My opinion on tagging is definitely changing, although the flaws within the principles of tagging, folsonomies, etc still simmer away. Technorati was definitely impressive, although I can't help but feel that peer pressure definitely holds more sway over what may be a more correctly named subject category. You can see this in more professional areas, such as the numerous different entries in Libraries Australia for the same items, many of which are only slightly different. But it seems that tagging culture, as I've mentioned earlier, tends to overcome this by something of a lemming tendency... whether or not it's jagged rocks or warm fluffy marshmallowy candy at the bottom of that arbitrary cliff.
The lack of uniformity in Library Thing annoyed me as well, although I saw that multiple representations of names did get grouped together, and the tag clouds were handy when trying to decide what the general consensus was on the scope of the book. I guess I'm still a bit clingy regarding the strong community aspect of it. Wow... that sounded terrible. I'll remember that one day when I need to lose some self-esteem.
It is interesting to look at the reshaping and opening up of the term 'peer-reviewed', considering that so many on-line communitites, despite interpersonal hierarchies and elitist mentalities, operate on more-or-less an even plane. It takes the guts out of a lot of academia when it comes to tracking down relevent information. And the raising profile of blogs into the professional and academic arenas themselves has had an impact - people genuinely want this medium to become more reputable, and it shows. The negative stigma is declining, and the diversity of information, ever-growing and re-creating itself, is a great thorn in the side of mainstream media sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment