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 There are of course examples of outdated and potentially offensive classification of subjects in both LCSH and in the DDC, but even with the greater representation of minorities in tagging, there are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.
3 comments:
Hi Mike,
I agree that there's potential pejorative tagging. Tags could be very offensive, just as Liz Lawley’s example of “nigga”. She also points out another possible problem of folksonomy - pornography. Should there be a filter over the tagging since there is large amount of Internet users under age 18? At least there must be some level of administration over the tagging.
Good points, Mike. The other thing to consider in this discussion is the digital divide -- how much of the economically disadvantaged population are contributing to folksonomies? How many even know what tagging is? In the 2.0 world, we continue to make huge assumptions about user participation when some communities don't even have access to broadband.
So, yes, this is an important part of the discussion -- thanks for bringing it up!
I agree with your comments, Mike. In tagging, the minority might also be the expert. I think the expert's tags will get drowned out and dumbed down by the many voices of the amateurs, and that the quality and depth of our knowledge will suffer as a result.
Post a Comment