Uncontrolled vs. Controlled Vocabularies

The Web 2.0. movement has had a profound impact on digital libraries and archives. Now it is possible for users to assist archivists and librarians with the daunting task of imposing order on digital collections via the creation of "tags". This phenomenon has become especially prevalent on photo-sharing websites such as Flickr and Picasa. Currently, there is an ongoing debate over whether or not user tagging is actually beneficial to improving access to collections.

The pilot project of the Library of Congress sought to address this issue by opening up a digital collection on Flickr. The results of the pilot suggest that the LOC's adoption of web 2.0. technology has yielded positive results. However, there are still concerns regarding the efficacy of "tagging" which will continue to be discussed and explored. Here, I will discuss my own views on this matter through an analysis of the pros and cons of uncontrolled vocabularies such as user generated tags, and controlled vocabularies such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

Above all I think that uncontrolled vocabularies are great because they allow for a myriad of different terms to be applied in the representation of a single object. Ultimately, this leads to a more holistic and realistic description as no object can be sufficiently described through the eyes of a single person or even a group of so-called experts. Furthermore, an element of dynamism is added by allowing users to continue to generate new tags into the future. In addition, there is the practical aspect of uncontrolled vocabularies  which takes the huge burden of meticulously assigning metadata and shifts it into the hands of the public, thus freeing up a lot of time for archivists and librarians.

That being said there are certainly some negative aspects of using uncontrolled vocabularies. First and foremost, limitless freedom is not as good as it may seem. If, for example, an image can be described in an infinite number of ways, and thus tagged in an infinite number of ways, then ultimately you will have an infinitely broad collection of terms that do not refer to any unique objects. Therefore, some degree of order must be imposed so that the objects in a collection retain their individual meaning. This may not reflect reality, but for the sake of living in a rational world, some degree of order is necessary.

I have just basically described the primary argument for using controlled vocabularies, but I will add to that by emphasizing the importance of assigning very few, but precise terms to objects. This allows for greater control of the collection, making it easier to manage and present to the user in a meaningful way that reflects an institution's unique values.

As for the cons of using controlled vocabulary, the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that they require users to be familiar with the accepted search terms. In a digital environment run by Google, this is difficult for contemporary users to accept. As a user myself, I can relate to this. We have the technology to make our collections more transparent and accessible so to continue using traditional controlled vocabularies seems like a stubborn refusal to accept change.Although, I do not think that we should abandon controlled vocabluaries completely. Certainly, in conducting this analysis I have realized the importance of controlled vocabularies in terms of collection management.

Therefore, what I think is needed if more institutions decide to utilized web 2.0. software to digitize their collections is a balance between controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies. In practice this might mean that users can still create tags freely, but that there will be a stricter review process to filter out submissions that would impede access. Of course, more research and experimentation is required in order to see if this is actually a practical and/or beneficial solution.