Tag.. You're It

I can't help but wonder how many people realize that when we search for information resources, on the Web, in a library, in a video store, etc., our search results rely on the perceptions and bias of others. There is someone out there labeling these resources for us. Everyone has an opinion, bias, impression, etc. about information, and people do not interpret or process information the same way. It is therefore not possible to be "unbiased." People generally think that being bias insinuates prejudice or unfairness, but that is not the case. Having a bias is having an opinion, whatever that opinion may be. We are all bias and our biases differ based on our life experiences. Therefore, if we are not contributing our own individual bias to the labeling of information resources, our accessibility to these resources relies solely on the few individuals in charge whose bias is contributed. Think about it.

A book in the children's section of one library may be put on a very high shelf, or young adult section, in another library because the person in charge of labeling that book does not want young children to read it even if the author intends for that to be the case. (Librarians incorporating their own opinions into what the public should/should not have access to is a whole different story). Bias is motivated my many factors such as life experience, pressure from management, education, public opinion, general perception... anything can affect bias.

A video in one store may be classified as a comedy, a drama in another based simply on opinion. A book of fiction in one bookstore may be shelved as non-fiction in another because it crosses over into both genres. These decisions must be made by someone; it is inevitable where the organization of documents and objects by subject matter is concerned.

I know that when I search for photographs online or in an image archive I have an especially hard time if I don't know the photographer's name or the title of the photograph. Art is so subjective it is guaranteed that the archivist, artists, and researcher will view and interpret the object differently. We can't be expected or instructed to think like others, so we search using terms that we are familiar and comfortable with. However, unless they thought of it too, we won't find what we are looking for.

Although it is inevitable, I find it unsettling that the bias of the few dictates how resources are labeled on the Web and in libraries, image databases, museums, bookstore and video shelves, archives, and any other resource provider. This concept is so vast it is worth mentioning that this bias also decides what rating a movie gets, what warning labels go on CDs as well as the genre in which they are classified (remember Columbia Records used to list Pink Floyd as Heavy Metal and Bryan Adams as Easy Listening?) Even radio stations decide what is an "oldie," which last week, I swear, was Depeche Mode on some DC station.

There are two important ideas to take away from this. Just being aware of this eventuality should make the public ask more questions and preferably become less complacent with inadequate search results. Just because something is labeled one way doesn't make it right or wrong. What it does is affect our accessibility to the document. Someone else's bias should not impede our ability to access information. We can ask if we don't see what we need, and we can be aware that what we seek is out there, but may not be labeled in a way that we, as individual thinkers, would label it.

Until very recently, there was no way of expressing individual perceptions about documents to facilitate better search results. Whoever was responsible for labeling a book was responsible for the accessibility of that book. Thanks to Web 2.0 (I wish I could re-label that) and the age of social tagging, the power has leaked to the public where individuals supply their own tags to improve accessibility to documents. Although the issue of relying on taggers (the hopefully educated masses who label our stuff) largely remains in the non-cyber world (meaning, I don't think we will see many libraries or bookstores asking their patrons how they would describe or shelve their material) there are a growing number of of Web sites that allow social tagging and can help the public search and identify documents for which they can then go and find a physical copy.

For instance, what if in your local library you want to research heart problems, but they have cataloged those books using the term "cardiology." Your search will not yield any results. However, if you search a book-related Website, such as Library Thing (and check out their tag cloud) that uses social tagging, the odds are that someone else has added the more popular term "heart" to a book that would fulfill your search needs. One can then get the title, author, etc. from the site and find the book at a library or bookstore. The same thing can happen with any document. The idea is that the public generates tags for the rest of the public.

If you browse Flickr, you may find an image you interpret in a way that it has not yet been interpreted. Or maybe you think that it should be described at its most literal level. Either way you can add your own tag, and subsequently assist anyone else who may search for the image using the same tag you would use. So you don't necessarily need to be in the throws of research to tag. You can simply go online and browse resources, be it books, videos, documents, photographs, etc., and add tags that are based on your own interpretations. Yes, the conglomeration of social tags makes the number of tags very extensive and can lead to some inappropriate tagging (I need not say more). These are definitely valid arguments against Folksonomy (the official term). But I believe the positives outweigh the negatives. The fact remains that social tagging allow for a collaborative environment of opinions, interpretations, and perceptions of the public, not just those in charge of labeling information for the public, therefore providing a collective input that increases the likelihood of documents being identified and accessed by anyone.

Here are two photography-related initiatives that will no doubt promote and popularize the use of social tagging. At least they sure have with me the more I use them. So have a look! Check out incredible photography, perform searches, add tags of your own, and see how you can contribute to the accessibility of information.

Flickr Commons and the Library of Congress Pilot Project

Smithsonian Photography Initiative