Social Metadata



                  Karen Smith-Yoshimura

                  2009 RLG Partnership Annual
                ...
Metadata…

 … helps us find data.
 … helps us understand the data we
  find.
 … helps us evaluate what we should
  spend o...
Examples of “social metadata”




Photographer: James Ring; Photographic Archive, Alexander Turnbull Library, National Lib...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
4   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Examples of “social metadata”




                              Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
               5   ...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
6   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
“The collections represented here have
been chosen and curated by tribal consultants
working in collaboration with Univers...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
8   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
9   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
10   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Wikipedia article ranked #1 of 31,000,000
results in Google search of “gdansk”




                                 Social...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
12   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
“A vote to end…edit wars”




The closest vote

                             Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
      ...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
14   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
15   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group
         21 RLG Partner staff from four countries
  • Drew Bourn, Stanford     ...
Social Metadata Working Group

Focus:

• User contributions that can enrich the
  descriptive metadata created by
  librar...
20 questions, 7 subgroups
• Assessment: Objectives? Success metrics?
• Content:
  — What user contributions would most enr...
Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura
19   2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
Social Metadata Site Reviews

67 reviews of 32 sites, sites characterized




                                      Social...
Some observations

• Great variety of sites – many new
• Success tied to objective and audience, not
  necessarily traffic...
Some observations – cont.

• Few sites use ranking, filtering mechanisms,
  use patterns to guide visitors
• Institution-s...
Why contribute? (Prelim)

• Tie-in to community of fellow
  enthusiasts
• Ongoing conversation from own lives
• Pragmatic
...
Some promising areas

• Sites like Flickr to identify “mystery
  photos” and provide context
• CommentPress (from Future o...
Discussion
• Do you host a social media site?
• What social media sites do you often use
  — or your researchers use?
• Wh...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Social Metadata

1,661

Published on

Traditional metadata helped people find data, but metadata also helps us understand and evaluate what we find. Social metadata enlists engaged communities in these tasks. This session presented some examples of various types of social metadata sites that the RLG Partner Social Metadata Working Group has been reviewing and some initial observations from the 67 reviews of 32 social metadata sites done so far. The discussion focused on why people contribute, why we have such a professional interest in tagging, and a "wish list" of user contributions that would most enrich the resources offered by libraries, archives and museums.
Presented 1 June 2009 at the RLG Partnership Annual Meeting by Karen Smith-Yoshimura

Published in: Education, Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,661
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Metadata

  1. 1. Social Metadata Karen Smith-Yoshimura 2009 RLG Partnership Annual Meeting Boston, MA June 1-2, 2009
  2. 2. Metadata… … helps us find data. … helps us understand the data we find. … helps us evaluate what we should spend our time evaluating. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 2 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  3. 3. Examples of “social metadata” Photographer: James Ring; Photographic Archive, Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 3 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  4. 4. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 4 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  5. 5. Examples of “social metadata” Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 5 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  6. 6. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 6 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  7. 7. “The collections represented here have been chosen and curated by tribal consultants working in collaboration with University and Museum staff.”
  8. 8. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 8 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  9. 9. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 9 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  10. 10. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 10 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  11. 11. Wikipedia article ranked #1 of 31,000,000 results in Google search of “gdansk” Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 11 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  12. 12. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 12 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  13. 13. “A vote to end…edit wars” The closest vote Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 13 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  14. 14. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 14 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  15. 15. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 15 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  16. 16. RLG Partners Social Metadata Working Group 21 RLG Partner staff from four countries • Drew Bourn, Stanford • John Lowery, British Library • Douglas Campbell, National • Mark Matienzo, NYPL Library of New Zealand • Marja Musson, International • Kevin Clair, Penn State Institute of Social History • Chris Cronin, U. Chicago • Henry Raine, New-York • Christine DeZelar-Tiedman, U. Historical Society Minnesota • Cyndi Shein, Getty • Mary Elings, UC Berkeley • Ken Varnum, U. Michigan • Steve Galbraith, Folger • Melanie Wacker, Columbia • Rebekah Irwin, Yale • Kayla Willey, Brigham Young • Lesley Kadish, Minnesota • Beth Yakel, U. Michigan, Historical Society School of Information • Helice Koffler, U. Washington • Daniel Lovins, Yale Staffed by John MacColl, Karen Smith-Yoshimura Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 16 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  17. 17. Social Metadata Working Group Focus: • User contributions that can enrich the descriptive metadata created by libraries, archives, and museums. • Issues that need to be resolved to communicate and share user contributions on the network level. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 17 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  18. 18. 20 questions, 7 subgroups • Assessment: Objectives? Success metrics? • Content: — What user contributions would most enrich LAM resources? — What are exemplars of good social media sites? • Policy: — To what extent is moderation necessary? — How do we encourage contributions? — How do we gauge authenticity? • Technical and vocabularies: How do we enable users? Issues around vocabularies/folksonomies? Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 18 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  19. 19. Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 19 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  20. 20. Social Metadata Site Reviews 67 reviews of 32 sites, sites characterized Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 20 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  21. 21. Some observations • Great variety of sites – many new • Success tied to objective and audience, not necessarily traffic • Value in leveraging “sense of community” • Some sites heavily moderated, others not at all • Strict credentialing limits effectiveness • Lots of features of little value if not used and require more documentation, overhead Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 21 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  22. 22. Some observations – cont. • Few sites use ranking, filtering mechanisms, use patterns to guide visitors • Institution-specific sites have fewer contributions than aggregate sites • Tags contributed on network-level of more value • Tagging is most useful when there is no existing metadata (eg photos, videos, audio) • Need “critical mass” and “sense of community” (existing or created) Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 22 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  23. 23. Why contribute? (Prelim) • Tie-in to community of fellow enthusiasts • Ongoing conversation from own lives • Pragmatic • Feeling of contributing to the “brand” of the institution or community • Enhance own reputation Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 23 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  24. 24. Some promising areas • Sites like Flickr to identify “mystery photos” and provide context • CommentPress (from Future of the Book) for translating, transcribing digitized documents in different languages and scripts • Integration of user corrections (Flickr commons, WOTR, YourArchive) Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 24 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  25. 25. Discussion • Do you host a social media site? • What social media sites do you often use — or your researchers use? • What motivates your creating (or not creating) your own social media site? • Do your experiences agree with or conflict with our preliminary observations? • What else would you like the working group to address? Social Metadata, Karen Smith-Yoshimura 25 2009 Annual RLG Partnership Meeting , 2009-06
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×