http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/tagging+articles PennTags Feed http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/3059 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/3059 <p>A much better than average report on the relationships between librarianship and the values of libraries and the values held by the media savvy, technology-centered students of today. Describes the two sets of values, and describes how libraries can adabt to the new expectation in meaningful ways.<br />&nbsp;</p><p>pg 99 &quot;It is clear that Millennials and others comfortable with a wide range of media and technologies will redefine the traditional manifestations of research and creative activity with these new mashed, cut and pasted creations. For them, the line between consumer and creator is blurred in a way that previously was not possible.&quot;</p><p>pg 100 &quot;Clear rifts have emerged in the virtual terrain that is occupied by library policies, services and collections and is explored by online users. These rifts or disconnects can be grouped into three classifications for redress. These include technology (infrastructure and integration), policy (copyright, IT policy, liability), and unexploited opportunities.&quot; <br /></p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2470 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2470 <p>Argues for the usefulness of collaborative tagging, and highlights the known problems with free tagging. Points to some obvious, and some more controversial ways of limiting problems of inter-tagger inconsistency and meaningless distinctions. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>In this article we look at what makes folksonomies work. We agree with the premise that tags are no replacement for formal systems, but we see this as being the core quality that makes folksonomy tagging so useful. We begin by looking at the issue of &quot;sloppy tags&quot;, a problem to which critics of folksonomies are keen to allude, and ask if there are ways the folksonomy community could offset such problems and create systems that are conducive to searching, sorting and classifying. We then go on to question this &quot;tidying up&quot; approach and its underlying assumptions, highlighting issues surrounding removal of low-quality, redundant or nonsense metadata, and the potential risks of tidying too neatly and thereby losing the very openness that has made folksonomies so popular.</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/389 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/389 <p>Looks at the development of various classification systems leading up to tagging, or user created metadata. Argues that tagging more closely mirrors the nature of web information. </p><p>Argues that ontologies are a bad ideal for organizing the world online. Points out that library classification systems are designed to optimize space on the shelves, not to describe the essences of identities. Also, that library classification systems are fundamentally about organizing books, not about organizing the enormity of human knowledge. The same flaws exists in a hierarchical file system. That it is designed with the assumption that a thing can only be in one place at one time -- it makes some attempt to have the organizional structure of ideas match the physical world, where in fact a pointer, or an idea, or a metaphorical path can be in countless places at the same time, and can have many equally important and useful relationships which describe it. </p><p>That ontologies are useful where there are expert users, clear categories and a limited domain. But, much less useful for non-expert users or large domains, and fuzzy categories. Links are the universal pointers on the web, and the addition of tags is simple, and provides a much more useful finding system than an ontology. With a system like delicious, you get to know who's doing the tagging, not just what the tags are, so you get to limit searches by people and time, limiting the size of your group [penntags tie-in].<br /></p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/395 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/395 Very clear pros and cons of folksonomies versus more traditional classification systems. Looks at when and for what each kind of classification is most useful. <br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2098 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/2098 A Columbia Librarian posted a long article about tagging systems and their use in libraries. Interesting reading.<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/393 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/393 A beautiful brief essay about tags.<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/13344 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/13344 This paper analyzes the tagging patterns exhibited by users of del.icio.us, to assess how collaborative tagging supports and enhances traditional ways of classifying and indexing documents. Using frequency data and co-word analysis matrices analyzed by multi-dimensional scaling, the authors discovered that tagging practices to some extent work in ways that are continuous with conventional indexing. Small numbers of tags tend to emerge by unspoken consensus, and inconsistencies follow several predictable patterns that can easily be anticipated. However, the tags also indicated intriguing practices relating to time and task which suggest the presence of an extra dimension in classification and organization, a dimension which conventional systems are unable to facilitate. http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/11790 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/11790 &quot;Philosophical relativism appears to be the underlying philosophy behind folksonomies. Because of those underpinnings, it is possible to jettison the limitations of a traditional classification statement such as &quot;A is not B&quot;. In a folksonomy system, &quot;A is relative to B&quot;, because each item's index terms will depend on the individual user and the tags he or she decides to use. A philosophy of relativism allows folksonomy to draw on many users with various perceptions to classify a document instead of relying on one individual cataloger to set the index terms for that item. Thus, classification terms become relative to each user.&quot; http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/5876 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/5876 A beautiful brief essay about tags.<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/394 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/394 <p>My favorite article. I wish I could force you to read this article. please...<br /> </p><p>&quot;And you would never ever get this organization of knowledge right. Its not a solvable problem. It cant be done. Theres not a right way of doing it because there&rsquo;s no single way of organizing this stuff. Taxonomies are not reflections of nature, they&rsquo;re tools. And tools depend on what you want to do. It depends on your context. So along comes tagging.&quot;</p> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/1983 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/1983 A beautiful brief essay about tags.<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/486 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/486 Another one of those articles that describes the whens and why's of traditionaly classification schemes versus folksonomies and tagging systems.<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/391 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/391 A more popular introduction to tagging from Salon. If you're not a member of Salon.com, prepare to watch a loong ad. Wouldn't it be cool if the library could get a library subscription to Salon?<br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/390 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/390 From April 2005 issue of D-Lib Magazine, this artilce gives an overview of social bookmarking tools. <br /> http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/392 http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/392 A relatively short article on tagging systems, and their popularity.<br />