Are Folksonomies At Odds With Controlled Vocabulary?

Examining the Use of Social Tagging in Libraries

Bridget Coon Johnston

MLIS, University of Alabama
LS 500: Information Science and Technology
Dr. Hengyi Fu
December 5, 2021
 In recent years, the practice of “collaborative tagging,” otherwise known as free-tagging, social

tagging, social indexing, or mob indexing, has become increasingly common as a means of metadata

creation (Mendes et al., 2009). In collaborative tagging, users assign uncontrolled keywords to resources,

called tags, and these tags, in turn, create what is known as “folksonomies:” decentralized, flat

classification systems composed of user-generated tags. Collaborative tagging and the folksonomies they

create differ from controlled vocabularies in that collaborative tagging results in vocabulary that is

user-generated (any user can create the tags) whereas controlled vocabularies are content or

creator-generated. In this paper, I will examine the similarities and differences between collaborative tags

and controlled vocabulary, weighing the pros and cons of each, and evaluate the benefits of using

collaborative tags in a public library catalog.

In “Collaborative Tagging as a Knowledge Organisation and Resource Discovery Tool,”

MacGregor and McCulloch argue that controlled vocabularies remain a skilled process best undertaken by

trained professionals, and that librarians should “extol the benefits of controlled vocabularies and dispel

the view that controlled vocabularies are inherently non-use friendly,” although they do note that

collaborative tagging should not be dismissed and may have a place in informal information contexts

(Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). However, there are a growing number of studies that show that while

user-generated tags do not necessarily have high incidences of overlap between traditional metadata

systems such as MARC or the Library of Congress Subject Headings, they nevertheless can have a

positive role in library settings when used in conjunction with controlled indexing systems (Kakali &

Papatheodorou, 2011).

Controlled vocabularies and folksonomies have many differences, but it is important to first note

their similarities, the most significant of which is their overall purpose, which is twofold. The first, and

most significant, purpose of these metadata systems is the organization of knowledge, and the second is

the aiding of resource discovery, for oneself as well as for other users. In the area of resource discovery,

the same naturally occurring rules apply to each: descriptive terms that are too broad will result in more

results with lower likelihood of being relevant to the user’s information needs, and terms that are more
narrow will yield fewer results but the results are likely to have higher relevance (Macgregor &

McCulloch, 2006). Therefore, finding the right balance in descriptive terminology is an ongoing pursuit,

and herein lie the differences of opinion as to whether the collaboration of many perspectives resulting

from social tagging is a benefit or a hindrance to the process.

Important distinctions in information organization between the two approaches are that

user-generated folksonomies tend to be more flexible, creative, and inclusive of multiple perspectives

(Gursoy et al., 2018). In resource discovery and retrieval, controlled vocabulary systems do tend to yield

more targeted results than user-generated tags and also account for inconsistencies and variations in

vocabulary in a way that collaborative tagging can not (Macgregor & McCulloch, 2006). Controlled

vocabularies also allow for hierarchical descriptions, resulting in taxonomies rather than the flat

folksonomies created by user-generated tags. More information is included in the chart below:

User-generated Tags Controlled Vocabularies

Approach Allow for creativity (Gursoy et Rigid, retrieval-oriented (Gursoy

al., 2018) et al., 2018)

Metadata Creation Metadata is created from the
“bottom up,” more accurately
reflecting users’ concepts of the
world (Macgregor &
McCulloch, 2006)
Metadata is created from the
“top down,” imposing a
controlled view of knowledge
(Macgregor & McCulloch,
2006)

Information Retrieval Homonyms, homographs, and Since vocabulary is controlled,

spelling errors can lead to
inconsistencies and negatively
affect search results, as can
ambiguous assignation of tags
(Macgregor & McCulloch,
2006)
these variations are accounted
for, aiding in retrieval of
relevant information (Macgregor
& McCulloch, 2006)
 Economic Factors Less money is spent on indexing
and classification, since users
are doing the legwork. However,
Davis (2005) argues that this
savings is negated by the need
for more users to spend more
money on information retrieval
as a result of imprecise indexing
(Davis, 2005, as cited in
MacGregor, 2006)
More money is spent up front
on the indexing and
classification by a relatively
small number of information
professionals (Davis, 2005, as
cited in MacGregor, 2006)

In examining the pros and cons of both collaborative tagging and controlled vocabularies, we see

that many of the qualities of each approach have both benefits and limitations. For example,

user-generated tags have been criticized for the high variability in retrieval results; however, this

variability can be viewed in a positive light when we consider that a broader range of search results may

lead to an increase in serendipitous findings. Similarly, the criticism of traditional cataloging systems that

they do not honor the nuanced semantic differences between categories (for instance, lumping “gay,”

“queer,” and “homosexual” into one broad LGBT grouping and disregarding the distinction between

them) can be countered by the argument that such categorizations are necessary to maintain higher levels

of discoverability (Shirky, 2005). Thus, there truly are benefits to each approach that should be considered

when determining the extent to which social tagging should be implemented in knowledge organization

systems.

The evaluation of collaborative tagging and folksonomies when weighed against more traditional

cataloging systems is of particular interest to librarians and information scientists. In fact, many public

and some academic libraries have begun to experiment with the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies

in order to incorporate the social tagging option into their cataloging features (Kakali & Papatheodorou,

2011). These new systems include open source software, such as SOPAC, proprietary applications such as

Primo, and social web applications such as LibraryThing and Shelfari. These social tagging systems are

being implemented parallel to traditional services, and incorporate the popularity, interactivity, and ease

of use of social tags into structured knowledge systems.

 LibraryThing is fast becoming one of the more popular online third-party services used for social

tagging in regards to books (book tagging). In describing why she chose LibraryThing over other

cataloging options such as free open source catalogs or other web based social networking sites, one

resource center administrator cited the lack of technical expertise, time and effort involved in web 2.0

options such as LibraryThing over open source solutions, and the availability of different languages and a

wide range of catalogs that gave LibraryThing the edge over its web-based competitors (Hvass, 2008).

In studies evaluating categories of tags used by LibraryThing users, researchers determined that

tags could be put into three broad categories: 1) factual (facts about the item, such as author information,

geographic setting, etc.), 2) subjective (user opinion, such as “overrated”), and 3) personal

(task-management directives, such as “to read”, or “gift from mom”) (Bartley, 2009). Factual tags were

more likely to match controlled vocabulary descriptors, such as those from MARC or LCSH, and they

were also more likely to add additional relevant information and to more accurately reflect contemporary

culture. Subjective terms were also useful in that they added personal connections to the material and

increased access points for many users. Researchers also found that the motivation to tag was primarily

collection management (74% of participants), with social networking trailing way behind at 18%. The

altruistic motivation to assist others in finding a book was also frequently cited in the category of “other,”

a motivation researchers had not considered separately from social networking, demonstrating the value

users place on facilitating book discovery for the entire community. Thus, while the controlled

vocabularies used in traditional systems will always have their place in providing accurate, relevant

search results, folksonomies do not have to be at odds with these metadata systems. In fact, the integration

of the two methods can provide librarians with more personal connections to their patrons, higher levels

of patron interaction, and the natural evolution of metadata vocabularies (Bartley, 2009; Mendes et al.,

2009).
 References

Bartley, P. (2009). Book Tagging on LibraryThing: How, why, and what are in the tags? Proceedings of

the ASIST Annual Meeting, 46. Scopus®. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2009.1450460228

Gursoy, A., Karen Wickett, & Melanie Feinberg. (2018). Understanding tag functions in a moderated,

user-generated metadata ecosystem. Journal of Documentation, 74(3), 490–508. Emerald Insight.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2017-0134

Hvass, A. (2008). Cataloguing with LibraryThing: As easy as 1,2,3! Library Hi Tech News, 25.

https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050810949995

Kakali, C., & Papatheodorou, C. (2011). The exploitation of social tagging in libraries. E-LIS (Eprints in

Library & Information Science).

http://libdata.lib.ua.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edseli

&AN=edseli.15850&site=eds-live&scope=site

Macgregor, G., & McCulloch, E. (2006). Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource

discovery tool. Library Review, 55(5), 291–300. Emerald Insight.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610667558

Mendes, L. H., Quiñonez‐Skinner, J., & Skaggs, D. (2009). Subjecting the catalog to tagging. Library Hi

Tech, 27(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830910942892

Shirky, C. (2005). Shirky: Ontology is Overrated—Categories, Links, and Tags. 18.