Library IT developments

There is much talk these days in the library community of Web 2.0. They speak of wikis, mash-ups (whatever they are), of community tagging, or folksonomies. Academic libraries now see the need to have a Facebook or a Second Life presence, and lately there has been talk of Twitter.

Now I am not averse to new technology. Clearly there have been some welcome developments in terms of online catalogues, and in enabling patrons to manage their accounts remotely.

But I fear there is a headlong rush to add ever-new innovative software technologies and developments to something that is already functioning in a quite adequate fashion. In a recent poll of their user group, an Oxford college library [yes, I realise that you'd like a damn link here, but you will just have to take my word for it] learned that its patrons did not want Facebook etc as an adjunct to the library catalogue; no, they merely wanted a catalogue that delivered them information on the materials they required.

The latest 'hip' buzzword is folksonomy, whereby, if I have understood correctly, patrons (or the 'user community', God help us) are able to add their own tags to describe catalogue items. This is all well and good, but who will be monitoring these tags? At best, we will have a plethora of vague, generalized concepts such as 'art' or 'politics'. And at worst there will be an assortment of swearwords such as would make a sailor blush.

It may also be the case that the drive to empower patrons to do this aspect of cataloguing is driven by secret management agendas to reduce further the staff, namely the cataloguers, and to de-professionalize those 'rump' who remain. If one can acquire rudimentary catalogue records (title, author, publisher, phsyical description) free from the publisher, and have the patrons themselves adding the descriptive, subjecty heading elements gratis -why, that may render the professional cataloguer's post moribund and obsolete!

It seems to me that subject classification is best done by the use of a controlled taxonomic resource such as Libray of Congress Subject Headings - yes, we may not agree with some of the more American terminology (such as 'future life', meaning the afterlife), but at least if we all agree to utilise a single taxonomy, the likelihood of inaccuracy or ambiguity is lessened. Of course, the subject headings must still be applied by preofessional, qualified people (such as myself!)

I do believe that there is here a difference in philosophy, with the 'folksonomists' trusting in the people's good sense and ability not to make a damn nonsense of the catalogue. I have no such optimism! I suppose it ultimately rests in whether one can trust the general public not to act the goat...