Talk:Folksonomy

Redundancy

Frontmatter mirrors Origin. Ingcake (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why a separate article

Why should this be a separate article from that on tagging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.209.4.116 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The term seems to have died off in 2008; the article should just redirect to tag (as should Thomas Vander Wal). Paragraph two of the History and context section of the current revision of that page would then end with "Users may collaborate on tag clouds; in 2004 information architect Thomas Vander Wal coined the term "folksonomies" to describe such clouds". In the long run that is how things will be. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Starting over

This article was a mess, so I've boldly moved it to Talk:Folksonomy/old, and started again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be moved to Folksonomy/old ? (rather than a talk page) --EarthFurst (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

share the impulse

The process of social bookmarking and related, were conceived like most solutions were conceived - a scratch for an itch. But this article is like the great majority of other explanations of processes/solutions - it neglects to identify, very simply/concisely/directly, the itch that inspired the scratch. I don't know what it is, but I can guess that the originator, and peers, thought: "Browser bookmarks are inadequate because ... so we propose this new type of bookmark because ..." It's important for people to have this chunk of information. They will relate it with their own experiences and many good things will flow out of that. Craftsmanship has been suppressed in this society for long enough. It now needs to be nurtured in the public communications. Rtdrury (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Opaque and cumbersome writing style

Large parts of this article should be reworded as they are unnecessarily complex and abstract.

Awful phrases like "Attempts have been made to characterize folksonomy in social tagging system as emergent externalization of knowledge structures contributed by multiple users." or "Models of collaborative tagging have been developed to characterize how knowledge structures could arise and be useful to other users, even when there is a lack of top-down mediation (which is believed to be an important feature because they do not need as explicit representations as in semantic web)" characterize this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navalg (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

First, new threads go at the bottom of a page. Second, please sign your discussion posts with five tildes before saving them. Third, if there's a problem, fix it. Steven Walling 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes little sense to me ...

... I have a university education, I am fairly well read, and above average intelligence. I also studied psychology. This article looks like a press release from a marketing company, and makes virtually no sense to me at all.

It also looks like it should be in Wiktionary. Oh, surprise. It is. And it's shorter AND makes sense. Heenan73 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-organized it and tried to make it clearer

In response to "Makes little sense to me" (above), I started on a minor clarification that turned into a significant edit job. I tried clarifying explanations throughout. The opening paragraphs dove into detail, so I tried to re-organize it in a more user-friendly way. I supplied some examples. I removed a section on the Semantic Web because it was very technical and was premised on folksonomy being crucial to the SemWeb's success. I hope this is an improvement. dweinberger 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

Huh? I was sure I did sign it. Four tildes while I'm signed in, right? In fact, I see my name right there. Am I missing something about the concept of "signing"? dweinberger 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy."[better source needed][clarification needed]

The Russian doi citation did not enlighten me. Are they referring to the sidebar hierarchy or the page categories or something else? Wikipedia has many structures, many of which are informal only in part measure and which therefore do not serve as good examples of pure folksonomies. — MaxEnt 14:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with folk taxonomy

Isn't a folksonomy a form of folk taxonomy, outside of the biological domain to which the respective article applies? Ellenor2000 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)