On 06/11/2012 14:17, Joseph Montibello wrote:
<snip>
> I don't think that the point of the tagging is to provide consistency or a
> centralized, authoritative structure for exploring the whole pile.
>
> Rather, the point of it is to allow people to produce some metadata to
> search with / by, for dimensions that wouldn't be covered by traditional
> cataloging.
>
> I don't see this kind of crowdsourcing as a replacement for cataloging in
> the library world. Rather, I see it as an extension of (some form of)
> cataloging into areas where catalogers don't have the resources to go
> (2500 images in this flickr group alone).
</snip>
While *I* agree with what you are saying that this kind of crowdsourcing
should not be a replacement for cataloging, I don't know if most
administrators would agree. For instance, in this Smithsonian example,
there do not seem to be full-level records for these photos so
therefore, the tags are all that exist. (other than the macro-supplied
ones with the Smithsonian's name, as I mentioned) So, if tags are just
add-ons, that is certainly one matter, but if they are used in more
serious ways, as in this project, then there are other concerns.
We should not expect scholars to immediately understand these kinds of
subtleties, so that is why I think these talks by major scholars are so
important. They have a much greater following and far greater influence
than librarians do. While many may have a basic idea of "metadata," the
importance of consistency--in whatever form it may take--can be very
difficult to grasp. Nothing I have seen, in practice or in theory, has
made me think that the principle of consistency has become any less
important. The problems with lack of consistency are very difficult to
see; you have to know how to "look" and catalogers know. The "Brazil"
example I mentioned is hidden. I can't imagine too many non-specialists
even noticing it as a problem.
I compare it to the professors who would go to seances of the early 20th
century, and in spite of their deep skepticism, they would come away
absolutely bedazzled by the mediums and what they saw. The problem was:
they didn't know how to see. It took a great magician like Harry
Houdini, to show people what the professors could not. I think
catalogers could/should be in that same role as Houdini.
I can certainly imagine an administrator who is facing massive budget
cuts, watching Clay Shirkey's talk, looking at the Smithsonian project
and deciding: this looks pretty good to me. I have a few hundred or
thousand photos that need processing and no money. Here is one way to do
it instead of hiring a pro.
I am not saying that the administrator should not be thinking this way.
The administrator could even be right. After all, is *something* better
than *nothing*? Good question! But it is important to answer this kind
of question based on a clear understanding of what is being lost and I
don't believe most non-catalogers understand it.
Unfortunately, our system of name and subject headings broke with the
introduction of keyword in our OPACs (if not before) so it is almost
impossible to demonstrate how the catalog methods are supposed to work.
But I have written enough about that in other posts.
--
*James Weinheimer* weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
*First Thus* http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
*Cooperative Cataloging Rules*
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
*Cataloging Matters Podcasts*
http://blog.jweinheimer.net/p/cataloging-matters-podcasts.html
Received on Tue Nov 06 2012 - 10:23:09 EST