Week 13 Reading Notes

The creation of user-generated content that consistently shows great quality is the great success of Wikipedia. In fact, studies have shown that user-created folksonomies overlap with 80% of LOC Subject Headings, a controlled vocabulary. See Yi, Kwan, and Chan Lois Mai. "Linking Folksonomy to Library of Congress Subject Headings: an Exploratory Study." Journal of Documentation 65, no. 6 (2009): 872-900.

However, even though the technology for creating user-generated content may be free sometimes, sometimes that software also comes with a wealth barrier. Probably the most user-friendly OPAC which permits patrons to tag and comment on particular books, "Library Thing for Libraries," also has a steep annual subscription price depending on how many students make up your FTE. I am glad for Wikipedia . . . But for libraries to take advantage of OS-based software and technologies, there still seems to be an initial investment cost that seems hard to justify in the era of economic downturn. Therefore, I personally am not as optimistic as Blossom and Allan, because many of these technologies, despite having a Creative Commons or OS-basis, have quickly erected wealth barriers of their own.

Second, in some instances, a user-generated Wiki-textbook is simply inappropriate. I work in a law library. Here, we must teach students how to identify who are the most authoritative voices in a certain field of law. Because of the hierarchical nature of the field of law, we cannot sustain an egalitarian or simply ignorant manner of information transmission for very long. I'm sorry to appear hierarchical, but I think that's simply a function of the way law works.