Sandy Ellis’ A History of Collaboration, a Future in Crowdsourcing: Positive Impacts of Cooperation on British Librarianship really gave me a new perspective on the possibilities for crowdsourcing in libraries. Prior to reading Ellis’ work, I admit that I had not given crowdsourcing much thought, at least not in terms of its potential positive implications for libraries; I had associated crowdsourcing with projects such as Wikipedia and had never considered how crowdsourcing is already being used in many libraries and similar institutions. For the purposes of the article, Ellis provides her own definition for ‘crowdsourcing’ in which she notes that crowdsourcing projects are “not confined to the Internet” (Ellis 3). This came as a revelation to me, as I had always considered crowdsourcing to be an online phenomenon. Ellis also gives several examples of crowdsourcing projects (such as The Sounds of the UK and the Ancient Lives project). A few quick web searches and the LIBR 559 thread on Connect that was dedicated to Ellis’ article (and the topic of crowdsourcing more generally) turned up many more examples of crowdsourcing in libraries. I even thought of one example myself – The Human Library project.
Ellis’ discussion of the benefits of crowdsourcing projects was what really piqued my interest. For me, the sense of ownership that can develop from collaborating on such projects is an important feature. I believe in a community-led approach for libraries, and this approach places a strong emphasis on values that intersect with those of crowdsourcing projects. Community-led libraries promote collaboration, community engagement, a sense of community pride and ownership, and they strive for inclusive services. A crowdsourcing project that is based on a foundation of social inclusion may be the ideal project for a community-led library to embark upon.
Although perhaps a little farfetched, the first thing that came to mind was the possibilities for crowdsourcing cataloguing as a way of improving library usability. Rather than basing the cataloguing of books on a system that appears to be confusing for many library users, patrons/project participants would be able to decide where a particular book should be shelved, and perhaps even how the subjects are organized within the library. While I admittedly don’t know how practical such a project would be at the present time, this is something I would like to see in the libraries of the future. And I do think that this is a possibility given the popularity of sites such as Goodreads and LibraryThing, in which individuals outside the profession of librarianship are already gaining experience with social cataloguing. It is not improbable to think that patrons may be able to create a better system of cataloguing than already exists, and Surowiekci (qtd. in Ellis) states “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.”
Perhaps what’s most appealing about having a catalogue created by users is that it means fewer barriers for socially excluded individuals who wish to use their local library. The Community-Led Libraries Toolkit states:
For many socially excluded people, the library mystifies the acquisition of information. Specially designed software for our catalogues, the Dewey Decimal system, and our subject headings are all examples of the ways the library distances itself from the community. Most disturbing, however, is that many socially excluded people believe they are required to know and understand these “codes” before they can use the library (pg. 21).
Many people, especially those involved in librarianship, see libraries as very inclusive and accepting places, and this view may make it difficult to understand how standard libraries policies and practices may be barriers to use for certain people. Exploring the possibilities for crowdsourcing may be exactly what’s needed for libraries to become more inclusive and collaborative institutions with users who feel a sense of responsibility and ownership.
Lots of good ideas here. I especially like the discussion of how some of our bibliographic practices can have a distancing effect on our user communities and that crowdsourcing may be one way to bring our users closer to the library (and connecting with us). Dean
Thanks Dean! I have recently begun learning more about community-led libraries and a big part of the learning process involves identifying the potential barriers that exist within the library. As someone who has tended to see the library as a very welcoming and accepting place, this has been a difficult process for me! Crowdsourcing, if it is able to engage a diverse group of participants (including those who have traditionally faced social exclusion), seems like a good way to break down some of those barriers.