Taxonomies are for chumps
There has been an interesting discussion on the role of tax vs folksonomies lately. See Gavin (who's excellent post sparked it all) and Beth (who's leading the investigative journalism charge).
I'm going to be charged with gross simplification here, but I see the argument as people who like order, vs. free spirits. People who like order like taxonomies, because surely there must be a "right" word or set of words to classify everything. Free spirits prefer folksonomies because there is no "right" anyway. Right is what you tag it!
Me - folksonomies all the way. If I'm looking for information about a highly technical topic - chances are, I don't know what the "right" word is to search on. But if I can come up with a few words that get me close and search on some tags, I will not only find what I'm looking for (usually), I will find the information from people who think enough like me to use the same kinds of tags. And they are likely to explore the topic in ways that will be helpful to me.
And it's more fun.
So Beth, to answer your questions:
- How are you using the NpTech Tag?
In all our NTEN blog posts, and on our about to be launched new site.
- Do you subscribe to the feed to find resources?
Yes I do - that's how I found Gavin's post in the first place.
- Do you read the summaries?
Not all - I skim the titles a few times a day.
- Do you tag items with the NpTech as a form of promotion or outreach?
Indeed. And a number of other tags. Like 07NTC.
Holly,
I think of this as discovery vs. catalog. There are people who like to
let the information stream wash over them -- the imprecision of
folksonomies doesn't matter because it gets you close enough -- and
then there are people who want to know they type of haystacks and if
any important ones are missing. Uncovering gaps in knowledge is an
important part of taxonomies. And then there is search which is damn
the haystacks, give me my needle.
For chumps? Those are fighting words, Holly. Just to follow up on
Marnie's comments, I think it comes down not to different types of
people, most of the time, but to different types of *tasks*. Some tasks
are very exploratory - i.e. what's being said in the nonprofit tech
realm today? - while some require precision and a reasonable shot at
completeness - i.e. what organizations in New York can help counsel a
kid about college options? While most people look for information in
both modes, many sites can predict in advance what mode most people
will be in when they come - which is why it pains me that it seems like
tagging is getting props as a complete replacement to taxonomies. It's
a good option for many site, but certainly not for all.
And just to try to clarify a frequently misunderstood topic - you
mention that taxonomies sometimes don't work well for you because you
don't know what the "right" word is to search on. A good taxonomy
should provide ways to find a topic based on a whole bunch of different
words (called a synonym ring)- that's in fact one of the main powers of
a taxonomy, to map together different vocabularies and help mutual
understanding. This is a very powerful thing, which could be a huge
help to a tagging scheme, in a hybrid model. A taxonomy that requires
you to "know the right word" to find things is a *bad* taxonomy.
(There's no doubt that there are a lot of bad taxonomies out there,
though).
And searching? Most top-end search engines have strong taxonomies
underlying them. Another key use for synonym rings and other taxonomy
constructs.