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
Recent Comments
- Grant Castillou on AI Will Never Be Conscious
- Bombkarnia on Blind spots: A review of cognitive biases by the Swiss Federal Intelligence Service
- Phil Shapiro on Artificial Emotional Intelligence: Some Thoughts by Stephen Abram, MLS
- Frank on The Death of the Public Library
- oldhuai on 20th Anniversary of Stephen’s Lighthouse
Categories
Archives
- June 2026
- May 2026
- April 2026
- March 2026
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- 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

7 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
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.