The Medium is the Message

Pilot Neil Armstrong and X-15 (1960)

NASA on Flickr Commons

"...Dryden pilot Neil Armstrong is seen here next to the X-15 ship #1 (56-6670) after a research flight. The X-15 was a rocket-powered aircraft 50 feet long with a wingspan of 22 feet..."

I found this image on Flickr Commons of legendary astronaut Neil Armstrong. Armstrong was the first person to step foot on the moon and participated in many United States missions into space during the 1960s. Here, he is pictured quite differently from how I have generally thought of him: young and handsome. "Young" and "handsome" could even be some of the terms I use if I were to share this picture on a social media site such as the blogging platform Tumblr or the "microblogging" site Twitter.

This week's assignment, along with the concept of sharing on social media sites, made me consider the ways in which we interact with archival material. The way we access a photograph, for example, be it physically in an archive, or digitally on Flickr Commons, has had a tangible consequences for how we describe it.

A phrase from mass media writer Marshall McLuhan comes to mind: the medium is the message. Tagging and controlled vocabulary are inherently different because they were created when materials were accessed in two different ways. Tagging came about as a product of social media websites. Library of Congress subject headings and the system of using subdivisions came about as a product of the card catalog. The systems we use to access archival materials differ as a result of the evolution in access.

According to our readings, the solution to improve accessability has been to implement both tagging and controlled vocabularies. The reason being that the faults of one method are countered by the other. Among the flaws or cons of tagging are that they are inconsistent, overly used, and highly subjective. The pros of tagging are that they do not require access to grammatical standards, are lost cost, and the knowledge base can be improved by the contributions of many, instead of one. However, controlled vocabularies are nice because they provide the consistency that tagging lacks. Controlled vocabularies also adhere to grammatical standards to make searching easier and are not as subject to being overused.

The cons of controlled vocabularies have become more pronounced with the advent of social media. As some authors have admitted, tagging is simply easier than using a controlled vocabulary. Some would argue, from a social media standpoint, why use a controlled term for a photo when you can tag it? Controlled vocabularies are a proprietary enterprise that plays to the profession of libraries when they used card catalogs. Additionally, from an intellectual standpoint, controlled vocabularies throw common consensus out the window and give total control to a classification scheme which could be riddled with biases and awkward subdivisions. Basically, employing a controlled vocabulary is equivalent to asking users to learn a language before giving them access to the material and ultimately impedes access.

In addition to this problem, another point to consider is the economic hardships produced by using a controlled vocabulary. Elaine Menard and Margaret Smithglass put it succinctly in their 2011 article, titled, "Digital Image Description: A Review of Best Practices in Cultural Institutions." According to Menard and Smithglass, "a controlled vocabulary term requires not only specialized knowledge and education, but also access to the pertinent resources, which are usually subscription or fee-based and often specific to an organization" (297). Using a controlled vocabulary is costly! Controlled vocabularies are costly on two levels. Not only do they take the labor of a highly educated employee, controlled vocabularies can come at a cost when it is necessary to access materials and resources related to indexing activities. Conversely, tagging is free. There is no maintenance on tagging.

The success of Flickr Commons speaks to the validity of tagging. In their 2008 report on the Flickr Commons Pilot Project, the Library of Congress found that "there were exceptionally few tags that fell below a level of civil discourse appropriate to such an online forum" (18). Many of the problems that the Library of Congress had anticipated might occur were not an issue. They were, in fact, surprised and impressed with the level of participation in the way of tagging. As the project has been successful for the Library of Congress so far, collections of all sizes would likewise benefit from joining the Flickr Commons.

As to what extent controlled vocabularies will be used in the future, I am not sure that we have much say in the matter. The nature of describing relies on the systems we use. Our language changes rapidly, especially as new systems for holding information evolve. Just as the card catalog has given way to the internet has a system for accessing archival materials, our descriptions will adapt. As long as the media on which we rely to access archival material evolves, so too will our regulations on description. Case in point: if someone wants to shares the above photo and tag Neil Armstrong as "hot astronaut," no social media site will stop them!