Home › Blogs › Durst's blog

Why am I appalled?

July 24, 2006 - 4:31pm — Durst

It's Monday. I'm reading a report - maybe you've heard of it - The 2006 Horizon Report. It's a collaborative report put together by the New Media Consortium and Educause Learning Initiative. My job: distill 32 pages into a precis of 3 minutes.

I'm several pages into this thing now, and one of the front-runners in new technologies for academe is social computing. Well, it's come into its own. Probably everyone in LISNEWS land knew that in some fashion. One of the biggest "trends" within this social computing phenomenon is the creation of the folksonomies. I know there's been discussion of this here before. But I want to know one thing:

What happens to the issue of AUTHORITY when one is doing research using RSS feeds rather than academic sources like Gale's Encyclopedia of Genetics or the journals of the American Society of Civil Engineers? What criteria does one use to gauge the veracity of the information in a social computing setting? (OK - that's more than one thing)

I don't want to be a staid, stodgy person that can't learn anything else new. I do see value in the social computing/social networking. Heck, that's the primary way I earned my degree! But I think it's going to take some heavy-duty "experience" to convince me that authority isn't necessary. How do I meet students "where they are" and still convey the basic tenets of information literacy?

Always questioning, Durst

Comments

July 24, 2006 - 7:24pm — Chuck

interesting

I think you have two things at work here.1) A folksonomy. The "authority" here is less important because the metadata is supplied by users and each users can view all the possible terms, picking and choosing that which make sense.The authority is derived from the preferences of the user community.2) That sort of thing is A LOT different than the authority of research, statistics, etc., which is I think what you are driving at with your mention of the Engineering societies. That kind of thing really needs the old-fashioned ways. Peer-review, credentialed professionals, etc.The test for what method you should use to determine authority (credentials vs. acclamation of the community) depends on what a training a person would need to be conversant on that information.For example, I don't need training or experience to determine which words I would use to describe a group of pictures on a photo web site. I'm a person who looks at pictures online. That's all the qualifications I need. I'm a picture-viewer and having viewed pictures, I am therefore trained.But if I'm being asked to do something that requires specialized knowledge, the old methods are better because they are the only way you can be assured that the authority has the authority.

  • Email this comment
July 24, 2006 - 8:30pm — Durst

Re:interesting

So, if I understand you correctly: activities, processes, or topics requiring specialized knowledge are amenable to the concepts of AUTHORITY (or perhaps EXPERTISE is a better word?). Those activities or topics not needing such specialization are better served by a folksonomy or "wisdom of the crowd."

Would a community be better served then, say in the case of a public or academic library, by the ability to "tag" their library's catalog as an alternative means of identifying information pertinent to them rather than relying on the subject headings provided by professional catalogers?

  • Email this comment
July 25, 2006 - 6:12pm — Samantha

Re:interesting

Would a community be better served then, say in the case of a public or academic library, by the ability to "tag" their library's catalog as an alternative means of identifying information pertinent to them rather than relying on the subject headings provided by professional catalogers?

Why does it have to be either/or? Most social software innovations and traditional library values work together just fine. RSS feeds can be provided for tables of content from journals now, and your better blog posts source and cite evidence. Just because something is online/available via social software doesn't make it lack authority!

Interesting discussion, thanks for bringing it up!

  • Email this comment
July 26, 2006 - 2:40pm — Chuck

Re:interesting

Yeah, I'd have to say it's both. Catalogs have the ability to use two different subject schemes. I don't see any reason there couldn't be LC headings (maybe hidden to the user, for staff only) and tags for users.

  • Email this comment
Syndicate content