What about the wisdom of the minority?

There are many benefits to folksonomies and tagging that have been relayed in this weeks articles, many centering on the fact that tagging systems are bottom-up classification schemes. Thus users tag items with language that they see as appropriate. This seems great because one can leverage the "long tail," as mentioned by Kroski. But when it seems important to remember that there are a lot of people who are not online tagging items. As we endeavour to bring order to all of this knowledge, is the wisdom of the crowds really better than the wisdom of a minority? There are of course examples of outdated and potentially offensive classification of subjects in both LCSH and in the DDC, but even with the greater representation of minorities in tagging, there are still large numbers of people out there who are not tagging and may be misrepresented by tags used by the majority of taggers. Just look at the way the word "gay" is callously thrown about on the internet as a pejorative descriptor--damage can be done by this careless use of language. The meaning of words can change through popular usage and there is real is little that can be done to prevent this, but relying on folksonomies can easily encourage this semantic evolution in ways that may be damaging to groups who are underrepresented online. When there is an authoritative body in control of classification, at least there can be some debate and some control over what will be tolerated and what will not.

After all of that ranting, I would like to point out that I am in no way trying to suggest that folksonomies be discarded, or even scaled back, because that would simply be impractical (and probably impossible, given the popularity of tagging). However, there are serious issues to consider when relying on the wisdom of the crowds beyond just misclassification or lack of precision searching. Looking back to last weeks reading authored by Rainie for the PEW Internet and American Life Project, we can see that there are at least racial minority groups (minorities in America, at least) who are well represented within tagging communities, but when we look for distinctions beyond race and gender, and begin to examine classes and people of varying sexuality, there are bound to be underrepresented communities that are excluded from this grand classification process. I think it is important to keep this in mind. The wisdom of the crowds may not be universally wise--it may just suit the views of a predominant class.

A small issue with Mercado

Andrea Mercado writes in her blog post "Tagging on Flickr & del.icio.us" that one of the ways in which to find other users bookmarks on del.icio.us is via "Browsing, [kinda like the bookstore browse vs. trying to find something on a library shelf using the call number system, serendipity vs. structure]." I take issue with her suggestion here that serendipity and structure are opposites. Yes, library materials are arranged according to a highly codified system, but I see no way in which this somehow hinders serendipity. While a user may use different information seeking methods when they start searching in a library vs. a bookstore, I would suggest that many end up browsing just the same in the end. Collocation allows for highly successful browsing within the library and serendipity is just as likely to strike in the stacks as it is in the aisles of a bookstore.

Wiki Difficulties

The thing that really caught my eye in this weeks readings were the concepts of community support and community building that are part of the creation of a wiki. The idea that a wiki needs a dedicated community seems in some ways counter to the idea that a wiki can build a community. Which came first, the community or the wiki? I suppose, ultimately, it all comes down to need. Is there a need that can be filled by a wiki? If there is, then there theoretically ought to be a community waiting to embrace it. That community need not be cohesive and recognized prior to the implementation of the wiki, and thus it can develop via the wiki.

The fact that there must be a need for the wiki in the first place is vitally important. I have had the opportunity to develop a course wiki for an engineering course at Queen's University and I am sad to say that it bombed. It was a well-crafted wiki and a lot of work went into it, but in the end, it turned out that there was no need for it. The idea was that the class could use it as a virtual discussion space and as a space to write the draft of their final papers, which were to be done in groups of three or four students. Ultimately, the wiki failed because the students did not find it difficult to meet in person to discuss their projects, and thus there was no need for a virtual discussion space.

There was some activity on the wiki initially, and that was exciting, but as the term got busier, the students made it known that the wiki was just another thing that they had to keep in mind. It was more of a burden for them to use it than it was a convenience. So, in the end, there was no community support, because although there was a perceived need, there was no actual need. The lesson that I learned from this is that if you can consult a community before implementing such a project, do it.