding java script" meant, but I have spent most of the week thinking about folksonomies, control, and whether "opening up" controlled vocabulary to the masses is something to worry about.

This evening, in the midst of the Ellyssa Kroski article, I started trying to explain social bookmarking & rss to my husband. I told him that del.icio.us could replace his "bookmarks" and that rss feeds could save him time in his endless search for information about stereo systems. "Why?" was all he could say. I stuttered an answer that included fancy words like "controlled vocabulary" and "taxonomy" and "tag cloud" and "folksonomy," but I don't think it worked and he was left wondering why he would care what someone else thought something was about. He brought up expert opinions, intellectual respect, and knowledge base-- all good things to consider-- and all things that left me stuttering more.

What I ended up talking about was democracy, control, and how inclusive this technology can be. He took our daughter to the store and I reread my notes. While I don't have anything profound to add to the readings, here are some words and phrases I found stirred my brain a bit:

* Collective intelligence: sharing, connectivity, and participation

* These tools connect different groups of people together, and the more people that use them, the better the services become.

* User-generated content

* "Metadata is now in the realm of the Everyman"

* Adaptability, discovery, serendipity

* Self-moderating and inclusive

* "It’s basically a way to remember in public"

* The categorization is customized for each individual while still serving all of them.

And so, as I finished the Kroski article and thought about precision and simplicity, I found myself asking "Why?". Why would we encourage a move away from what has become an essential part of libraries and their functionality? Can anyone imagine trying to assign subject terms to a catalog record without knowing whether to use "Archival materials -- United States." or just ""Archival material -- United States"? What does it mean for archivists, who have many feet of materials that are dying to be individually described? How could we ever find anything if we didn't impose our own order? Would we become obsolete if we couldn't standardize our practices and join consortiums? How can we join together without a "controlled vocabulary" helping us speak the same language. And then I found these lines:

In the absence of a professionally designed taxonomy, folksonomies are being viewed as a readily available, “better than nothing”, stand-in. According to Clay Shirky, folksonomies are a “forced move”, they are coming whether we like it or not. “It doesn’t matter whether we “accept” folksonomies, because we’re not going to be given that choice.”

And I realized that, while my suspicions will remain intact and my concerns will still exist, we really don't have a choice. Not only that, but really, our own participation and exploration of these cloudy and nebulous word is vital in finding users, finding information, and matching the two together. Should we burn the LCSH? No, but we also shouldn't use hang on to it's taxonomies like a lifeboat that will save us from drowning.

Although, I'm probably preaching to the choir here: our own participation in this class shows that we are committed to "Metadata of the Everyman."

I will now step down from my soap box.