Wiki Databases
We always uses to tell our students not to use Wikipedia for research assignments, because it was notoriously untrustworthy. The more I use it for this class, however, I'm being won over to its simplicity. I still don't believe that people are basically good, though.
It had not occurred to me that the World Wide Web is itself a database; it is perhaps the mother of all databases: pan- or meta of the family. You can see this clearly in the diverse applications which firms like Google have created to harness different aspects of the web. Interestingly, this means that anybody can insert themselves and their interests into a global database (in fact, we have been included without our consent, in most cases).
Getty Metadata
When I first thought about metadata I wondered if it wasn't just a semantic ploy--a newly created field to get published in. I've changed my mind since then.
In the library profession metadata must be the primary way we interact with information. It enables us to evaluate an object without necessarily consuming it. I like the notion that metadata continues to accumulate throughout the lifetime of an object.
I wonder if there is any danger in object becoming (at least to information professionals) nothing more than the sum of their metadata? At some point, can the forest obscure the trees?
Dublin Core
This discussion was more technical than I generally like in my light reading....
I think I understand the overarching concept: a need exists for universal metadata descriptors by which an object can be searched-for across disciplines.
Is that correct?
Apparently there is even funding for such an effort, which seems charitable of someone.
Is there a governing, authoritative body which will enforce this, after it is implemented? Otherwise I don't see how it will succeed. If so, will it be similar to Dewey? Discuss. (How pompous is it to conclude with "discuss?")
I also used to be wary of Wikipedia. I guess I still am, but one even in particular has helped change my mind: an informal assignment for my music bibliography and research class required me to use Encyclopedia Britannica, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Wikipedia to gather preliminary information on a topic of my choice. I chose glam rock because I figured it wouldn't be covered well by traditional/academic reference sources and because I think the study of glam rock will play a vital role in furthering our understanding of cultural reaction to the Hippie movement. Not surprisingly, Wikipedia offered the best references, the most detailed information and the least condescending style. As a result, I'm beginning to be less wary of Wikipedia entries as general introductions to topics.
ReplyDeleteGood point John. Wikipedia is a great resource for a number of topics that won’t be covered in more traditional encyclopedias. I find that often times, when I’m looking for information on a band and I can’t seem to find it anywhere else, Wikipedia will at least have a discography and a sentence or two biography. That being said, I think people need to be a bit more cautious in their trust of Wikipedia than they are. It’s not that difficult to get misinformation onto Wikipedia and keep it there.
ReplyDeleteI think you effectively neutered the pompousness of concluding with "discuss" by hanging a lampshade on it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question about the DCMI and implementation: I think that having a governing body to oversee (and enforce?) implementation would go against the principles of the initiative. The DCMI is in part grounded in the notion that different groups will require different things from their metadata--hence the focus on only the very core elements (all of which are optional) and on extensibility. This way, whoever is building the database in question can pick which elements of the Dublin Core are most useful to the project and include them as needed. It seems like the DCMI wants to offer a toolbox rather than impose a set of standards.
As you rightly point out, this comes with the downside that the usefulness of their model is directly dependent on voluntary adoption. Interoperability goes out the window if nobody else is using the same standards.
The metadata of the object that is excessively created might became a “tree” among other trees the forest. I think it depends to whom question is addressed. Cataloguers might greatly support the idea of extended metadata while users do not value or even understand the need of the detailed metadata. Certain community members will argue the importance of extensive metadata and its use in collection access. However, the expenses associated with metadata creation and maintenance of metadata needs to be taken to attention as well. There is always will be someone who wants more metadata and one who want less. I think the best solution is balance.
ReplyDeleteWikipedia used to be shady, then when they really cracked down on using sources and started using people to track editing, it became a surprisingly useful source. The sources that are cited at the end of articles help a great deal for further research.
ReplyDelete"There is always will be someone who wants more metadata and one who want less." The catalogers who want every song on a CD listed, including length and the librarian who just wants to add the CD so people will circulate. Balance will be a hard thing to come by, simply because, at least in the library environment, there are too many differing opinions. As the old joke goes: How many librarians does it take to catalog a book? Two: one to do it and the other to say they would have done it differently. My best example of all this is the topic "conjunctivitis". Are your patrons going to look for "conjunctivitis" or "pink eye"? One has to cater to ones patrons overall, and that is where finding a balance becomes the most difficult.