can museum allow online users to become participants?

network effects enabled by a new generation of collaborative online applications. Ironically, the
more bits of data that are added to these applications, the more useful they become as organizers
and filters of Web content. Where once we were reliant on proprietary searches and directories to
find information, now we can access and add to an unprecedented body of ―collective
intelligence‖ built by millions of users one tag, one link and one entry at a time.4
Web 2.0 and Museums
Of the various tools and concepts encompassed by Web 2.0, a few stand out as having particular
relevance for museums. One such tool is folksonomy, the application of user-supplied subject
terms—known as ―tags‖—to describe everything from webpages to works of art.5 Proponents of
folksonomy argue that allowing users to describe online content in terms that make sense to
them, rather than relying solely on organizing principles imposed by others, will make that
content more retrievable, useful and meaningful to the audience. Its most enthusiastic supporters
add a countercultural flavor to the debate, as voiced by technology commentator David
Weinberger: ―Folksonomies stick it to The Man. . . . Even when the experts do a good job—as
they usually do, because they‘re experts—it is still an implicit statement that someone else‘s way
of thinking is better than yours.‖6 Naturally, the ―experts,‖ trained in systematic descriptive
methods that have been honed and developed over centuries, have a different opinion. In their
view, folksonomy opens the door to idiosyncratic, inconsistent, irrelevant or simply incorrect
subject terms, undermining the usefulness of any index that is created.7 A collaborative research
project, known as steve, has set out to study the potential of folksonomy for art collections in
hopes that it will increase public access to works of art and improve the experience by
encouraging personalization and multiple points of view.8
Using the Web to build relationships with and among users is another area in which museums
have been experimenting for years. Web 2.0 tools give museums additional opportunities to
build online communities, both on their own websites and on third-party sites. Many museums
are experimenting with weblogs, chats, social networking and other outreach tools. Because most
successful social networks emerge in an organic, collaborative process, museums have found that
it takes more than just a token institutional commitment to create a lively online community.9
While a few attempts have been successful, others are either underutilized or unsustainable for a
variety of reasons.
Wikis take the concept of user involvement a step further, by allowing users to actually
contribute to or edit content on a website. The most famous example is Wikipedia, the
community-edited online encyclopedia with nearly eight million entries as of this writing.10
Reaction to Wikipedia is mixed; some argue that its model of open and anonymous authorship,
together with well-publicized instances of deliberate falsification, prevent it from being
trustworthy as an authority. Even so, its breadth of material, up-to-the-minute responsiveness and
sheer audacity as an enterprise continue to attract users and stimulate ongoing debate.11 Wikis
like it have been used for a number of other collaborative ventures, from community portals to
scholarly research.
2