Comments on: Philosophical problems with folksonomies

By: Meta Speak » Philosophy at Work

Meta Speak » Philosophy at Work — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:27:04 +0000

[...] Everything is Miscellaneous: a post on Philosophical Problems with Folksonomies | Tags: Aristotle, folksonomies, tagging « The Book is Dead…Long Live the [...]

By: Hypercrit – Philosophy and folksonomy

Hypercrit – Philosophy and folksonomy — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:31:09 +0000

[...] post on David Weinberger’s blog turned me on to an article by Elaine Peterson called “Beneath [...]

By: Michael Becker

Michael Becker — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:21:43 +0000

Right off the bat, I would suggest that, rather than choosing between folksonomies and rigid, professional cataloging, we use both. That way, you would get the benefit that both of them have to offer.

But as soon as thought of that I realized something. When the two sorts of systems are placed side by side, the professional system is almost always privileged.

I think of my university’s Electronic Theses and Dissertations site, where the author and the librarians provide the formal labels. After a thesis or dissertation is published, though, visitors to the site are allowed to tag it as they please. Yet to me, the message that comes across is: “Okay, big guy, we’ve already cataloged this item, but go ahead and add your little tags to the document too. They won’t change anything, but you’ll have fun doing it.”

Maybe I’m the only one who reads the page that way, but still…

I hate to think of folksonomies and traditional classification as an either/or situation. That binary thinking goes against my nature, but I’m just not sure how to reconcile the two so that they can work together without one being privileged over the other.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:19:21 +0000

David,

I am glad that you discussed Elaine’s article on your blog. I think your critique is sound.

One thing though. When you say:

“Folksonomies reinforce our move away from the essentialist view that every thing has a single category that reflects its single and real essence. We’ve been moving away from that view for a long time as a culture.”

…I agree with both the “prescriptive” and “descriptive” parts of that statment.

But I am wondering if you think that *any* thing can have a single category that that reflects its single and real essence? : )

For example, despite different languages, different cultural contexts, and languages limitations, we learn some shared concepts: “thirsty”, “clouds”, “tears”, “sad”, “food”, “mother”, “father”, “child”, etc.). * (not all concepts though – think of “hammer” and “bottle” [think "Gods must be Crazy"], for a great example).

Further, all of us must observe and categorize: we locate, describe (sometimes measure, *sometimes not*), identify, etc., even if we are talking about enchanting mythologies or the inner experiences of persons. We all perform “either-or”-ing sometimes.

What do you think?

~Nathan