Tagging can be a wonderful thing. Leaving the creation of metadata to the masses can save time and money by freeing up librarians for other duties. Tagging also creates a unique democratized classification system free of hierarchies and imposed structures. Natural language can be used, making materials easier to find for those who may not be familiar with the official vocabularies. And there's also the concept of "the wisdom of the masses," which is also the basis for wikis. If 1,000 people tag something with the word "dog", they're probably right.
Of course, the same characteristics which make tagging amazing also make it unreliable. The democratic nature of tagging can lead to incorrect, unclear, or just plain offensive tags. The tagging community must be large enough to equalize (intentional or unintentional) incorrect tagging. And without hierarchies and structure, relationships between tags can be difficult or impossible to distinguish. The "wisdom of the masses" may also be completely off...popular beliefs are not always correct, and mistakes in tags can create confusion when trying to find something. It can also lead to just plain inaccurate information.
I think tagging can be great in a lot of ways. But libraries and information providers should be careful in how they are used. In my opinion, tags should be used to supplement already-existing classification systems, not to replace them. In the right context, tagging can be a unique and powerful tool for information retrieval.
Absolutely. It would be foolish to get rid of the hierarchy system. Tagging should be used enhance and find classifications that already exist. Web sites and catalogs should suggest terms that they have cataloged that are close to the user's tag.
ReplyDelete