Here’s another cool tool that talks about the social aspects of reading. It is called LibraryThing and you can look at it here.
There are apparently some mini-librarians out there! There may even be enough to be drawn to this site which allows them to:
- Catalog their personal books online.
- Show everyone your library, or keep it private.
- Find people with the same books that you own and get reading suggestions from people who like what you like.
- Tag your books such as is done on Del.icio.us and Flickr (eg., wwii, magical realism, knitting, christian living, cats).
- Search Amazon, the Library of Congress and 30 other world libraries.
- Export your data or import from almost anywhere too.
- Free to a point – enter 200 books for free, as many as you like for $10 (year) or $25 (life).
- Put a widget on your blog to show people what you’re reading.
Hmmm. Here’s a next generation application that could teach something to libraries and Amazon alike. Maybe we’re too hasty in universally cleansing reading profiles a la USA PATRIOT Act. Maybe we could provide services like this and promote the social nature of reading – with the informed consent of our users. At what point do we cross the line between protecting our users or potentially infantilizing them and removing the personal right for them to make independent decisions about their level of privacy? The Amazon and eBay lesson seems to be that many users will supply some information in an informed way to personalize or enhance their web experiences. A larger debate probably needs to occur on this front. All those 2.0 ideas and opportunities might be nullified by too dogmatic or paternalistic an apporach to these ideas. Then again, maybe not. It’s still worth a better discussion than is occuring now.
Hmmmm.
Stephen
Please Take My Latest Survey
Are you a technophile or a technophobe?
Click here to take a quick 3-question survey.
Thank you!
Recent Comments
- @Trichick17 on Teens, Social Media, and Privacy
- Marina Englesakis on Creative Making in Libraries & Museums iSchool Symposium: Website and Registration OPEN
- Renee Reaume on Creative Making in Libraries & Museums iSchool Symposium: Website and Registration OPEN
- Wei Neudorf on Video: A Brief Introduction to 3D Scanning at the Smithsonian Institution
- Wei Neudorf on 25 Alternatives to Google Analytics
Categories
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
Stephen: I think you’re spot-on that more debate needs to happen on this privacy vs enhanced user-experience topic. I’m generally cautious with all things privacy, although in this case, I think we’ve dismissed a lot of service opportunities due to knee-jerk instincts on protecting privacy at all costs. (Of course, privacy could just be an excuse for libraries being slow to innovate, but that would be another discussion altogether…)
Allowing users to opt-in (very important to understand this in terms of a willing, informed consent on their part) to a social software system that will provide them with benefits in the form of service enhancements, increased functionality, profiling and personalization, could be extremely useful both for them and for us. Assuming we’re forthright and upfront about what data we’re storing and for what reasons we’re collecting it, I would think that a lot of people would opt in to use social bookmarks, recommendation services and any number of “2.0″ services that we might offer (as opposed to sitting by and watching these other LibraryThing types do all the work of helping those cool metadata-lovin’ “mini-librarians”).
Why do we always err on the side of assuming our users are stupid or incapable of making decisions for themselves? 80,000+ photos uploaded to Flickr/hour ( I read that stat somewhere and was blown away) and stats like this for social bookmarking (http://tinyurl.com/d44z6) help illustrate the point that there is clearly a large percentage of people that see some good in sharing pieces of their digital (information?) life.
One of the many benefits for libraries of course is that users dig(g) their way into our stuff and they’ll discover and use more of it. Enough said.
Thanks for the soapbox. I’m so glad you’re blogging!
Hey. Thanks for picking up the site. Send me an email some time and let’s talk about if there’s any way we can work together.
Thanks Stephen – Great idea. I personally relate to the “mini-librarian” idea and I intend to implement a LibraryThing bookroll on my blog. I acknowledged your post in my blog – thanks again! –patrick
I wish there were some place to actually discuss these issues. But here’s another thought.
The privacy issues are not trivial. Worse, perhaps, are people’s expectations that libraries and their catalogs are fair, reasonable and non-objectionable.
Where is all this web 2.0 stuff going? One answer would be that library patrons could tag books for themselves and others and edit wikified descriptions. But what happens when someone stumbles upon an objectionable tag. Leaving aside “kink,” “erotica” and so forth, what about when someone tags the Diary of Anne Frank as “so-called holocaust”? And if you think tags are bad, just put a wiki up.
There’s no use pretending this won’t happen. You could never “control” it without eviscerating it. And I don’t think any public library’s tagging experiment could survive it. Do you recall the turmoil over Google’s results for “jew”? That was easy to explain, I think, and Google isn’t susceptible to public presure in the same way.
If there’s an answer it’s in *very* large quantities of data. If Anne Frank’s been tagged 1,000,000 times, and you only provide the top ten tags, you’re just not going to get objectionable ones. The same goes for wikified cataloging. That means that it can’t be an initiative by individual libraries, but of large numbers of them, perhaps aggregated around an OPAC supplier.
Another option would be to get the data from LibraryThing. People will never tag items in their public library with the same gusto that they tag their own books. And LibraryThing’s growing like crazy…
People likely wouldn’t randomly tag library books. They would, however, want to tag items they have read. Especially if the system would allow them to access a list of what they have read previously. Lots of people track the books they have read, which is one of the reasons why LibraryThing and BookCrossing http://www.bookcrossing.com are popular. Libraries could make this easier.
With regard to inappropriate tagging, aren’t we (speaking as a librarian) supposed to be enabling freedom of speech and diversity of ideas? Gets into dangerous grounds when we try to limit what can or cannot be tagged.
I’m thinking one would need a forum or other area for discussion of the tags used so people have a chance to talk about what they see being used for tags and put it into context. For example, if someone sees a tag that is objectionable, bring it to people’s attention and talk about why it is objectionable. This could be used as a good talking point. [Naively says she in the private sector, who hasn't actually faced these discussions first-hand!]
Some further thoughts on potentially objectionable tagging:
Blogger currently has a “flag” system which allows people to flag blogs which they find objectionable. The folks at blogger can then decide if they want to relegate said blog to a less public space on the web so fewer folks find it. See this discussion on flagging: http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=1200
For an example, see the top of my blog where it says “Flag” (top right): http://conniecrosby.blogspot.com
Something similar could happen with tagging in the library catalogue. A tag could be flagged as objectionable. Then, after review if it was found that the flag would be objectionable, it could be made “private” so that only the individual who created it could see it.
That would not be removing the person’s freedom of thought, but make the tag space less threatening.
What do others think of that idea? You can sure tell something has captured my imagination if I am still thinking about it a day later…..
I think Connie has really hit on something with this idea of public v. private tagging. As it is I would love to be able to use private tags on my flickr or librarything account. I would allow me to put those sorts of things I don’t really want to share: location, read/not read, on loan to Bill; on the work without having to worry about privacy issues.
On the issue of OPAC tie-ins: LibraryThing is already offering API’s to link tag, recommendation and review data into existing cataloging systems.