Are folksonomies useful?

The simple question prompt for this post is deceptively complex, because besides defining what a folksonomy is, we have to define what usefulness is. Useful for what purpose? For whom? Why?

If we define folksonomies as systems of categorization created by lay people with no specialized vocabulary, the answer is a little different than if we define folksonomies as systems of categorization created by users of the information. Both definitions are correct.

Obviously, folksonomies have many flaws that critics are quick to point out. With no controlled vocabulary, one must simply guess at keywords and hope someone has the same ideas of vocabulary terms. With anyone allowed to tag, spammers are likely and expected, blurring the clarity of the concept cloud for any given subject. Yes, there are flaws and weaknesses. So do all systems for information aggregation. The real controversy, I feel, is that they are the OPPOSITE flaws of other typical search strategies, which is what makes them scary.

Traditional controlled vocabulary solves the problem of inconsistency, but at the expense of potential elitism, wherein only those selected "in the know" searchers will understand how to utilize the system optimally. This phenomenon can be eased somewhat by the use of tools such as search term redirection and taxonomies of controlled vocabulary terms. However, the knowledge elitism of controlled vocabulary can no more be fully eradicated by these features than the opposite flaw of variability can be fully eradicated from a folksonomy. They are inherent features of the system.

Likewise algorithmic searching has its flaws, as computer controlled functions, no matter how complex, necessarily leave out some of the connections that can only be made using direct human insight and intuition. The opposite flaw of folksonomy is that it is overly human, and thus subject to spam, variability, and the worst flaws of direct human usage.

In other words, different types of organizational schemes can all be useful, given a certain situation or potential usage. For some knowledge gathering, only a scientific search can do, and algorithmic function works particularly well. For other types of organization and searching, an aggregated controlled vocabulary can be the most useful, because some concepts are easily definable and broken down into easily manageable terms and subdivisions. Other searches, however, may be far easier using a method more in line with human intuition and variability. Some types of knowledge simply work better that way.

I believe that the more different types of search options are available on any particular data set, the more likely a searcher will be able to effectively utilize one of them. Likewise, some data sets, by their nature, require different organizational schemes, and folksonomy can be one solution to oddball data sets that do not fit into the more rationalized structures of controlled vocabulary, and are not easily found through algorithmic searching.

Discussions vs Wikis

As I've delved further into some of the Gated Nations on Newsvine, I've found some actual substantive discussion that I've felt was lacking in the general Open Nations. I was promptly accepted to one rather prominent "anything goes" Nation, and have seen insightful commentary and community discussion. More impressively, the conversation takes several different tones at once. Some are having honest sharing experiences in one thread, some are having heated discussions in another, and some are spouting vitriol in other areas. Unlike other forums I've been in, the tone for one conversation does not set the tone for any of the others, and the members quite easily keep their respective communication styles seperate. I've found this interesting and have been actively engaging in these conversations to make better sense of it.

What I've found in most other places is that there is one set theme to a discussion, and that theme permeates until another theme takes its place. Like Wikis for example. The back end of wikipedia, where the editing happens, is often full of discussions on the appropriateness of changes to front end content. Much of it is substantive philosophical and informational discussion. I've seen many debates about the goal of sharing as much information as possible, balanced with the goal of having all, or at least most, information be correct and cited. I've seen rather vitriolic debates about appropriate content simply solved by a rewording and corrected reference by a third party.

The back end editing area of Wikipedia is its own community, for sure, and I think that's an unavoidable and integrative part of wikis. The currency of information balances the accuracy for sure and looking at the back end can sometimes be more constructive about the debates surrounding a given issue than the article itself. As a resource, they can be amazingly informative and concise on the front end, but full of debate and intrigue on the back end.

Also, there's the issue of trolling. Occasionally a user will take it into their head to deface a page, for whatever reason. Replacing real information with pictures of penises or other such juvenile nonsense before someone else comes along and corrects the page again. However, occasionally, someone changes the content so subtle that it appears to be correct information, but is the opposite. This is dangerous for research purposes and one reason sources must always be vetted personally.

Many regular Wikipedia editors have subscriptions to the back ends of the articles they police, so that any erroneous changes are regularly reported and fixed. This means Wikipedia is slowly turning into more like a curated encyclopedia, maintained by a staff, rather than the stereotype of a willy-nilly, anyone can make anything true place. However, vetting is always necessary in case of slip-ups, and Wikipedia makes finding the original source and checking it super easy with the references listed. If an idea doesn't have a reference, vetting it can be a bit more difficult.

I referenced a Wiki in my last paper for Dr, Bonnici, actually, and consider them an appropriate resource for certain rare situations. I was discussing memes and the unwritten rules they represent, so a Wiki of memes which is also a site involved in viral meme creation seemed to be the authoritative source on the subject. In that case a Wiki was the source. When discussing an issue that is fluid and dynamic and has to do with internet culture, sometimes Wikis can be not only the most useful resource, but also the most reputable one in the given circumstance.

With that being said, it is crucial to vet any and all Wiki information, particularly if the information is not sociological in nature. Wikis are an ongoing, evolving discussion, whereas a paper or article is a single unit of information, and it is important to acknowledge the differences between them and what type of information the subject at hand requires.

I would not cite Wikipedia as a definitive medical resource, but I would mine it for references for primary research. I might, however, cite a Wiki in a political science paper, if I was discussing the extremely current and changing political spectrum. That would be an appropriate use of a Wiki, and I think it would be wrong to demonize them entirely as unreliable, biased sources. All sources should be taken with a grain of salt and fully researched and vetted. Wikis are no exception.

Newsvine experience part one

Seeing a community for the first time is always a little off-balancing. News about politics is completely unavoidable on Newsvine. On Facebook I tend to keep things civil with friends of differing political beliefs, because everyone on there is my Facebook friend, and thus part of a network of friendship so to speak. On Newsvine people that join the various Nations are not necessarily chosen to be in your family, particularly with my experience thus far with Open Nations. 

\Because of this difference it seems as though people post political dissents and commentary as inflammatory and provoking as possible to garner negative response and argument.

I’ve noticed this on other debate forums, where people engage in debates as a sort of performance. The winner is not the word block closest to the truth, or the most meaningful and insightful comment, but the word block that gathers enough interest and resonance from other commenters, whether positive or negative. Trolls even specialize in gathering negative attention, often trying to fool the other person into believing they are engaging in serious debate when the goal is just stirring up emotions.

Newsvine so far seems like a place to vent about politics, or argue for fun, like 4chan with less memes and porn. And yet at the same time, if you stick to Nations that share a given ideology, there is a huge amount of confirmation bias. I’ve seen quite a few discussions with like-minded people cracking the same offensive jokes and patting one another on the back for their similar political beliefs, without any of the debate for fun going on. As far as a place to engage in real constructive debate where ideas are challenged and people learn from one another as they discuss issues, perhaps I’ll have to delve more into the many Gated Nations of Newsvine.

Bookmarking and tagging

From this point forward, posts will be concerned with LS 590: Social Media and Informatics

I intend to focus my studies for the projects in this course on community building. I'm particularly interested in the use of RSS feeds and forums, and learning how to build and manage them. I am also interested in not only the how but the why of community building, as well as privacy issues inherent in creating private spaces within the public sphere of the internet. I am hoping that much of my research will be practical and informative, and allow me greater flexibility in using freely available social media tools to create safe community spaces.

One of my goals as a technologically oriented librarian is to help build open source OPAC and search algorithm features designed and implemented by librarians, for librarians. I believe that this can not only reduce costs for libraries, by reducing the reliance on third party software, but also create greater flexibility to fill the needs of different libraries and solve many of the problems that third part software companies may not consider. This requires a community of librarians to create, test, and implement ideas, so community building is a big focus of mine.

Bookmarking and tagging are huge community-oriented tools to allow people to connect disparate concepts in the sea of information to one another, and provide further growth of knowledge. Tagging can lead a searcher from one relevant article to the next, without the need to pick out specific keywords or rely on a computer-generated search algorithm to pick out relevant information. It uses direct human intuition rather than algorithmic mathematics, which can be both more flawed and more accurate, sometimes at the same time. Bookmarking is a favorite of mine, and I use several types of software to save articles and websites for future use, so that I can refer back to previously identified resources and information.

As a budding library professional I appreciate the tools that enable greater community communication, and faster, more accurate access to information. Human intuition and interpretation is a powerful tool that cannot yet be fully mimicked by computers, and I think it would be foolish of us not to take advantage of it, flaws and all.