This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by campusadr

This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information.

Highlighted by jahmount

This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by ironick

Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

Highlighted by diigomg

Tagging Content in Del.icio.us and Flickr

Highlighted by synclogics

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

Adam Mathes

Highlighted by ronah_dequina

This paper examines user-â€generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-â€created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by campusadr

This paper examines user-00Dgenerated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification.

Highlighted by htompkin

This paper examines user-00Dgenerated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-00Dcreated metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by rudyleon

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata Adam Mathes Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Urbana-‍Champaign December 2004 This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by tzon02

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata Adam Mathes Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Urbana-‍Champaign December 2004 This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by tzon02

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata Adam Mathes Computer Mediated Communication - LIS590CMC Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois Urbana-‍Champaign December 2004 This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by tzon02

This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by marcok

This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification. Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information. The creation of metadata has generally been approached in two ways: professional creation and author creation. In libraries and other organizations, creating metadata, primarily in the form of catalog records, has traditionally been the domain of dedicated professionals working with complex, detailed rule sets and vocabularies. The primary problem with this approach is scalability and its impracticality for the vast amounts of content being produced and used, especially on the World Wide Web. The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge. A second approach is for metadata to be created by authors. The movement towards creator described documents was heralded by SGML, the WWW, and the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. There are problems with this approach as well - often due to inadequate or inaccurate description, or outright deception. This paper examines a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by millette

Flickr (http://www.flickr.com), a photo management and sharing web application, has a similar system of free-â€form tagging for photos that was adopted and modeled after Delicious. It too requires users to create a user account, and is free to join. There is also the option to pay for an account with more features, like more storage space for photographs. Flickr offers a similar bookmark to add photographs to the system, but also has a number of other options to upload photographs to the system through web pages and software applications. Tags can be added at the time of upload, or later in the process when the photographs are displayed by the system. A primary difference between Delicious and Flickr is that while the tags on Delicious are primarily from the users of web documents that were written by another party, Flickr is primarily used by individuals to manage their own digital images, and the majority of the tags are users tagging photos they created themselves. This is not absolute; the system does have the option of allowing users designated as friends or family to tag a usersâ€™ photos. Additionally, users can and do enter images others created into the system, often from web sites. This use of the system is much more like Delicious, but seems to be a small fraction of the use.

Highlighted by piggex

This paper examines user-‍generated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification.

Highlighted by akwala

This paper examines user-00Dgenerated metadata as implemented and applied in two web services designed to share and organize digital media to better understand grassroots classification.

Highlighted by encode

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

Highlighted by frankbenneker

Flickr (http://www.flickr.com), a photo management and sharing web application, has a similar system of free-‍form tagging for photos that was adopted and modeled after Delicious. It too requires users to create a user account, and is free to join. There is also the option to pay for an account with more features, like more storage space for photographs. Flickr offers a similar bookmark to add photographs to the system, but also has a number of other options to upload photographs to the system through web pages and software applications. Tags can be added at the time of upload, or later in the process when the photographs are displayed by the system. A primary difference between Delicious and Flickr is that while the tags on Delicious are primarily from the users of web documents that were written by another party, Flickr is primarily used by individuals to manage their own digital images, and the majority of the tags are users tagging photos they created themselves. This is not absolute; the system does have the option of allowing users designated as friends or family to tag a users’ photos. Additionally, users can and do enter images others created into the system, often from web sites. This use of the system is much more like Delicious, but seems to be a small fraction of the use.

Highlighted by piggex

Highlighted by concetta

Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Metadata - data about data - allows systems to collocate related information, and helps users find relevant information.

Highlighted by minikw

professional creation and author creation

Highlighted by gaby13rh

author creation

Highlighted by minikw

professional creation

Highlighted by minikw

metadata to be created by authors

Highlighted by gaby13rh

The apparatus and tools built around professional cataloging systems are generally too complicated for anyone without specialized training and knowledge.

Highlighted by minikw

user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by carlaarena

a third approach: user-‍created metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a community.

Highlighted by minikw

Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.

Highlighted by gaby13rh

This paper focus primarily on descriptive metadata which identifies and functions to organize information based on its intellectual content.

Highlighted by wolffw

Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.” Metadata is information, often highly structured, about documents, books, articles, photographs, or other items that is designed to support specific functions.

Highlighted by minikw

This often requires serious education and training. The library and information science field has developed elaborate rules and schemes for cataloging, categorization and classification that include classification schemes such as the Dewey Decimal System and Library of Congress Classification Scheme, as well as large controlled vocabularies of terms for describing the subject of materials, such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings.

Highlighted by gaby13rh

on 2009-03-31 by gaby13rh

Taxonomy

While professionally created metadata are often considered of high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to produce. This makes it very difficult to scale and keep up with the vast amounts of new content being produced, especially in new mediums like the World Wide Web.

Highlighted by wolffw

grassroots community classification of digital assets

Highlighted by sharon_elin

User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper focuses on grassroots community classification of digital assets.

Highlighted by wolffw

While professionally created metadata are often considered of high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to produce. This makes it very difficult to scale and keep up with the vast amounts of new content being produced, especially in new mediums like the World Wide Web.

Highlighted by minikw

User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper focuses on grassroots community classification of digital assets.

Highlighted by concetta

but both approaches share a basic problem: the intended and unintended eventual users of the information are disconnected from the process.

Highlighted by minikw

What seems to be relatively new and different is the emphasis on user added keywords as a fundamental organizational construct. These keywords, which are referred to as “tags” on the site, allow users to describe and organize content with any vocabulary they choose.

Highlighted by wolffw

What seems to be relatively new and different is the emphasis on user added keywords as a fundamental organizational construct. These keywords, which are referred to as “tags” on the site, allow users to describe and organize content with any vocabulary they choose.

Highlighted by tomgeorge2348

Recommendation systems, and those that employ collaborative filtering are another form of leveraging implicit user created metadata. (Lieberman, 2002

Highlighted by minikw

One form of explicit user created metadata was popularized in the late 1990’s with link-‍focused websites called weblogs (Blood 2000)

Highlighted by minikw

user added keywords

Highlighted by concetta

A primary difference between Delicious and Flickr is that while the tags on Delicious are primarily from the users of web documents that were written by another party, Flickr is primarily used by individuals to manage their own digital images, and the majority of the tags are users tagging photos they created themselves. This is not absolute; the system does have the option of allowing users designated as friends or family to tag a users’ photos. Additionally, users can and do enter images others created into the system, often from web sites. This use of the system is much more like Delicious, but seems to be a small fraction of the use.

Highlighted by wolffw

“a social bookmarks manager. It allows you to easily add sites you like to your personal collection of links, to categorize those sites with keywords, and to share your collection not only between your own browsers and machines, but also with others” (Schachter, 2004)

Highlighted by minikw

The organic system of organization developing in Delicious and Flickr was called a “folksonomy” by Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and “taxonomy.”

An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-‍child or sibling relationships between these terms. There are, however, automatically generated “related” tags, which cluster tags based on common URLs. This is unlike formal taxonomies and classification schemes where there are multiple kind of explicit relationships between terms. These relationships include things like broader, narrower, as well as related terms. These folksonomies are simply the set of terms that a group of users tagged content with, they are not a predetermined set of classification terms or labels.

Highlighted by maikeonline

The organic system of organization developing in Delicious and Flickr was called a “folksonomy” by Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and “taxonomy.”

Highlighted by wolffw

An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-‍child or sibling relationships between these terms.

Highlighted by wolffw

An important aspect of a folksonomy is that is comprised of terms in a flat namespace: that is, there is no hierarchy, and no directly specified parent-‍child or sibling relationships between these terms.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

compulsion

Highlighted by tisopo

compulsion

Highlighted by tisopo

These folksonomies are simply the set of terms that a group of users tagged content with, they are not a predetermined set of classification terms or labels.

Highlighted by carlaarena

Two tags of particular interest are “cute,” and “me.” This will be elaborated upon later, but I think these two terms reflect the dual nature of these systems: the compulsion to share - what is the Internet if not a venue for sharing cute photographs? - and conversely the importance of individuality and ego for these systems to work.

Highlighted by wolffw

although the term “classification” is often used in relation to these systems, and has been used in this paper, what is going on is more like “categorization.” Categorization is generally less rigorous and boundaries are less clear. It is based more on a synthesis of similarity than a systematic arrangement of materials

Highlighted by sharon_elin

In a folksonomy the set of terms is a flat namespace: there are no clearly defined relations between the terms in the vocabulary.

Highlighted by wolffw

Most importantly, each document can have many terms associated with it.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

the dual nature of these systems: the compulsion to share - what is the Internet if not a venue for sharing cute photographs? - and conversely the importance of individuality and ego for these systems to work.

Highlighted by carlaarena

“folksonomy” by Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and “taxonomy.”

Highlighted by minikw

Ambiguity of the tags can emerge as users apply the same tag in different ways. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of synonym control can lead to different tags being used for the same concept, precluding collocation.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

on 2009-07-17 by sharon_elin

Conventions are helpful! In order to share tags and use them efficiently, tagging conventions should be decided upon by users. (1) uppercase or lowercase? (2) How to join multiple-worded tags? For example, to tag a 2-word category such as "computer repair" one should decide whether to use an underscore, a period, or a dash between the words since a space will not keep the words paired. Once conventions are decided upon, all users who are sharing sources should tag items in the same way.

As an uncontrolled vocabulary that is shared across an entire system, the terms in a folksonomy have inherent ambiguity as different users apply terms to documents in different ways

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Ambiguity of the tags can emerge as users apply the same tag in different ways. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the lack of synonym control can lead to different tags being used for the same concept, precluding collocation.

Highlighted by carlaarena

These are all “filtering,” but in very different senses. Using water filters to purify vodka is a very different subject than Bayesian statistical analysis.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Acronyms present another area of potential ambiguity that are often dealt with effectively in controlled vocabularies

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Overall, although the term “classification” is often used in relation to these systems, and has been used in this paper, what is going on is more like “categorization.” Categorization is generally less rigorous and boundaries are less clear.

Highlighted by minikw

Spaces, Multiple Words

Highlighted by sharon_elin

synonym control

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Plural vs. singular

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Information seeking behavior varies based on context.

Highlighted by minikw

Browsing vs. Finding

Highlighted by sharon_elin

serendipity

Highlighted by sharon_elin

serendipity

Highlighted by tisopo

It is similar to the difference between exploring a problem space to formulate questions, as opposed to actually looking for answers to specifically formulated questions.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

serendipity

Highlighted by carlaarena

There is a fundamental difference in the activities of browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct searching to find relevant documents in a query.

Highlighted by tisopo

browsing the system and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for finding things unexpectedly in a general area

Highlighted by carlaarena

Perhaps the most important strength of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary of users.

Highlighted by wolffw

Information seeking behavior varies based on context.

Highlighted by tisopo

As discussed earlier, a folksonomy represents a fundamental shift in that it is derived not from professionals or content creators, but from the users of information and documents. In this way, it directly reflects their choices in diction, terminology, and precision.

Highlighted by wolffw

There is a fundamental difference in the activities of browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct searching to find relevant documents in a query. It is similar to the difference between exploring a problem space to formulate questions, as opposed to actually looking for answers to specifically formulated questions

Highlighted by rabbitmountain

There is no synonym control in the system. This leads to tags that seemingly have similar intended meanings, like “mac,” “macintosh,” and “apple” all being used to describe materials related to Apple Macintosh computers.

Highlighted by minikw

Some classification schemes are disjoint from the vocabulary of the users. In “Metadata for the Masses,” Peter Merholz argues that a folksonomy can be quite useful in that it reveals the digital equivalent of “desire lines” (Merholz, 2004). Desire lines are the foot-‍worn paths that sometimes appear in a landscape over time. Merholz notes, “A smart landscape designer will let wanderers create paths through use, and then pave the emerging walkways, ensuring optimal utility. Ethnoclassification systems can similarly ‘emerge.’ Once you have a preliminary system in place, you can use the most common tags to develop a controlled vocabulary that truly speaks the users’ language.”

Highlighted by wolffw

Desire lines are the foot-‍worn paths that sometimes appear in a landscape over time. Merholz notes, “A smart landscape designer will let wanderers create paths through use, and then pave the emerging walkways, ensuring optimal utility. Ethnoclassification systems can similarly ‘emerge.’ Once you have a preliminary system in place, you can use the most common tags to develop a controlled vocabulary that truly speaks the users’ language.”

Highlighted by sharon_elin

Perhaps the most important strength of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary of users

Highlighted by carlaarena

it directly reflects their choices in diction, terminology, and precision.

Highlighted by carlaarena

The first is serendipity. While the controlled vocabulary issues discussed above may hamper findability, browsing the system and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for finding things unexpectedly in a general area.

Highlighted by minikw

Although the Delicious tags on Merholz’s article are only one example, a folksonomy, with its uncontrolled nature and organic growth, has the capability to adapt very quickly to user vocabulary changes and needs. There is no significant cost for a user or for the system to add new terms to the folksonomy. The problem is that while the disparate user vocabularies and terms enable some very interesting browsing and finding, the sheer multiplicity of terms and vocabularies may overwhelm the content with noisy metadata that is not useful or relevant to a user.

Highlighted by wolffw

Merholz does not use the term “folksonomy.” He has written on his personal web site that the term is inaccurate due to its derivation from “taxonomy,” which he argues tend towards hierarchy and control. (Merholz, 2004) (See also Taylor, 2004, for discussions of problems and disputes with the term “taxonomy.”) Merholz prefers the term “ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article, and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification and far more like categorization.

Highlighted by juliediana

on 2009-10-08 by juliediana

Classification uses a scheme, where as categorization is more ad hoc.

Merholz does not use the term “folksonomy.” He has written on his personal web site that the term is inaccurate due to its derivation from “taxonomy,” which he argues tend towards hierarchy and control. (Merholz, 2004) (See also Taylor, 2004, for discussions of problems and disputes with the term “taxonomy.”) Merholz prefers the term “ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article, and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification and far more like categorization.

Highlighted by rabbitmountain

on 2009-05-24 by rabbitmountain

What is the difference between "classification" and "categorization"?

There is a fundamental difference in the activities of browsing to find interesting content, as opposed to direct searching to find relevant documents in a query

Highlighted by minikw

folksonomy, with its uncontrolled nature and organic growth, has the capability to adapt very quickly to user vocabulary changes and needs. There is no significant cost for a user or for the system to add new terms to the folksonomy.

Highlighted by carlaarena

communicative nature of tag use.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

an ad-‍hoc set of keywords enables users — not just professionals — without any training or previous knowledge to participate in the system immediately. Additionally, participating is far easier in terms of time, effort and cognitive costs.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

“Aside: I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym control and semantic precision are precisely why it works. Free typing loose associations is just a lot easier than making a decision about the degree of match to a pre-‍defined category (especially hierarchical ones). It’s like 90% of the value of a ‘proper’ taxonomy but 10 times simpler.” (Butterfield, 2004)

Highlighted by wolffw

way or organizing information, and that a large group of people are using these systems,

Highlighted by carlaarena

Perhaps the most important strength of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary of users.

Highlighted by minikw

loose associations

Highlighted by sharon_elin

(Buckland, 1999).

Highlighted by minikw

a folksonomy represents a fundamental shift in that it is derived not from professionals or content creators, but from the users of information and documents

Highlighted by minikw

“Metadata for the Masses,” Peter Merholz

Highlighted by minikw

(Merholz, 2004)

Highlighted by minikw

I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym control and semantic precision are precisely why it works.

Highlighted by carlaarena

Merholz recommends using a folksonomy as the start of professionally designed controlled vocabularies

Highlighted by minikw

“ethnoclassification,” which is what he uses in his article, and there is no mention of “folksonomy” to be found. Ethnoclassification is also inaccurate, because as discussed, what is happening is quite unlike classification and far more like categorization

Highlighted by minikw

Feedback is immediate.

Highlighted by carlaarena

But the real power emerges when you expand the scope to include all items, from all users, that match your tag

Highlighted by carlaarena

This tight feedback loop leads to a form of asymmetrical communication between users through metadata. The users of a system are negotiating the meaning of the terms in the folksonomy, whether purposefully or not, through their individual choices of tags to describe documents for themselves.

There are two models to describe what is happening here: one that focuses on individual incentives, and one that focuses on community aspects.

Highlighted by carlaarena

The problem is that while the disparate user vocabularies and terms enable some very interesting browsing and finding, the sheer multiplicity of terms and vocabularies may overwhelm the content with noisy metadata that is not useful or relevant to a user.

Highlighted by minikw

Individuals have an incentive to tag their materials with terms that will help them organize their collections in a way that they can find these items later. The organizational scheme that emerges for each individual reflects their individual information needs.

Highlighted by carlaarena

The overall costs for users of the system in terms of time and effort are far lower than systems that rely on complex hierarchal classification and categorization schemes

Highlighted by minikw

the behavior of the users can also be thought of as being influenced and related to their relationship to the other individuals using the service, and specific groups of users who they share tag use with

Highlighted by carlaarena

community formation through metadata

Highlighted by carlaarena

A folksonomy lowers the barriers to cooperation. Groups of users do not have to agree on a hierarchy of tags or detailed taxonomy, they only need to agree, in a general sense, on the “meaning” of a tag enough to label similar material with terms for there to be cooperation and shared value. Although this may require a change in vocabulary for some users, it is never forced, and as Udell discussed, the tight feedback loop provides incentives for this cooperation.

Highlighted by carlaarena

The referential and meta nature of the images continues as users took pictures of images on Flickr, etc. Although this is a playful example, it is a use of tags as communicative tool. Only by tagging their photograph with “sometaithurts” could a user of the system join the photographic conversation. Conversely, the only way to follow the conversation was through the systems automated collocating of like tagged items.

Highlighted by sharon_elin

“Aside: I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym control and semantic precision are precisely why it works. Free typing loose associations is just a lot easier than making a decision about the degree of match to a pre-‍defined category (especially hierarchical ones). It’s like 90% of the value of a ‘proper’ taxonomy but 10 times simpler.” (Butterfield, 2004)

Highlighted by minikw

flicktion

Highlighted by sharon_elin

community and individual motivations, are not mutually exclusive

Highlighted by carlaarena

Jon Udell (2004) argues that the idea of abandoning taxonomy in favor of lists of keywords is not new, and that the fundamental difference in these systems is feedback.

Highlighted by minikw

Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic, suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-‍form tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in the organizational system.

Highlighted by jemawo

A user on Flickr, Andrew Lowosky, began posting pictures of doorbells in Florence, along with a brief piece of fiction about the doorbell in the description of the photograph. He dubbed this combination of photograph and short story “flicktion,” and tagged it as such. (Lowosky, 2004.) Some other users have been tagging photographs with “flicktion” and writing short fiction to accompany it

Highlighted by carlaarena

But the real power emerges when you expand the scope to include all items, from all users, that match your tag. Again, that view might not be what you expected. In that case, you can adapt to the group norm, keep your tag in a bid to influence the group norm, or both.” (Udell, 2004)

Highlighted by minikw

the most used tags are more likely to be used by other users since they are more likely to be seen

Highlighted by carlaarena

A folksonomy represents simultaneously some of the best and worst in the organization of information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic, suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-‍form tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated, professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by users is an important development that should be explored and considered for future systems development.

Highlighted by bibliothecaire

A folksonomy lowers the barriers to cooperation. Groups of users do not have to agree on a hierarchy of tags or detailed taxonomy, they only need to agree, in a general sense, on the “meaning” of a tag enough to label similar material with terms for there to be cooperation and shared value.

Highlighted by minikw

A folksonomy represents simultaneously some of the best and worst in the organization of information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic, suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-‍form tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated, professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by users is an important development that should be explored and considered for future systems development.

Highlighted by carlaarena

A folksonomy represents simultaneously some of the best and worst in the organization of information. Its uncontrolled nature is fundamentally chaotic, suffers from problems of imprecision and ambiguity that well developed controlled vocabularies and name authorities effectively ameliorate. Conversely, systems employing free-‍form tagging that are encouraging users to organize information in their own ways are supremely responsive to user needs and vocabularies, and involve the users of information actively in the organizational system. Overall, transforming the creation of explicit metadata for resources from an isolated, professional activity into a shared, communicative activity by users is an important development that should be explored and considered for future systems development.

Highlighted by minikw

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication T...

Popularity Report

Total Popularity Score: 0

Rank

URL Tag Cloud

Groups (0)

Related Lists

Bookmark History

Public Comment

on 2006-04-03 by haagendazs

on 2006-08-02 by jasonfleming73

on 2006-08-05 by wikify

on 2006-08-08 by heller72

on 2006-08-21 by enibevoli

on 2006-08-21 by enibevoli

on 2006-09-07 by jcwinnie

on 2006-10-26 by project-tnn

on 2007-01-06 by june29

Public Sticky notes

Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

on 2009-03-31 by gaby13rh

on 2009-07-17 by sharon_elin

on 2009-10-08 by juliediana

on 2009-05-24 by rabbitmountain

Site Community

Readers (293)