• 04 Dec 09
  

  Jessica Worsham
  • 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.
• 21 Nov 09
  

  Sarah Tarpley

  Describes the use of tags and the development of folksonomies in various social sites.

  tags folksonomy

• 04 Nov 09
  

  No Name No Name

  Folksonomies

  • Metadata - data about data - allows systems to
    collocate related information, and helps users find relevant
    information.
  • author
    creation
  • 29 more annotations...
  • • professional creation
    • The apparatus and tools built
      around professional cataloging systems are generally too
      complicated for anyone without specialized training and
      knowledge.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • but both approaches share a basic problem: the intended and
      unintended eventual users of the information are disconnected
      from the process.
    • Recommendation systems, and those that employ
      collaborative filtering are another form of leveraging implicit
      user created metadata. (Lieberman, 2002
    • One form of explicit user created metadata was popularized in
      the late 1990’s with link-‍focused websites called weblogs (Blood
      2000)
    • “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)
    • “folksonomy” by
      Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information architecture
      mailing list (Smith, 2004). It is a combination of “folk” and
      “taxonomy.”
    • 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.
    • Information
      seeking behavior varies based on context.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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
    • Perhaps the most important strength
      of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
      of users.
    • (Buckland, 1999).
    • 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
    • “Metadata for the Masses,” Peter
      Merholz
    • (Merholz, 2004)
    • Merholz recommends using a folksonomy as the start of
      professionally designed controlled vocabularies
    • “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
    • 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.
    • 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
    • “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)
    • 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.
    • 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)
    • 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.
    • 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.
• 20 Oct 09
  

  Yuichi Tanaka

  "In addition to this structural difference, the context of the use in these systems is not just one of personal organization, but of communication and sharing. The near instant feedback in these systems leads to a communicative nature of tag use."

  folksonomy tagging

• 16 Oct 09
  

  Yu-Hui Ching

  folksonomy tagging metadata classification

• 08 Oct 09
  

  Julie Diana
  • 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.

    • 

      Julie Diana on 2009-10-08

      Classification uses a scheme, where as categorization is more ad hoc.
• 06 Oct 09
  

  shergambino
• 01 Oct 09
  

  Richard Lloyd

  folksonomies classification tagging tags metadata web_2.0 tag_etiquette tag_literacy

• 28 Sep 09
  

  maike online

  folksonomy tagging metadata folksonomies tags web2.0 socialbookmarking

  • 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.

• 27 Sep 09
  

  projectwerk

  tagging bronnen_www

• 13 Sep 09
  

  Suzanne Malley

  folksonomy tagging metadata web2.0

• 17 Jul 09
  

  Sharon Elin

  Informative and thoughtful discussion of tagging, written in 2004

  tagging

  • Metadata - data about data - allows systems to
    collocate related information, and helps users find relevant
    information
  • grassroots community classification of digital
    assets
  • 19 more annotations...
  • • 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.
    • 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
    • Most importantly, each
      document can have many terms associated with it.
    • 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.

      • 

        Sharon Elin on 2009-07-17

        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
    • These are all “filtering,” but in very different
      senses. Using water filters to purify vodka is a very
      different subject than Bayesian statistical analysis.
    • Acronyms present another area of potential ambiguity that
      are often dealt with effectively in controlled
      vocabularies
    • Spaces, Multiple Words
    • synonym control
    • Plural vs. singular
    • Browsing vs. Finding
    • serendipity
    • 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.
    • 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.”
    • communicative nature of tag use.
    • 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.
    • loose associations
    • 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.
    • flicktion
• 16 Jul 09
  

  Carol Wilkinson

  folksonomy tagging metadata

• 11 Jun 09
  

  Fernando Sánchez Zamora

  folksonomies study article

• 07 Jun 09
  

  Marina C.
• 24 May 09
  

  Paula Hay

  folksonomies IA information architecture

  • 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
  • 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.

    • 

      Paula Hay on 2009-05-24

      What is the difference between "classification" and "categorization"?
• 08 May 09
  

  shingo nakayama

  word folksonomy tagging

  • compulsion
  • compulsion
  • 3 more annotations...
  • • serendipity
    • 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.
    • Information
      seeking behavior varies based on context.
• 30 Apr 09
  

  Bernadette Harris

  folksonomy collaboration flickr tagging metadata classification tags folksonomies

• 15 Apr 09
  

  Zhang glider
• 05 Apr 09
  

  Julien Sicot

  folksonomy

• 30 Mar 09
  

  JoAnn Miller

  Array

• 

  Gaby Richard-Harrington

  This defines Folksonomy and expains tagging quite well.

  tagging folksonomy

  • professional creation and author
    creation
  • metadata to be created by
    authors
  • 2 more annotations...
  • • Metadata is often characterized as “data about data.
    • 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.

      • 

        Gaby Richard-Harrington on 2009-03-31

        Taxonomy
• 10 Feb 09
  

  Tom George

  2004 paper by Adam Mathes, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

  folksonomy tagging classification cios246

  • 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.
• 02 Feb 09
  

  Queen O'Frug

  aded7330

• 13 Jan 09
  

  Tero Heiskanen

  tutkimus tutkiminen folksonomiat

• 08 Jan 09
  

  Simon Mainwaring

  ouanet11 Reference communication web2.0 tagging folksonomy

• 29 Nov 08
  

  Jason Heppler

  metadata tags web2.0

• 11 Nov 08
  

  Ian Clark

  information internet web2.0 folksonomy flickr del.icio.us tagging cataloguing metadata

• 24 Oct 08
  

  Anette Seiler

  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 infor

  folksonomien metadaten klassifikation web2.0

• 

  africangirl

  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 infor

  folksonomien metadaten klassifikation web2.0 delicious

• 19 Oct 08
  

  George Appel

  folksonomy

• 04 Sep 08
  

  Sacha Arozarena

  tagging research emergence web2.0 ideas

• 01 Sep 08
  

  Beth Given

  folksonomy tagging metadata classification folksonomies tags collaboration

• 27 Jun 08
  

  Carla Arena

  folksonomy tagging metadata classification tags folksonomies flickr collaboration

  • user-‍created
    metadata, where users of the documents and media create metadata
    for their own individual use that is also shared throughout a
    community.
  • 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.
  • 20 more annotations...
  • • 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.
    • 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.
    • serendipity
    • browsing the system
      and its interlinked related tag sets is wonderful for
      finding things unexpectedly in a general area
    • Perhaps the most important strength
      of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
      of users
    • it directly reflects their choices in diction,
      terminology, and precision.
    • 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.
    • way or
      organizing information, and that a large group of people are
      using these systems,
    • I think the lack of hierarchy, synonym
      control and semantic precision are precisely why it
      works.
    • Feedback is immediate.
    • But the real power emerges when
      you expand the scope to include all items, from all users,
      that match your tag

    • 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.

    • 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.
    • 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
    • community formation through metadata
    • 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.
    • community and individual motivations, are
      not mutually exclusive
    • 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
    • the most used tags are more likely to
      be used by other users since they are more likely to be seen
    • 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.
• 

  Paul Beaufait

  reference from Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags?

  folksonomies tags tagging collaboration metadata classification online

• 25 Jun 08
  

  Marion Slawson

  folksonomy tagging phd

• 15 Jun 08
  

  Fulgencio Murcia Belmonte

  marcado social folcsonomia tagging findability

• 14 Jun 08
  

  Maria João Filipe

  web2.0 folksonomias

• 13 May 08
  

  Gemma Witton

  folksonomy tagging H806TMA02

• 10 May 08
  

  hsaito

  folksonomy

• 07 May 08
  

  bea fortinez

  Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

  folksonomy

• 06 May 08
  

  Srikant Jakilinki

  Cooperative Classification and Communication Through

• 03 May 08
  

  Chris Meredith

  folksonomy tags keywords

• 29 Apr 08
  

  Concetta Gotlieb

  metadata

  • User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper
    focuses on grassroots community classification of digital
    assets.
  • user added keywords
• 01 Apr 08
  

  Rolf Schewe

  tagging del.icio.us articles tips metadata

• 

  Roger Chen

  taxonomy, delicious and flickr tags

  toread

• 30 Mar 08
  

  Jean Thorpe

  tagging

• 20 Mar 08
  

  Ryan Nance

  for:editorialmmg for:slipperypig tags

• 04 Mar 08
  

  Jose Sanchez

  folksonomy

• 28 Feb 08
  

  isaac Mao

  Blog Folksonomy SocialSoftware Taxonomy

• 25 Feb 08
  

  paulhambelton

  enquiries

• 10 Feb 08
  

  Michel Roland

  bibliography del.icio.us flickr folksonomies metadata

  • 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.
• 06 Feb 08
  

  Roberta Taylor

  collaboration folksonomy tags web2.0

• 

  Mandy Schiefner

  tagging web2.0

• 28 Jan 08
  

  ereteog

  folksonomy

• 09 Jan 08
  

  Kerstin Probiesch

  tagging howto folksonomy

• 10 Dec 07
  

  Sylvie Le Bars

  2004 article del.icio.us folksonomie ia imported

• 04 Dec 07
  

  Karen Montgomery

  Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

  collaboration web_2.0 podcasting flickr social_bookmarking del.icio.us resources education folksonomies tagging

• 08 Nov 07
  

  Kelly Anderson

  tagging folksonomies tags

• 06 Nov 07
  

  Veronika Smith

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

  folksonomy tagging tags classification facet software metadata architecture ia bookmarking del.icio.us controlled-vocabulary

• 14 Oct 07
  

  Kamyar Navidan

  tagging

• 04 Oct 07
  

  Yann Leroux

  Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata

  communautés adammathes

• 01 Oct 07
  

  Martin M

  folksonomy tagging

• 27 Aug 07
  

  Trisha Gao

  classifications metadata research tagging

• 11 Aug 07
  

  Bruno Melo

  Folksonomy tagging metadata web2.0 classification folksonomies tags

• 10 Aug 07
  

  EAmon Costello

  web2.0 learning folksonomies metadata education technology elearning

• 

  kenny kim

  tagging papers Folksonomy classification

• 07 Aug 07
  

  Mario A Núñez

  folcsonomias

• 

  Mario a núñez

  folcsonomias

• 02 Aug 07
  

  sociallearn

  tagging

• 11 Jul 07
  

  zhangjeff

  imported delicious tagging

• 18 Jun 07
  

  Pam Brannon

  folksonomies folksonomy metadata classification tagging

• 10 Jun 07
  

  kontext

  del.icio.us folksonmies imported mag sozialesoftware tagging theory

• 02 Jun 07
  

  estell_e itsme

  tag documentation folksonomie classification

• 30 May 07
  

  Tiffany Hebb

  web2.0 social-bookmarking

• 28 May 07
  

  Liz Dorland

  Safari-LDPB-5-07 Resource TheFuture folksonomy del.icio.us

• 24 May 07
  

  evangineer

  classification facetedclassification facets folksonomy imported delicious metadata metadelicious

• 16 May 07
  

  Lars

  folksonomies imported delicious

• 14 May 07
  

  Aviva Gabriel

  While professionally created metadata are often considered of high quality, it is costly in terms of time and effort to produce. User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper focuses on grassroots community classification of digital assets.

• 04 May 07
  

  Bill Wolff

  architecture folksonomy information

  • This paper focus primarily on descriptive metadata which
    identifies and functions to organize information based on its
    intellectual content.
  • 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.
  • 12 more annotations...
  • • User created metadata is a third approach, and this paper
      focuses on grassroots community classification of digital
      assets.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.

    • 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.

      
      
      

    • In a folksonomy the set of terms is a flat
      namespace: there are no clearly defined relations between the
      terms in the vocabulary.
    • Perhaps the most important strength
      of a folksonomy is that it directly reflects the vocabulary
      of users.
    • 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.
    • 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.”
    • 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.
    • “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)
• 02 May 07
  

  Spiral Funk

  2read tagging article

• 14 Apr 07
  

  L@jost EU project

  socialsoftware bookmarking l@jost

• 

  Gabriela Grosseck

  tagging delicious twitter

• 27 Mar 07
  

  Mark pearson

  folksonomy imported delicious metadata socialnetwork tag taxonomy

• 02 Feb 07
  

  Rudy Garns

  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.

  collaboration del.icio.us flickr folksonomy metadata social.bookmarking tagging taxonomy

• 23 Jan 07
  

  Jim Everett

  pi-infomanagement

• 10 Jan 07
  

  David Berg

  metadata

• 06 Jan 07
  

  Jun Ohwada

  categorization folksonomy imported:del.icio.us study taxonomy thesis

• 28 Dec 06
  

  Olivier Le Deuff

  classification classtclassification del.icio.us metadata tagging

• 21 Dec 06
  

  Roger Boeken

  folksonomies bookmarking social computing

• 06 Dec 06
  

  Eli Pav

  folksonomy articles

• 19 Nov 06
  

  Ronah

  bookmarking project social tags

  • Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication
    Through Shared Metadata

    
    
    

    
    Adam Mathes
• 17 Nov 06
  

  lauren pressley

  folksonomy tagging classification web 2.0

• 15 Nov 06
  

  ognjen s

  semanticweb reference

• 02 Nov 06
  

  Logics Sync

  dev metadata

  • Tagging Content in Del.icio.us and Flickr
• 

  Ole C Brudvik

  article folksonomy imported:del.icio.us metadata socialbookmarking socialsoftware

• 30 Oct 06
  

  Mike Delgaudio

  imported:del.icio.us toblog toread web20

• 26 Oct 06
  

  Phil

  folksonomies imported:del.icio.us tag tagging

• 

  Bruce Mason

  article folksonomy imported:del.icio.us metadata socialbookmarking socialsoftware

• 25 Oct 06
  

  Shane Sherman

  folksonomy imported:del.icio.us

Public Stiky Notes

• 
  Gaby Richard-Harrington on 2009-03-31
  Taxonomy
• 
  Sharon Elin on 2009-07-17
  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.
• 
  Paula Hay on 2009-05-24
  What is the difference between "classification" and "categorization"?
• 
  Julie Diana on 2009-10-08
  Classification uses a scheme, where as categorization is more ad hoc.

Page Comments

• 
  Daniel on 2006-04-03
  Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata
• 
  Jason Fleming on 2006-08-02
  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.
• 
  Lambert Heller on 2006-08-05
  Tag Systems
• 
  Lambert Heller on 2006-08-08
  Tag Systems
• 
  Enibevoli on 2006-08-21
  Recommended (required?) reading about folksonomies from December 2004
• 
  Enibevoli on 2006-08-21
  Recommended (required?) reading about folksonomies from December 2004
• 
  Jonathan Smith on 2006-09-07
  Cooperative Classification and Communication through Shared Metadata
• 
  Bruce Mason on 2006-10-26
  Article about folksonomy
• 
  Jun Ohwada on 2007-01-06
  folksonomyについて書かれた論文

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.