Let me start this first blog posting by acknowledging that I will be presenting issues from time-to-time that we will not have discussed in class. I do this mostly because I had to create a point in which I stopped adding topics to our syllabus because I knew you would become overloaded, so you have the option of further exploring these issues here.
Our first topic is tagging. For those of you who don’t know what tagging is, it is an option you can choose to do with most (what I would call) social network software in which you can essentially give something a subject, as you would in cataloging. I could tag this blog for instance, maybe with the tags of “tagging,” “intellectual freedom,” or “libraries.” One tags for the same reason one uses subject headings in cataloging – so one can find information easier. You can type in the tag for the information you are looking for and, voila! Lots of blog postings about “intellectual freedom!”
Many public libraries are allowing their patrons to add tags to items in their library collections in order for other patrons to more easily find items of interest. There was a news story written last year about a library in Illinois that was encountering patrons who were adding “hate speech” tags to materials written by Ann Coulter. One patron felt this was inappropriate and that the library was taking a political stance by allowing the tags to stay on the catalog. The library stated that their policy was to take down tags that were racial slurs or contained explicit material.
To read the full story, please use the URL below. This comes from the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom which is produced by the Office for Intellectual Freedom which is a great source!
https://members.ala.org/nif/v59n2/dateline.html (Please scroll down to the heading “Mount Prospect, Illinois)
What do you think? What would you do as the librarian?
While I think it's sort of ridiculous for patrons to put tags like that in the catalog, I believe they have the right to do so. The patron who felt that it was inappropriate has every right to put the same tag on a book by Michael Moore, for example. Therefore, the library won't look like it's taking one political side over the other.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do worry that tagging might become out of control. I wouldn't want the catalog to be littered with tags just to make a political point.
I attempted to check this out and the link took me to an error page. I figured it was because I am not currently an ALA memeber so I went the site directly. Still no luck. I did look at the issue indicated v.52n.2 and didn't see the article there.
ReplyDeleteIn other words I can't respond with any knowledge of the actual article.
Tagging in and of itself is a great idea. Users can help each other find information by tagging things the way the "average" person searches for information and not the way the librarian does. I like tagging pretty much.
But in cases like this where tags have been used to show a point of view that is not well-rounded. I think, just like it is our responsibility to make sure that our collections carry materials covering as many viewpoints as we can our tagging poilicies should do the same.
It may mean that we need to moderate every single tag that goes out and make sure that they are balanced before allowing them on our website. I think I'd rather just not allow the opublic to tag at all. Who has the time to make sure that everyone is fair?
While I personally think this kind of action is ridiculous, every person has the right to make that tag. To make it fair, that patron has the right to post the same tag to someone on the opposite point of view, for example, Michael Moore.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I worry that people will continue to make tag just to make a political point. This could lead the tagging system to become out of control.
The library patron who complained also has every right to tag the book. This is not a case of a library taking a political stance, it is a case of librarians letting their patrons have a dialog on their website. If the library's policy is that they don't change tags unless they are racial slurs or they are explicit they should NOT bow down to one person's opinion that a certain tag does not describe a certain book by unfairly censoring another patron against their own policies.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't even consider the "hate speech" tag on an Ann Coulter book to be unreasonable, as many people feel that she does promote hate and intolerance. But the bottom line is that this library is promoting a public dialog on their site between their patrons, and if they bow down to one man who wants them to censor people then they are ignoring all the intellectual freedom policies we have been reading about this week.
I think this library anticipated any problems by creating a policy stating what type of tags would be removed. They uphold this policy by leaving the "hate speech" tags that are being contested and offer a resonable solution by reminding the patron that he can add his own tags in opposition to the ones he does not like.
ReplyDeleteI know of libraries that have added review programs to their catalogs so that patrons can write a review about books for others to read. Reviews do not have to be positive or in support of a book...they are a personal opinion of the material.
Similarily, tagging an item does not have to be in support of that item. A tag is a personal identifying marker. For one patron Ann Coulter's materials are "hate speech" for another they may be "free speech." Either way, the purpose of a tag is to lead others to materials that support their search words.
The library already specified that they would not allow "racial slurs or explicit material." However, all other tagging is allowed so that people can express their opinions and hopefullly help others find more materials. Not everyone is going to agree with all the tags, the person that wrote "hate speech" would not agree with someone that labeled the material "truth."
The library has ventured into a new technology that like all things is not perfect and will not please everyone. They have done a great job upholding their policy while listening to a patron's concerns and trying to find a solution for all users.
Nicely put Anne!
ReplyDeleteAnne, I also say, "Right on!"
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the article, my first thought was, "Duh, why doesn't Alaimo add whatever tags he feels are appropriate?" By the end when it is revealed that he was considering this option, my thought was, "Sounds like he was more interested in stirring things up for the sake of stirring things up."
At any rate, I also thought of the adage, "Junk In = Junk Out." If patrons started tagging items with words/phrases that had nothing to do with the item (rogue hacker-style, perhaps). The Lund/Washbur article below addresses the question of how user-tagging as supplements to LC subject headings affects search queries. The conclusion is that at the very least, when a search query that does not use LC subject headings "correctly" might turn up zero results, the user-tagging increases the likelihood of a hit.
However, if the user-created tags are "junk", the search results will be "junk".
As far as this "hate speech" tag is concerned, the search results may provide some unexpected hits, and others like Alaimo might disagree with the tag being associated with Coulter and consider this a junk in = junk out scenario, but another user might find it useful.
I agree it's crucial that the library does its homework and makes the decision to implement user-created tags in their catalog based on research, staff dialogue, perhaps community dialogue, and ultimately develop policies and procedures for potential "issues" that might arise.
_Source_
Lund, William and Allyson Washbur. Patrons Cataloging? The Role and Quality of Patron Tagging in Item Description. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) 14th National Conference. Seattle, WA. Mar. 2009. Keynote Address. Web. 18 May 2011.
Garbage in/garbage out is very relevant here. This issue reminds me of comment sections on websites.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, local newspaper websites have some of the worst comment sections I have ever seen. Everything is politicized and the same commenters go back and forth on the same topics over and over. Then you have trolls who intentionally say inflammatory things to incite further chaos. At the same time, there are other websites that have insightful comments; examples include Freakonomics (especially when it was still located on the NYTimes domain) and Stack Overflow. I say this because I intentionally ignore the comments on the local newspaper’s site and actively search for the comments on Freakonomics and Stack Overflow.
Why do I bring this up? Tagging and comments personalize the experience for better or worse. If this is the worst of the problems they encounter with such a system, I say leave the system in place with the current restrictions and continue to monitor it.