Talk:Folksonomy/Archive 1

message: An in depth article about categorization could contain this information under a more suitable title, and I'm not convinced that this word is in wide enough usage (yet) that wikipedia should promote its further use with an article by this name. I am not going to list this for VfD myself, but if someone else does, I would support it. ~leif ☺ HELO 02:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Hey! I thought: no original research allowed on Wikipedia.
And it's not fair to just write a blog entry somewhere, and then link to that.
But we'd like to have authoritative, knowledgable people, writing here. But only about things that are factual; Not their own insights or thoughts into a matter.
:: The fact that this neologism has been appropriated by hundreds of writers, who agree that it describes a new and interesting phenomenon on the Internet, elevates this term far beyond the category of individual research.Bryan 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The neologism is beyond reproach -- of course the article has a right to exist.  But some of the particular content is very much like original research.  The most glaring is the section on folksonomy and the Semantic Web -- most Semantic Web people I know would have the *opposite* opinion, that folksonomies are an impediment to the Semantic Web, as they are non-normalized, ill-formed "ontologies" (arguably they are not even to be called ontologies, or at best very "soft ontologies").  I am not against folksonomies at all, but to say they can help the Semantic Web is very intriguing, controversial, debatable -- all the things that should not be in a Wikipedia article.--Tmusgrove 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey! This sounds like original research! 

message: 'Taxonomy is from "taxis" and "nomos" (from Greek). Taxis means classification. Nomos (or nomia) means management.'
Taxonomy says "from the words taxis = order and nomos = law".
----
Well, I take it "nomos" is a term name or "to call", thus taxonomy is "to call a taxi" Myles325a (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an ic    ronic term. It refers to people's disorderly and unsystematic classification schemes that break all the rules of formal classification, but in a way that provides useful information to Internet users.Bryan 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of "Taxonomy" is confusing. 

message: Shouldn't the Wikipedia category system get a mention here, since we are at the forefront of folksonomies? :81.156.107.201 14:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good suggestion - can you add it? Bryan 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia category system 

message: upto11.net is a new music recommendations site that employs user tags and leverages P2P-user music collections as the basis for recommendations. Articles about musical artist, albums and songs from the Wikipedia are also integrated, including links on each page that encourage our users to add to / edit those articles at the Wikipedia. Thought it added a unique new example of a music recommendations site that uses a folksonomy. I'm one of the founders.
--Dsupto11 03:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  added another example of a music site with a folksonomy 

message: ...so I am being bold and removing the examples section as well as the links in the external references which are nothing more than sites which use a folksonomy, or a dynamic list of folksonomy links. Chuck 18:18, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
::What? C'mon. We're talking about a few good examples! If you came across this concept, wouldn't you want to visit a few sites that exemplified folksonomy? Bryan 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mea culpa. Just looked at your change, you're right. Sorry! Bryan 03:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files|Wikipedia is not an internet directory]] 

message: If I have to look up the words portmanteau and neologism, then they dont belong in the summary.  I took them out and replaced them with something a bit more readable.
The best writing is the writing that can be easily understood by anybody.
:Thank you.   --jonsafari 04:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with acronym and initialism and others, these are accepted words for classifying linguistic constructions such as one would find in any serious dictionary.  It's more to the point that linguistic jargon mainstream to a dictionary are appearing in the summary section of a page making a pretense to belong in an encyclopedia.  It strikes me that category:big word is not a terribly incisive folksonomie in this instance.  MaxEnt 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big words != Smart 

message: Dear Anonymous who doesn't like big words: I agree with you 100%. I like clear, readable prose too. Still, think of a young reader who comes across this word, and thinks that it has been used since the time of the Greeks. It IS a neologism -- or, as Wikipedians prefer to call such things, a portmanteau word. 
Look, this is an encyclopedia. Big words are to be expected. If they are linked, you can click the link and learn the word. That is what encyclopedias are FOR -- learning. Please do not remove words you do not understand unless you believe the the discussion could be improved by using a simpler word. Bryan 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A few big words now and then aren't such a bad thing

message: Let me explain my changes in the first paragraph. The term "folksonomy" was coined by a very, very smart guy named Thomas Vander Wal. Many people have found his definition of folksonomy useful, and it has been widely adopted. The trouble is, Vander Wal didn't think much of the way this page used to define it:
*Vanderwal's take on Wikipedia's poor definition of his concept -- required reading for anyone making edits here.
His definition of the concept (which I have tried to restore to this page) beautifully captures the social and personal dimensions of folksonomic classification -- categories that we associate with an online personae and, if we find them congenial, inspire a search for similarly tagged objects. The following explains the concept pretty well:
*Picking up where search leaves off
Bryan 11:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's taken a while, I know, but I finally got around to updating the introduction to fully deal with Vander Wal's criticisms. It's important that the introduction contains the paragraph about the connection between tags and online personae.Bryan 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New definition

message: I've been trying to think my way through this question: Are Wikipedia's categories a form of folksonomy? I think they are, but they masquerade as controlled vocabularies, which is potentially misleading. I would really like to hear from somebody who has been involved in Wikipedia's categories effort on this. Bryan 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia's categories = folksonomy?

message: First time I have found a topic I had never heard of browsing on wp...--BozMotalk 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, 

message: Seems to me that this article is very exciting, but leads nowhere.  My unanswered questions are:
# Where do I find a *good* example of how this is done?  The article mentions several sites using the notion of 'social tagging' or 'folksonomy' - how about providing clear links to them?  Or better, a clear and clickable link to the purest single example?
:: Fair comment. I've added two links in the first paragraph of the article. --mgaved 10:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples and 'How to roll your own'

message: There are unrelated external links labeled "Security" added February 4 by 217.17.167.99 . Please revert someone who knows how to do.
:Thanks for spotting it. I see the same IP has spammed some other articles aswell, and will take a look to see if some of the links are still left. To remove spam like this you can just edit the page or section and remove them. It's as easy as that. Thanks again! Shanes 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: Dublin Core (DC) is not a controlled vocabulary for defining subjects. DC is a set of tags for assigning properties such as *title*, *description*, *creator* and so on. A controlled vocabulary, in the sense that would be relevant for a discussion of folksonomies, is a set of tag values which could be used inside the DC *subject* field. So the previous contributor confused the DC elements with the possible content of one of those elements. A good example of a controlled vocabulary is the Library of Congress Subject Headings.
: Excellent point - may I suggest that you go right ahead and make changes to an article when you can see that there's an obvious error? Your contributions are welcome.Bryan 19:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong take on Dublin Core 

message: The changes logged from 128.143.168.21 were mine -- while I was  working on the article, it seems, my login expired.Bryan 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: March 24 2006 changes

message: The criticism portion of the article starts with arguments against criticisms. Arguments for controlled vocabularies are better explained on the controlled vocabulary page.
: I agree, the "criticism section" I set up feels to have developed so as to cover more than just criticism of the folksonomies. I still think it's important that there should be a critical section so I've moved out the paragraph which started the amended section (arguments against criticisms) to the "benefits" section. I've moved out the last paragraph to its own section -"Potential compromise between folksonomies and top-down taxonomies". Just a quick structural change, it may need further tidying... (and improving!) --mgaved 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: point of view / criticisms of folksonomies

message: TECHNOLOGY
What technology are used in websites using folksonomy? (If my question is technically wrong, please correct.) More info should be added on what software/platform/technology is used to create tag clouds, share content, etc. 
EXAMPLES
Also to be added, examples of the use of folksonomy. Orkut made user with similar interest or hobbies searchable when user X clicks on their favorite hobby, for instance. you click on "Running in my room" and can find other users with the same hobby. Is this folksonomy? 
Need to understand the concept.
Please make the article understandable to the common person by showing everyday examples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.140.190 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folksonomy technology/ies + examples 

message: I've converted all notes/references in the article to use <ref> tags because what was there seemed to be a little screwy (see diff). I hope no one objects... - dcljr (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converted to 'ref' tags 

message: At 09:21, 9 September 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard moved the previous contents of Collaborative tagging to Collaborative tagging (2) (which he then deleted) to keep its long history separate from the history of Folksonomy after Folksonomy has been moved to Collaborative tagging, in case Collaborative tagging ever must be deleted and undeleted for some reason such as histmerging. Ditto their talk pages. Anthony Appleyard 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This move was totally inappropriate, "collaborative tagging" and "folksonomy" are independent and distinct concepts. There may be some similarity and overlap, but this entire article is about "folksonomy" ... if you want to propose a merge, or a deletion, do so with discussion *first* please. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: folksonomy is collective tagging not collaborative tagging. Collaborative tagging would require people working together to build a common understanding, which is not related to what a folksonomy does in people tagging things for their own use and refinding in a services what aggregates the individual's tags as collective intelligence. Collaboration and collective efforts are often mistaken as similar, but they are distinctly different terms that are not similar. Folksonomy is collective and should not be mistakenly confused as collaborative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvanderwal (talk • contribs) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from Folksonomy 

message: * tag (metadata) : a keyword assigned to a piece of information via social tagging mostly to indicate the topic but also for more general purpose.
* keyword (search) : a term that captures the essence of the topic of a document or a search query. Also known as descriptor.
* subject indexing : assigning keywords to describe the topic of a document. Mostly done by experts or authors only and often with a controlled vocabulary.
* controlled vocabulary : a set of predefined keywords.
* classification : a hierarchical controlled vocabulary. Also known as taxonomy or category system.
* categorization : grouping objects in categories (either with a given classification or via creating a classification)
* social tagging : assigning keywords to pieces of information to annotate and indicate its topic. In contrast to subject indexing done by non-experts, mostly for personal use and mostly visible to others. The keywords are thus becoming tags. Also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing and maybe more phrases.
* semantic tagging : social tagging with a controlled vocabulary. Also known as semantic annotation.
* folksonomy : the set of (most popular?) tags that were created via social tagging. May be used as a controlled vocabulary afterwards.
:Initial reply: First let me say, there may indeed be very little fundamental difference in perspective between us. The single most critical factor (in my opinion) is that we probably differ less on the *ontological* framework, and differ more on the *practical* considerations necessary to make the article clear, concise, well-structured and still consistent with all relevant references (both academic and non-academic). 
:This "first draft" of definitions is a good example of what I mean. In general terms, it looks excellent (although there are some very minor quibbles that can be made, for example tag (metadata) does not *necessarily* imply a "social tagging" context, even though that is the prevailing assumption and usage; a "tagging" system can be devised and applied by one person alone to a restricted-access corpus -- but as I said, that's a relatively minor point and it's surely nothing you haven't already considered on your own). 
:The first draft does, however, have one pretty glaring omission, *nowhere* does it seem to acknowledge colloquial usage or inconsistencies in usage. The attempt to fully operationalize the terminology here is definitely appropriate for a Master's thesis, but even a Master's thesis would be incomplete if it failed to at least acknowledge the vagaries of usage and differing terminology. Moreover, the very matter of applied terms in this area could be the subject of a Master's thesis in itself.
:As I mentioned previously, although we are responsible for improving the article, we are not responsible for improving the current state of research in this area, at least not in our capacity as Wikpedia volunteers. If there are vagaries in usage (or ontology), we should not attempt to "write them out of existence" here on WP. The fact that such vagaries exist is substantiated by both academic references and the volume and variety of citations that use this term; many of which are not written by reference librarians or information scientists. ((I can back this up with specifics later if necessary)). 
:Nevertheless, clarifying core concepts (supported by references) is definitely a positive step forward, and so is the creation of Subject indexing (thanks for adding the stub). I expect to be taking a break from this and article for a bit, but I definitely support the positive steps forward and expect to get back in to help out (if and where appropriate) so we can eventually get this clarified. Thanks for your remarks. dr.ef.tymac 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we should include vagaries in usage in the article - I indicated it with "also known as" but there is  more differing in terminology which must be included in the articles too. On the other side a simple definition is needed and we either have to seperate concepts or combine them in one article. Anyhow I think we now agree that "folksonomy" should be a seperate article (but it's in a very bad state of quality). I will concentrate on other articles in the topic area first. -- Nichtich 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First draft 

message: This article is a copybook example of what is so wrong with so many WP entries. It is incrediibly wordy, it masticates EVERY concept a thousand times before letting it go, it tries to cover every conceivable base no matter how peripheral it may be to the central concern, and it has a snobbish aversion to providing a clear example of the process it is describing. Readers would knows EXACTLY what folksonomy meant if the writer just pointed to an example, or created a simple one. And about 50% of the verbiage should go. This isn’t the Theory of Relativity, it is a makeshift indexing system.Myles325a (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey who wrote this - Emmanual Kant?