Library clips

A quote from the lastest discussions on folksonomies via Test…

"Bowker and Star identify three values that are in competition within classfication structures: comparability, visibility and control. Folksonomies have elevated visibility, but at the expense of comparability (being able to translate classifications across taxonomies or contexts) and control (the ability of the classification to limit interpretation, rather than interpret ‘emergent’ behaviour). Whilst nothing is at stake, and there is little lost by not being able to transfer taxonomies from one context to the other, or users are not disadvantaged by the need to independently assess and contextualise meaning, folksonomies will provide a useful service."

Convergence (agreement on terminology) is the key for folksonomy groups…need to form group rules or agreed upon tags so as the index of tags is succinct and meaningful to the group as a whole. As long as it is controlled as it grows doesn’t mean it’s not innovative and free, the unique value of folksonomy in the first place is it’s social aspect (and personal retrieval), it increases serendipity as an item can sit on many shelves (next to like items). As it has organically grown we can see that it may have uses in the areas where taxonomies are usually applied, but for this to happen we need a consistent vocabularly (that is uniquely user defined, and then subject to review in order to control the inconsistencies in the emerging vocabularly) 

A great blog post related to taxonomies, faceted classification, and folksonomies is Taxonomies and Tags: From Trees to Piles of Leaves…explains the philosophy in using these systems, and that they all cover unique ground, having the unique uses…