Participatory Cataloging and User-Generated Tags: A Brief Look at the Library of Congress and Flickr (An Academic Paper)

                                The collaborative pilot project, between the Library of Congress and, the popular photo sharing website, Flickr, represented a distinctive shift in the LOC’s approach towards making their collections more accessible to the general public. In collaborating with Flickr, the LOC had taken a number of issues they faced into consideration. Firstly, they faced increasing competition from the internet and the myriad of opportunities it presented users for finding the information they needed. Secondly, they were becoming increasingly concerned with making their historical photographic collections, to which much effort and resources went into digitizing, easily accessible and more known to users. Thirdly, the LOC recognized the benefits of social tagging, in providing additional descriptions and historical context for the mass amount of digital photos contained in its research collections. Consequently, the LOC regarded the Flickr pilot project as a success, noting that its benefits far outweighed the costs and any associated risks. This paper will seek to examine various aspects of the LOC-Flickr collaboration and take a closer look at certain issues which emerged during the project. The costs and benefits of the use of uncontrolled vocabularies versus controlled vocabularies will be discussed. Also, the applicability of this LOC-Flickr model to other collections as well as its cost versus benefits will be examined. Finally, the overall value and practicality of user-generated tags will be considered.

                         In looking at the LOC’s report on the Flickr pilot project, I wholeheartedly agree with their overall assessment of the project. Though there were some complications that emerged during the exercise, these issues have always plagued archives in the United States. For archives, copyright restrictions have always been a cause for concern for archives when making their collections available. Even though the issue of copyright was addressed between the legal teams of the LOC and Flickr, there were still certain challenges that arose pertaining to licensing options. To counter these problems, the group was able to develop a new rights statement, "No known copyright restrictions”, as a precautionary measure against photos where the rights information was not known[1]. In addition, there was the recurring issue of the cost associated with establishing the Flickr project as a long-term program. In looking at several possible options the LOC could have considered in moving forward, the cost of additional staff was cited as a negative in the options for creating a more long-term partnership with Flickr. However, I believe that even though it is logical for archives to consider the resources at their disposal when implementing a project, they should not allow themselves to be stagnated in fulfilling their mandate of providing access to their collections. In spite of the perceived costs of transforming it into a permanent program, the Flickr pilot project presented a perfect opportunity for libraries to capitalize on the opportunities presented by utilizing social networking sites to enhance user access and interaction with their collections.

                                   One of the chief issues, emanating from the LOC-Flickr project, was the perceived benefits of using uncontrolled vocabularies versus controlled vocabularies as it pertained to indexing the LOC’s digital images. Naturally, LOC staff employed controlled vocabularies, from various thesauri, to describe their digital objects and facilitate easier retrieval. However, there have been dynamic changes in the ways users have gone about searching for images[2]. For instance, users are being more descriptive in their search queries rather than using single terms. In addition, websites which have been utilizing folksonomies, such as Flickr and YouTube, have seen a proliferation of users engaging in image tagging. In many instances, search engines, such as Google, have been able to retrieve these tags and their accompanying images. One of the benefits the LOC realized it could gain from placing its photos on Flickr came from utilizing social tagging to enhance the descriptiveness of their own photos. However, this does not mean that social or collaborative tagging is not without its deficiencies, for example its inherent inconsistencies. The reality is that users will not always use the same words to describe a particular image or concept[3]. As a result, many information professionals consider collaborative tagging to be of a poor quality because of its lack of language standardization and control[4]. In spite of these shortcomings, I think the LOC has made a very bold step in embracing collaborative tagging and attempting to incorporate it into their collections.

                            Already, a number of libraries are utilizing the collaborative tagging model and engaging in folksonomy creation[5]. If the LOC and archives, in general, are to make inroads in the Web 2.0 community, attract users in those communities and garner interest in their collections, then further thought, research and development is needed. Instead of looking at collaborative tagging with disdain, information professionals should continuously find ways of assisting users in their tagging practices[6]. In turn, this would help information professionals improve their own indexing practices. Though controlled vocabularies are employed to assist with cataloguing, as well as improve the interoperability between digital collections and systems, archivists should remember that controlled vocabularies have also been established to simplify information retrieval. This means that there is still a focus on enabling users to retrieve information easily. Thus, the needs and behavior of users, as it pertains to information retrieval, should be scrutinized so that the vocabulary used to tag images would not compromise the retrievability of the said images. Engaging in folksonomy creation and social participatory cataloguing on websites, such as Flickr, offers archives the perfect opportunity to understand how users operate.

                                          In spite of its drawbacks, there are opportunities to combine social participatory cataloguing with collection cataloguing. Flickr has been constantly attempting to streamline the tagging process as well as reduce the need for humans to tag in order to decrease human error[7]. Further developments geared towards reducing the human effort involved in tagging are being developed. Some of these entail prompting individuals to enter specific tags, associated with certain thesauri, rather choosing their own individual tags to describe the image. I think that finding ways of prompting users into applying certain tags or controlled vocabulary when describing images, is a good way of streamlining participatory tagging, thus making that information even more usable by archivists. Archives will be well advised to collaborate and look at what these websites are doing to better the user experience and, perhaps, apply some of these strategies into their own setup.

                                        The partnership between LOC and Flickr is definitely one that could benefit collections of differing sizes. As aforementioned, a number of libraries have already begun incorporating participatory cataloguing and folksonomy creation in describing their collections, encouraging user participation, and increasing awareness about their holdings. Libraries, such as the Ann Arbor District Library and Edmonton Public Library, have been allowing its users to tag the items in its catalog. The Thomas Ford Memorial Library, in Illinois, has tagged photos on Flickr that feature anything which may be of interest to its community[8]. Library staff, library patrons and any viewer, of the library’s Flickr photo collection, can tag the pictures. Consequently, the Flickr account provides the library with free marketing and sound publicity. In return, its patrons are given a means of connecting easily and conveniently with the library. As such, the LOC-Flickr model can be applied to collections which may have various purposes or uses.

                                                In conclusion, the partnership between the LOC and Flickr, as well as the resultant report, is intuitive for a number of reasons. By encouraging users to engage in participatory cataloguing and analyzing how they tag, the LOC has created an excellent opportunity to understand how users behave when retrieving information. The partnership also demonstrates another way in which libraries and archives could enhance their online presence and boost awareness of their holdings. Finally, the partnership has shown libraries and archives other ways of gathering additional information about the images in their collections. If archives, and libraries alike, can exploit the opportunities presented by these social websites and online communities, they will go a long way in ensuring that they continue to be spaces of intellectual interaction, albeit in an online environment.

---

[1] Library of Congress. Prints and Photographs Division, Michelle Springer, Beth Dulabahn, Phil Michel, Barbara Natanson, David W. Reser, Nicole B. Ellison, Helena Zinkham, and David Woodward. "For the common good: The Library of Congress Flickr pilot project." Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, (2008): 5.

[2] Elaine Menard. “Image Indexing: How Can I Find a Nice Pair of Italian Shoes?” Bulletin of the American Society Information Science and Technology, Vol.34, No.1 (October/November 2007): 23.

[3] Elaine Menard, “Image Indexing: How Can I Find A Nice Pail of Italian Shoes?”, 24.

[4] Elaine Menard, “Image Indexing: How Can I Find A Nice Pail of Italian Shoes?”, 24.

[5] Diane Neal. “Introduction: Folksonomies and Image Tagging: Seeing the Future?” Bulletin of the American Society Information Science and Technology, Vol.34, No.1 (October/November 2007): 7.

[6] Elaine Menard, “Image Indexing: How Can I Find A Nice Pail of Italian Shoes?”, 29.

[7] Elaine Menard, “Image Indexing: How Can I Find a Nice Pair of Italian Shoes?”, 29.

[8] Diane Neal, “Introduction: Folksonomies and Image Tagging: Seeing the Future?”, 9.

Bibliography

Library of Congress. Prints and Photographs Division, Michelle Springer, Beth Dulabahn, Phil Michel, Barbara Natanson, David W. Reser, Nicole B. Ellison, Helena Zinkham, and David Woodward. "For the common good: The Library of Congress Flickr pilot project." Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, 2008.

Neal, Diane. “Introduction: Folksonomies and Image Tagging: Seeing the Future?” Bulletin of the American Society Information Science and Technology, Vol.34, No.1 (October/November 2007)

Menard, Elaine. “Image Indexing: How Can I Find a Nice Pair of Italian Shoes?” Bulletin of the American Society Information Science and Technology, Vol.34, No.1 (October/November 2007)