This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
|
Frontmatter mirrors Origin. Ingcake ( talk) 17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... 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)
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)
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)
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)