1,592
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
Moved page from wikipedia:en:Folksonomy (history)
此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共1588，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。
{{Distinguish|Folk taxonomy}}
'''Folksonomy''' is a classification system in which [[end users]] apply public [[Tag (metadata)|tags]] to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. Over time, this can give rise to a [[classification system]] based on those tags and how often they are applied or searched for, in contrast to a [[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomic]] classification designed by the owners of the [[Content (media)|content]] and specified when it is published.<ref>{{cite news
Folksonomy is a classification system in which end users apply public tags to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. Over time, this can give rise to a classification system based on those tags and how often they are applied or searched for, in contrast to a taxonomic classification designed by the owners of the content and specified when it is published. This practice is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval", but online sharing and interaction expanded it into collaborative forms. Social tagging is the application of tags in an open online environment where the tags of other users are available to others. Collaborative tagging (also known as group tagging) is tagging performed by a group of users. This type of folksonomy is commonly used in cooperative and collaborative projects such as research, content repositories, and social bookmarking.
大众分类法是一种分类方案分类法，最终用户将公共标签应用于在线项目，典型的做法是让这些项目更容易为自己或其他人以后找到。随着时间的推移，基于这些标签以及它们被应用或搜索的频率，可能会产生一个分类方案分类，这与内容所有者设计的分类分类并在出版时指定的分类分类形成了对比。这种做法也被称为分众分类法标签、分众分类法标签、社会索引和社会标签。大众分类法最初是“个人自由标记信息[ ... ]用于自己检索的结果”，但在线分享和交互将其扩展为协作形式。社会化标签是在一个开放的在线环境中应用标签，其他用户的标签对其他用户是可用的。分众分类法标签(也称为组标签)是由一组用户执行的标签。这种类型的大众分类通常用于合作和协作项目，如研究、内容库和社会性书签。
| title = Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0.
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Aeib_wy18gkC&q=folksonomies.+Indexing+and+Retrieval+in+Web+2.0
The term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in 2004 as a portmanteau of folk and taxonomy. Folksonomies became popular as part of social software applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation that enable users to collectively classify and find information via shared tags. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.
这个术语是托马斯 · 范德 · 沃尔在2004年创造的，是民俗和分类学的混合体。作为社交软件应用的一部分，Folksonomies 变得流行起来，比如社会性书签和照片注释，它们使用户能够通过共享标签对信息进行集体分类和查找。一些网站将标签云作为一种可视化大众分类法中标签的方式。
| first = Isabella
| last = Peters
Folksonomies can be used for K-12 education, business, and higher education. More specifically, folksonomies may be implemented for social bookmarking, teacher resource repositories, e-learning systems, collaborative learning, collaborative research, professional development and teaching. Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy.
民俗学可用于 K-12教育、商业和高等教育。更具体地说，民俗学可以应用于社会性书签、教师资源库、电子学习系统、合作学习、协作研究、专业发展和教学。维基百科也是大众分类法的一个典型例子。
| work = Berlin: [[De Gruyter Saur]]
| year = 2009
|isbn = 9783598251795}} (isabella-peters.de)</ref><ref>{{cite news
Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all, and have several advantages:
民俗分类法是在传统的集中分类和根本没有分类之间的一种权衡，它有以下几个优点:
| title = Folksonomy
| first = Daniel H.
| last = Pink
| author-link = Daniel H. Pink
| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-21.html
| work = [[New York Times]]
| date = 11 December 2005
| access-date = 14 July 2009
}}</ref> This practice is also known as '''collaborative tagging''',<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lambiotte|first1= R |title= Computational Science – ICCS 2006 |volume= 3993 |pages= 1114–1117 |first2= M. |last2=Ausloos|year= 2005|arxiv= cs.DS/0512090 |doi= 10.1007/11758532_152 |series= Lecture Notes in Computer Science |isbn= 978-3-540-34383-7 |s2cid= 47144489 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Borne|first1=Kirk|title=Collaborative Annotation for Scientific Data Discovery and Reuse|url=http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_RDAP_Borne.html|website=Bulletin of Association for Information Science and Technology|publisher=[[ASIS&T]]|access-date=26 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305073440/http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_RDAP_Borne.html|archive-date=5 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> '''social classification''', '''social indexing''', and '''social tagging'''. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval",<ref name="folksonomy-coinage">{{cite news
There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well, and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags. Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature, tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized. Users apply tags to documents in many different ways and tagging systems also often lack mechanisms for handling synonyms, acronyms and homonyms, and they also often lack mechanisms for handling spelling variations such as misspellings, singular/plural form, conjugated and compound words. Some tagging systems do not support tags consisting of multiple words, resulting in tags like "viewfrommywindow". Sometimes users choose specialized tags or tags without meaning to others.
使用标记和大众分类法也有几个缺点，其中一些优点(见上文)可能会导致问题。例如，标签的简单性可能导致标签应用不当。此外，虽然受控词汇表本质上是排他性的，但标记通常是模棱两可的，而且过于个性化。用户以许多不同的方式对文档使用标记，标记系统也常常缺乏处理同义词、首字母缩略词和同音词的机制，而且他们还常常缺乏处理拼写错误、单复数形式、共轭词和复合词等拼写变化的机制。一些标签系统不支持由多个单词组成的标签，导致了像“ viewfrommywindow”这样的标签。有时候用户选择专门的标签或者标签对其他人来说毫无意义。
| title = Folksonomy Coinage and Definition
| url = http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
| first = Thomas
A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al. elaborate the concept: the term "tagging" refers to a "voluntary activity of users who are annotating resources with term-so-called 'tags' – freely chosen from an unbounded and uncontrolled vocabulary". Others explain tags as an unstructured textual label or keywords, and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.
当用户标记内容或信息时，比如网页、照片、视频、播客、 tweets、科学论文等，就会形成一个大众分类法。Strohmaier et al.详细说明这一概念:”标签”一词是指”用户自愿用所谓的‘标签’注释资源的活动——从无限制和不受控制的词汇中自由选择”。其他人将标记解释为非结构化的文本标签或关键字，并且它们作为一种简单的元数据形式出现。
| last = Vander Wal
| author-link=Thomas Vander Wal
Folksonomies consist of three basic entities: users, tags, and resources. Users create tags to mark resources such as: web pages, photos, videos, and podcasts. These tags are used to manage, categorize and summarize online content. This collaborative tagging system also uses these tags as a way to index information, facilitate searches and navigate resources. Folksonomy also includes a set of URLs that are used to identify resources that have been referred to by users of different websites. These systems also include category schemes that have the ability to organize tags at different levels of granularity.
大众分类法由三个基本实体组成: 用户、标记和资源。用户创建标签来标记资源，例如: 网页、照片、视频和播客。这些标签用于管理、分类和总结在线内容。这个分众分类法系统也使用这些标签作为索引信息，方便搜索和浏览资源的方式。大众分类法还包括一组 url，用于识别不同网站用户引用的资源。这些系统还包括能够按不同粒度级别组织标记的类别模式。
| date = 11 December 2005
}}</ref> but online sharing and interaction expanded it into collaborative forms. '''Social tagging''' is the application of tags in an open online environment where the tags of other users are available to others. '''Collaborative tagging''' (also known as group tagging) is tagging performed by a group of users. This type of folksonomy is commonly used in cooperative and collaborative projects such as research, [[Content repository|content repositories]], and social bookmarking.
Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow. A broad folksonomy arises when multiple users can apply the same tag to an item, providing information about which tags are the most popular. A narrow folksonomy occurs when users, typically fewer in number and often including the item's creator, tag an item with tags that can each be applied only once. While both broad and narrow folksonomies enable the searchability of content by adding an associated word or phrase to an object, a broad folksonomy allows for sorting based on the popularity of each tag, as well as the tracking of emerging trends in tag usage and developing vocabularies.)
范德 · 沃尔确定了两种类型的大众分类法: 广义大众分类和狭义大众分类。当多个用户可以对一个项目应用相同的标记，并提供关于哪些标记最受欢迎的信息时，就会产生广泛的大众分类法。一个狭义的大众分类法发生在用户使用标签标记一个项目的时候，这些标签通常数量较少，并且通常包括项目的创建者，每个项目只能应用一次。虽然广义大众分类法和狭义大众分类法都通过在对象中添加关联词或短语来实现内容的可搜索性，但广义大众分类法允许根据每个标记的受欢迎程度进行排序，并跟踪标记使用的新趋势和开发词汇表
The term was coined by [[Thomas Vander Wal]] in 2004<ref name="folksonomy-coinage"/><ref>Vander Wal, T. (2005). "[http://www.vanderwal.net/random/category.php?cat=153 Off the Top: Folksonomy Entries]." Visited November 5, 2005. See also: Smith, Gene. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20040828035712/http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.html Atomiq: Folksonomy: social classification]." Aug 3, 2004. Retrieved January 1, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html Origin of the term]</ref> as a [[portmanteau]] of ''[[Volk (German word)|folk]]'' and ''[[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomy]]''. Folksonomies became popular as part of [[social software]] applications such as [[social bookmarking]] and photograph annotation that enable users to collectively classify and find information via shared tags. Some websites include [[tag cloud]]s as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.<ref>{{Cite journal
Supporters of folksonomies claim that they are often preferable to taxonomies because folksonomies democratize the way information is organized, they are more useful to users because they reflect current ways of thinking about domains, and they express more information about domains. Critics claim that folksonomies are messy and thus harder to use, and can reflect transient trends that may misrepresent what is known about a field.
支持 folksonomies 的人声称，他们通常比分类法更可取，因为 folksonomies 使信息的组织方式民主化，他们对用户更有用，因为他们反映了当前对领域的思考方式，他们表达了更多关于领域的信息。批评者声称，民俗分类法杂乱无章，因此难以使用，而且可以反映出短暂的趋势，可能会歪曲某一领域的已知信息。
| last1 = Lamere | first1 = Paul
| title = Social Tagging And Music Information Retrieval
An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007, has shown that consensus around stable distributions and shared vocabularies does emerge, even in the absence of a central controlled vocabulary. For content to be searchable, it should be categorized and grouped. While this was believed to require commonly agreed on sets of content describing tags (much like keywords of a journal article), some research has found that in large folksonomies common structures also emerge on the level of categorizations.
2007年发表的一篇关于标签系统复动力学的实证分析表明，即使没有一个核心的标签受控词表，围绕稳定分布和共享词汇的共识也确实出现了。对于可搜索的内容，应该对其进行分类和分组。虽然人们认为这需要在描述标签的内容集上达成共识(很像期刊文章的关键词) ，但一些研究发现，在大型通俗名词中，通用结构也出现在分类层面上。
| journal = Journal of New Music Research
Accordingly, it is possible to devise mathematical models of collaborative tagging that allow for translating from personal tag vocabularies (personomies) to the vocabulary shared by most users.
因此，我们可以设计出分众分类法的数学模型，从而将个人标记词汇(personomies)转换为大多数用户共享的词汇。
| volume = 37
| issue = 2
Folksonomy is unrelated to folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and folkloristic work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the Internet). This branch of ontology deals with the intersection between highly structured taxonomies or hierarchies and loosely structured folksonomy, asking what best features can be taken by both for a system of classification. The strength of flat-tagging schemes is their ability to relate one item to others like it. Folksonomy allows large disparate groups of users to collaboratively label massive, dynamic information systems. The strength of taxonomies are their browsability: users can easily start from more generalized knowledge and target their queries towards more specific and detailed knowledge. Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.
民间分类法与民间分类法无关，这种文化实践在人类学和民间分类学著作中得到了广泛的记载。民间分类法是文化上提供的、代际间传播的、相对稳定的分类系统，特定文化中的人们使用这些系统来理解他们周围的整个世界(而不仅仅是互联网)。本体论的这个分支处理高度结构化的分类法或层次结构与松散结构大众分类法之间的交叉，询问这两者对于一个分类系统可以采用哪些最佳特性。平面标签方案的优势在于它们能够将一个项目与类似的其他项目联系起来。大众分类允许大型不同用户群体协作标记大规模的动态信息系统。分类法的优势在于它们的可浏览性: 用户可以很容易地从更广泛的知识开始，并将他们的查询定向到更具体和详细的知识。大众分类法着眼于对标签进行分类，从而创建易于维护和扩展的可浏览的信息空间。
| pages = 101–114
| date = June 2008
| doi = 10.1080/09298210802479284 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.492.2457
Social tagging for knowledge acquisition is the specific use of tagging for finding and re-finding specific content for an individual or group. Social tagging systems differ from traditional taxonomies in that they are community-based systems lacking the traditional hierarchy of taxonomies. Rather than a top-down approach, social tagging relies on users to create the folksonomy from the bottom up.
知识获取的社会标签是为个人或群体寻找和重新寻找特定内容而使用的特定标签。社会标签系统不同于传统的分类系统，因为它们是基于社区的系统，缺乏传统的分类系统等级。社会标签不是自顶向下的方法，而是依靠用户自下而上地创建大众分类法。
| s2cid = 17063867
}}</ref>
Common uses of social tagging for knowledge acquisition include personal development for individual use and collaborative projects. Social tagging is used for knowledge acquisition in secondary, post-secondary, and graduate education as well as personal and business research. The benefits of finding/re-finding source information are applicable to a wide spectrum of users. Tagged resources are located through search queries rather than searching through a more traditional file folder system. The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users. Tags are beneficial for a couple of reasons. First, they help to structure and organize large amounts of digital resources in a manner that makes them easily accessible when users attempt to locate the resource at a later time. The second aspect is social in nature, that is to say that users may search for new resources and content based on the tags of other users. Even the act of browsing through common tags may lead to further resources for knowledge acquisition.
社会标签在获取知识方面的常见用途包括个人发展和协作项目。社会标签用于中学、高等教育、研究生教育以及个人和商业研究中的知识获取。查找/重新查找源信息的好处适用于范围广泛的用户。标记的资源是通过搜索查询定位的，而不是通过更传统的文件夹系统进行搜索。标签的社会化方面也允许用户利用来自成千上万其他用户的元数据。标签是有益的，有几个原因。首先，它们帮助构建和组织大量的数字资源，以便当用户以后试图查找资源时能够方便地访问这些资源。第二个方面是社会化的本质，也就是说用户可以根据其他用户的标签来搜索新的资源和内容。甚至通过普通标签浏览也可能为获取知识提供更多的资源。
Folksonomies can be used for [[K-12]] education, business, and higher education. More specifically, folksonomies may be implemented for social bookmarking, teacher resource repositories, e-learning systems, collaborative learning, collaborative research, professional development and teaching. Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bryzgalin |first1=E.A. |last2=Voiskounsky |first2=A.E. |last3=Kozlovskiy |first3=S.A. |title=Psychological Analysis of Practical Experience in "Wikipedia" Development |journal=Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal |date=1 September 2019 |issue=73 |pages=17–39 |doi=10.17223/17267080/73/2|doi-access=free }}</ref>{{better source needed|date=May 2020}}{{clarify|date=May 2020}}
==Benefits and disadvantages==
Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all,<ref>Gupta, M., et al., ''An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics'', C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497.</ref> and have several advantages:<ref>Quintarelli, E., ''Folksonomies: power to the people''. 2005.</ref><ref>Mathes, A., ''Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata''. 2004.</ref><ref>Wal, T.V. ''Folksonomy''. 2007</ref>
* Tagging is easy to understand and do, even without training and previous knowledge in classification or indexing
* The vocabulary in a folksonomy directly reflects the user's vocabulary
* Folksonomies are flexible, in the sense that the user can add or remove tags
* Tags consist of both popular content and long-tail content, enabling users to browse and discover new content even in narrow topics
* Tags reflect the user's conceptual model without cultural, social, or political bias
* Enable the creation of communities, in the sense that users who apply the same tag have a common interest
* Folksonomies are multi-dimensional, in the sense that users can assign any number and combination of tags to express a concept
There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well,<ref>Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, ''Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices''. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006.</ref> and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags.<ref>Hayman, S., ''Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking'', in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney.</ref> Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature,<ref>Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: ''Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005''</ref> tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized.<ref>Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, ''Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags?'' D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.</ref> Users apply tags to documents in many different ways and tagging systems also often lack mechanisms for handling [[synonym]]s, [[acronym]]s and [[homonym]]s, and they also often lack mechanisms for handling [[spelling]] variations such as misspellings, [[Grammatical number|singular/plural]] form, [[Grammatical conjugation|conjugated]] and [[Compound (linguistics)|compound]] words. Some tagging systems do not support tags consisting of multiple words, resulting in tags like "viewfrommywindow". Sometimes users choose specialized tags or tags without meaning to others.
==Elements and types==
A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al.<ref>Strohmaier, M., C. Körner, and R. Kern, ''Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study''. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2012. 17: p. 1-11.</ref> elaborate the concept: the term "tagging" refers to a "voluntary activity of users who are annotating resources with term-so-called 'tags' – freely chosen from an unbounded and uncontrolled vocabulary". Others explain tags as an unstructured textual label<ref>Ames, M.N.M., ''Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media'', in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2007, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 971-980.</ref> or keywords,<ref>Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: ''Tidying up Tags?'' D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.</ref> and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.<ref>Brooks, C.H. and N. Montanez, ''Improved annotation of the blogosphere via autotagging and hierarchical clustering'', in WWW '06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. 2006, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 625-632.</ref>
Folksonomies consist of three basic entities: users, tags, and resources. Users create tags to mark resources such as: web pages, photos, videos, and podcasts. These tags are used to manage, categorize and summarize online content. This collaborative tagging system also uses these tags as a way to index information, facilitate searches and navigate resources. Folksonomy also includes a set of URLs that are used to identify resources that have been referred to by users of different websites. These systems also include category schemes that have the ability to organize tags at different levels of granularity.<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992">Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.</ref>
Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow.<ref name="Vander Wal">{{cite web |title=Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies |url=http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1635 | last = Vander Wal | first=Thomas |access-date= 2013-03-05}}</ref> A broad folksonomy arises when multiple users can apply the same tag to an item, providing information about which tags are the most popular. A narrow folksonomy occurs when users, typically fewer in number and often including the item's creator, tag an item with tags that can each be applied only once. While both broad and narrow folksonomies enable the searchability of content by adding an associated word or phrase to an object, a broad folksonomy allows for sorting based on the popularity of each tag, as well as the tracking of emerging trends in tag usage and developing vocabularies.<ref name="Vander Wal"/>
An example of a broad folksonomy is [[Delicious (website)|del.icio.us]], a website where users can tag any online resource they find relevant with their own personal tags. The photo-sharing website [[Flickr]] is an oft-cited example of a narrow folksonomy.
==Folksonomy vs. taxonomy==
'Taxonomy' refers to a [[hierarchical categorization]] in which relatively well-defined classes are nested under broader categories. A ''folksonomy'' establishes categories (each tag is a category) without stipulating or necessarily deriving a hierarchical structure of parent-child relations among different tags. (Work has been done on techniques for deriving at least loose hierarchies from clusters of tags.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Laniado|first1=David|title=Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts|journal=CEUR Workshop Proceedings|volume=314|issue=51|url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-314/51.pdf|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref>)
{{Reflist|30em|refs = Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007, May). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. In Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2007).
{{通货再膨胀 | 30em | refs = Bateman，s. ，Brooks，c. ，McCalla，g. ，& Brusilovsky，p. (2007，May)。将分众分类法应用于电子学习。第16届国际万维网会议论文集(WWW2007)。
Supporters of folksonomies claim that they are often preferable to taxonomies because folksonomies democratize the way information is organized, they are more useful to users because they reflect current ways of thinking about domains, and they express more information about domains.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Weinberger|first1=David|title=Folksonomy as Symbol|url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=6254|website=Joho the Blog|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref> Critics claim that folksonomies are messy and thus harder to use, and can reflect transient trends that may misrepresent what is known about a field.
Civan, A., Jones, W., Klasnja, P., & Bruce, H. (2008). Better to organize personal information by folders or by tags?: The devil is in the details.Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,45(1), 1-13.
Klasnja，p. ，& Bruce，h. (2008).最好是用文件夹还是标签来组织个人信息？: 细节是魔鬼。美国信息科学与技术学会会报，45(1) ，1-13。
An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007,<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007.</ref> has shown that consensus around stable distributions and shared vocabularies does emerge, even in the absence of a central [[controlled vocabulary]]. For content to be searchable, it should be categorized and grouped. While this was believed to require commonly agreed on sets of content describing tags (much like keywords of a journal article), some research has found that in large folksonomies common structures also emerge on the level of categorizations.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009.</ref>
Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York.
傅维(2008)。社会标签的微观结构: 一个理性模型。参见: ACM 2008计算机支持的协同工作会议论文集，第页。229–238.美国计算机协会，纽约。
Accordingly, it is possible to devise mathematical [[models of collaborative tagging]] that allow for translating from personal tag vocabularies (personomies) to the vocabulary shared by most users.<ref>Robert Wetzker, Carsten Zimmermann, Christian Bauckhage, and Sahin Albayrak [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1718487.1718497 I tag, you tag: translating tags for advanced user models], Proc. International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM Press, 2010.</ref>
Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.
和 e. Tonkin，《民俗学: 整理标签？D-Lib 杂志，2006。第12页(第1页) : 第1-15页。
Folksonomy is unrelated to [[folk taxonomy]], a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and [[folkloristics|folkloristic]] work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the [[Internet]]).<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992"/>
Gupta, M., et al., An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics, C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497
社会标签和应用的概述，《社会网络数据分析》 ，c.c。阿加瓦尔，编辑。2011，Springer.P. 447-497
The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed ''folksontology''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.heppnetz.de/files/vandammeheppsiorpaes-folksontology-semnet2007-crc.pdf | title=FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies | access-date=April 20, 2012 | author=Van Damme, Céline|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This branch of [[ontology (information science)|ontology]] deals with the intersection between highly structured taxonomies or hierarchies and loosely structured folksonomy, asking what best features can be taken by both for a system of classification. The strength of flat-tagging schemes is their ability to relate one item to others like it. Folksonomy allows large disparate groups of users to collaboratively label massive, dynamic information systems. The strength of taxonomies are their browsability: users can easily start from more generalized knowledge and target their queries towards more specific and detailed knowledge.<ref>Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: [http://www.christophtrattner.info/pubs/iknow2011.pdf Enhancing the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems with Tag Taxonomies]. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2011</ref> Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.
Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
赫尔德，c. ，& 克莱斯，美国。(2009).在觅食中学习: 社会标签对知识获取的影响。在多学科协同学习中(pp。254-266).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
== Social tagging for knowledge acquisition ==
Social tagging for [[knowledge acquisition]] is the specific use of tagging for finding and re-finding specific content for an individual or group. Social tagging systems differ from traditional taxonomies in that they are community-based systems lacking the traditional hierarchy of taxonomies. Rather than a top-down approach, social tagging relies on users to create the folksonomy from the bottom up.<ref name=":0">Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.</ref>
Hayman, S., Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking, in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney.
Folksonomies 和标签: 社会性书签的新发展，在《方舟集团会议记录: 发展和改进分类方案》 ，2007年，悉尼。2007: 悉尼。
Common uses of social tagging for knowledge acquisition include personal development for individual use and collaborative projects. Social tagging is used for knowledge acquisition in secondary, post-secondary, and graduate education as well as personal and business research. The benefits of finding/re-finding source information are applicable to a wide spectrum of users. Tagged resources are located through search queries rather than searching through a more traditional file folder system.<ref>Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York.</ref> The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users.<ref name=":0" />
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33-44.
金默尔，j. ，克雷斯，美国，和赫尔德，c. (2010)。个人和集体知识之间的相互作用: 组织学习和知识建设的技术。知识管理研究与实践，8(1) ，33-44。
Users choose individual tags for stored resources. These tags reflect personal associations, categories, and concepts. All of which are individual representations based on meaning and relevance to that individual. The tags, or keywords, are designated by users. Consequently, tags represent a user's associations corresponding to the resource. Commonly tagged resources include videos, photos, articles, websites, and email.<ref name=":1">Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33-44.</ref> Tags are beneficial for a couple of reasons. First, they help to structure and organize large amounts of digital resources in a manner that makes them easily accessible when users attempt to locate the resource at a later time. The second aspect is social in nature, that is to say that users may search for new resources and content based on the tags of other users. Even the act of browsing through common tags may lead to further resources for knowledge acquisition.<ref name=":0" />
Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006.
基普，m. 和 d.g。分众分类法系统中的模式和不一致性: 标记实践的检验。2006年美国信息科学与技术学会会议录。
Tags that occur more frequently with specific resources are said to be more strongly connected. Furthermore, tags may be connected to each other. This may be seen in the frequency in which they co-occur. The more often they co-occur, the stronger the connection. Tag clouds are often utilized to visualize connectivity between resources and tags. Font size increases as the strength of association increases.<ref name=":1" />
Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005.
蜂群思维: 大众分类法和基于用户的标签。2005.
Tags show interconnections of concepts that were formerly unknown to a user. Therefore, a user's current cognitive constructs may be modified or augmented by the metadata information found in aggregated social tags. This process promotes knowledge acquisition through cognitive irritation and equilibration. This theoretical framework is known as the co-evolution model of individual and collective knowledge.<ref name=":1" />
Lavoué, É. (2011). Social tagging to enhance collaborative learning. In Advances in Web-Based Learning-ICWL 2011 (pp. 92-101). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Lavoué, É.(2011).社交标签可以增强合作学习。《基于网络的学习进展》-icwl 2011(pp。92-101).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
The co-evolution model focuses on cognitive conflict in which a learner's prior knowledge and the information received from the environment are dissimilar to some degree.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> When this incongruence occurs, the learner must work through a process cognitive equilibration in order to make personal cognitive constructs and outside information congruent. According to the coevolution model, this may require the learner to modify existing constructs or simply add to them.<ref name=":0" /> The additional cognitive effort promotes information processing which in turn allows individual learning to occur.<ref name=":1" />
Mathes, A., Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. 2004.
民俗学 -- 通过共享元数据进行合作分类和交流。2004.
==Examples==
Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people. 2005.
民俗学: 人民的力量。2005.
* [[BibSonomy]]: social bookmarking and publication-sharing system
* [[Delicious (website)|del.icio.us]]: public tagging service
Vander Wal, Thomas. "Folksonomy Coinage and Definition". Retrieved October 25, 2015 from http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
范德 · 沃尔，托马斯。“大众分类法的造词和定义”。2015年10月25日， http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
* [[Diigo]]: [[social bookmarking]] website
* [[Flickr]]: shared photos
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. Times Books, New York.
温伯格(2007)。一切都是杂乱无章的: 新数字混乱的力量。时代出版社，纽约。
* [[Instagram]]: online photo-sharing and social networking service
* Many [[Library catalog#Online catalogs|libraries' online catalogs]]<ref>Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27 (1), 68-77</ref><ref>Corey A. Harper and [[Barbara B. Tillett]], [https://archive.today/20130410094132/https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/3269/1/ccq_s Library of Congress controlled vocabularies and their application to the Semantic Web]</ref>
}}
}}
* [[Mendeley]]: social reference management software
* [[Pinterest]]: photosharing and publishing website
* [[Steam (service)|Steam]] video game store
* [[StumbleUpon]]: content discovery engine
* [[Twitter]] [[hashtag]]s
* The [[World Wide Web Consortium]]'s [[Annotea]] project with user-generated tags in 2002.
* [[WordPress]]: blogging tool and Content Management System
*[http://tumblr.com Tumblr] tags
==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Automatic image annotation|Autotagging]]
* [[Blogosphere]]
* [[Collective intelligence]]
* [[Enterprise bookmarking]]
Category:Collective intelligence
类别: 集体智慧
* [[Faceted classification]]
Category:Knowledge representation
类别: 知识表示
* [[Hierarchical clustering]]
Category:Metadata
类别: 元数据
* [[Semantic annotation]]
Category:Semantic Web
分类: 语义网
* [[Semantic similarity]]
Category:Social bookmarking
类别: 社会性书签
* [[Thesaurus]]
Category:Taxonomy
分类: 分类学
* [[Weak ontology]]
Category:Web 2.0 neologisms
类别: Web 2.0新词
* [[Wiki]]
Category:Sociology of knowledge
类别: 知识社会学
{{div col end}}
Category:Information architecture
分类: 信息架构
<noinclude>
<small>This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Folksonomy]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[协同标记/edithistory]]</small></noinclude>
[[Category:待整理页面]]
{{Distinguish|Folk taxonomy}}
'''Folksonomy''' is a classification system in which [[end users]] apply public [[Tag (metadata)|tags]] to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. Over time, this can give rise to a [[classification system]] based on those tags and how often they are applied or searched for, in contrast to a [[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomic]] classification designed by the owners of the [[Content (media)|content]] and specified when it is published.<ref>{{cite news
Folksonomy is a classification system in which end users apply public tags to online items, typically to make those items easier for themselves or others to find later. Over time, this can give rise to a classification system based on those tags and how often they are applied or searched for, in contrast to a taxonomic classification designed by the owners of the content and specified when it is published. This practice is also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval", but online sharing and interaction expanded it into collaborative forms. Social tagging is the application of tags in an open online environment where the tags of other users are available to others. Collaborative tagging (also known as group tagging) is tagging performed by a group of users. This type of folksonomy is commonly used in cooperative and collaborative projects such as research, content repositories, and social bookmarking.
大众分类法是一种分类方案分类法，最终用户将公共标签应用于在线项目，典型的做法是让这些项目更容易为自己或其他人以后找到。随着时间的推移，基于这些标签以及它们被应用或搜索的频率，可能会产生一个分类方案分类，这与内容所有者设计的分类分类并在出版时指定的分类分类形成了对比。这种做法也被称为分众分类法标签、分众分类法标签、社会索引和社会标签。大众分类法最初是“个人自由标记信息[ ... ]用于自己检索的结果”，但在线分享和交互将其扩展为协作形式。社会化标签是在一个开放的在线环境中应用标签，其他用户的标签对其他用户是可用的。分众分类法标签(也称为组标签)是由一组用户执行的标签。这种类型的大众分类通常用于合作和协作项目，如研究、内容库和社会性书签。
| title = Folksonomies. Indexing and Retrieval in Web 2.0.
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Aeib_wy18gkC&q=folksonomies.+Indexing+and+Retrieval+in+Web+2.0
The term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in 2004 as a portmanteau of folk and taxonomy. Folksonomies became popular as part of social software applications such as social bookmarking and photograph annotation that enable users to collectively classify and find information via shared tags. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.
这个术语是托马斯 · 范德 · 沃尔在2004年创造的，是民俗和分类学的混合体。作为社交软件应用的一部分，Folksonomies 变得流行起来，比如社会性书签和照片注释，它们使用户能够通过共享标签对信息进行集体分类和查找。一些网站将标签云作为一种可视化大众分类法中标签的方式。
| first = Isabella
| last = Peters
Folksonomies can be used for K-12 education, business, and higher education. More specifically, folksonomies may be implemented for social bookmarking, teacher resource repositories, e-learning systems, collaborative learning, collaborative research, professional development and teaching. Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy.
民俗学可用于 K-12教育、商业和高等教育。更具体地说，民俗学可以应用于社会性书签、教师资源库、电子学习系统、合作学习、协作研究、专业发展和教学。维基百科也是大众分类法的一个典型例子。
| work = Berlin: [[De Gruyter Saur]]
| year = 2009
|isbn = 9783598251795}} (isabella-peters.de)</ref><ref>{{cite news
Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all, and have several advantages:
民俗分类法是在传统的集中分类和根本没有分类之间的一种权衡，它有以下几个优点:
| title = Folksonomy
| first = Daniel H.
| last = Pink
| author-link = Daniel H. Pink
| url = https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11ideas1-21.html
| work = [[New York Times]]
| date = 11 December 2005
| access-date = 14 July 2009
}}</ref> This practice is also known as '''collaborative tagging''',<ref>{{cite book|last1=Lambiotte|first1= R |title= Computational Science – ICCS 2006 |volume= 3993 |pages= 1114–1117 |first2= M. |last2=Ausloos|year= 2005|arxiv= cs.DS/0512090 |doi= 10.1007/11758532_152 |series= Lecture Notes in Computer Science |isbn= 978-3-540-34383-7 |s2cid= 47144489 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Borne|first1=Kirk|title=Collaborative Annotation for Scientific Data Discovery and Reuse|url=http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_RDAP_Borne.html|website=Bulletin of Association for Information Science and Technology|publisher=[[ASIS&T]]|access-date=26 May 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305073440/http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Apr-13/AprMay13_RDAP_Borne.html|archive-date=5 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> '''social classification''', '''social indexing''', and '''social tagging'''. Folksonomy was originally "the result of personal free tagging of information [...] for one's own retrieval",<ref name="folksonomy-coinage">{{cite news
There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well, and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags. Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature, tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized. Users apply tags to documents in many different ways and tagging systems also often lack mechanisms for handling synonyms, acronyms and homonyms, and they also often lack mechanisms for handling spelling variations such as misspellings, singular/plural form, conjugated and compound words. Some tagging systems do not support tags consisting of multiple words, resulting in tags like "viewfrommywindow". Sometimes users choose specialized tags or tags without meaning to others.
使用标记和大众分类法也有几个缺点，其中一些优点(见上文)可能会导致问题。例如，标签的简单性可能导致标签应用不当。此外，虽然受控词汇表本质上是排他性的，但标记通常是模棱两可的，而且过于个性化。用户以许多不同的方式对文档使用标记，标记系统也常常缺乏处理同义词、首字母缩略词和同音词的机制，而且他们还常常缺乏处理拼写错误、单复数形式、共轭词和复合词等拼写变化的机制。一些标签系统不支持由多个单词组成的标签，导致了像“ viewfrommywindow”这样的标签。有时候用户选择专门的标签或者标签对其他人来说毫无意义。
| title = Folksonomy Coinage and Definition
| url = http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
| first = Thomas
A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al. elaborate the concept: the term "tagging" refers to a "voluntary activity of users who are annotating resources with term-so-called 'tags' – freely chosen from an unbounded and uncontrolled vocabulary". Others explain tags as an unstructured textual label or keywords, and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.
当用户标记内容或信息时，比如网页、照片、视频、播客、 tweets、科学论文等，就会形成一个大众分类法。Strohmaier et al.详细说明这一概念:”标签”一词是指”用户自愿用所谓的‘标签’注释资源的活动——从无限制和不受控制的词汇中自由选择”。其他人将标记解释为非结构化的文本标签或关键字，并且它们作为一种简单的元数据形式出现。
| last = Vander Wal
| author-link=Thomas Vander Wal
Folksonomies consist of three basic entities: users, tags, and resources. Users create tags to mark resources such as: web pages, photos, videos, and podcasts. These tags are used to manage, categorize and summarize online content. This collaborative tagging system also uses these tags as a way to index information, facilitate searches and navigate resources. Folksonomy also includes a set of URLs that are used to identify resources that have been referred to by users of different websites. These systems also include category schemes that have the ability to organize tags at different levels of granularity.
大众分类法由三个基本实体组成: 用户、标记和资源。用户创建标签来标记资源，例如: 网页、照片、视频和播客。这些标签用于管理、分类和总结在线内容。这个分众分类法系统也使用这些标签作为索引信息，方便搜索和浏览资源的方式。大众分类法还包括一组 url，用于识别不同网站用户引用的资源。这些系统还包括能够按不同粒度级别组织标记的类别模式。
| date = 11 December 2005
}}</ref> but online sharing and interaction expanded it into collaborative forms. '''Social tagging''' is the application of tags in an open online environment where the tags of other users are available to others. '''Collaborative tagging''' (also known as group tagging) is tagging performed by a group of users. This type of folksonomy is commonly used in cooperative and collaborative projects such as research, [[Content repository|content repositories]], and social bookmarking.
Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow. A broad folksonomy arises when multiple users can apply the same tag to an item, providing information about which tags are the most popular. A narrow folksonomy occurs when users, typically fewer in number and often including the item's creator, tag an item with tags that can each be applied only once. While both broad and narrow folksonomies enable the searchability of content by adding an associated word or phrase to an object, a broad folksonomy allows for sorting based on the popularity of each tag, as well as the tracking of emerging trends in tag usage and developing vocabularies.)
范德 · 沃尔确定了两种类型的大众分类法: 广义大众分类和狭义大众分类。当多个用户可以对一个项目应用相同的标记，并提供关于哪些标记最受欢迎的信息时，就会产生广泛的大众分类法。一个狭义的大众分类法发生在用户使用标签标记一个项目的时候，这些标签通常数量较少，并且通常包括项目的创建者，每个项目只能应用一次。虽然广义大众分类法和狭义大众分类法都通过在对象中添加关联词或短语来实现内容的可搜索性，但广义大众分类法允许根据每个标记的受欢迎程度进行排序，并跟踪标记使用的新趋势和开发词汇表
The term was coined by [[Thomas Vander Wal]] in 2004<ref name="folksonomy-coinage"/><ref>Vander Wal, T. (2005). "[http://www.vanderwal.net/random/category.php?cat=153 Off the Top: Folksonomy Entries]." Visited November 5, 2005. See also: Smith, Gene. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20040828035712/http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.html Atomiq: Folksonomy: social classification]." Aug 3, 2004. Retrieved January 1, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html Origin of the term]</ref> as a [[portmanteau]] of ''[[Volk (German word)|folk]]'' and ''[[Taxonomy (general)|taxonomy]]''. Folksonomies became popular as part of [[social software]] applications such as [[social bookmarking]] and photograph annotation that enable users to collectively classify and find information via shared tags. Some websites include [[tag cloud]]s as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.<ref>{{Cite journal
Supporters of folksonomies claim that they are often preferable to taxonomies because folksonomies democratize the way information is organized, they are more useful to users because they reflect current ways of thinking about domains, and they express more information about domains. Critics claim that folksonomies are messy and thus harder to use, and can reflect transient trends that may misrepresent what is known about a field.
支持 folksonomies 的人声称，他们通常比分类法更可取，因为 folksonomies 使信息的组织方式民主化，他们对用户更有用，因为他们反映了当前对领域的思考方式，他们表达了更多关于领域的信息。批评者声称，民俗分类法杂乱无章，因此难以使用，而且可以反映出短暂的趋势，可能会歪曲某一领域的已知信息。
| last1 = Lamere | first1 = Paul
| title = Social Tagging And Music Information Retrieval
An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007, has shown that consensus around stable distributions and shared vocabularies does emerge, even in the absence of a central controlled vocabulary. For content to be searchable, it should be categorized and grouped. While this was believed to require commonly agreed on sets of content describing tags (much like keywords of a journal article), some research has found that in large folksonomies common structures also emerge on the level of categorizations.
2007年发表的一篇关于标签系统复动力学的实证分析表明，即使没有一个核心的标签受控词表，围绕稳定分布和共享词汇的共识也确实出现了。对于可搜索的内容，应该对其进行分类和分组。虽然人们认为这需要在描述标签的内容集上达成共识(很像期刊文章的关键词) ，但一些研究发现，在大型通俗名词中，通用结构也出现在分类层面上。
| journal = Journal of New Music Research
Accordingly, it is possible to devise mathematical models of collaborative tagging that allow for translating from personal tag vocabularies (personomies) to the vocabulary shared by most users.
因此，我们可以设计出分众分类法的数学模型，从而将个人标记词汇(personomies)转换为大多数用户共享的词汇。
| volume = 37
| issue = 2
Folksonomy is unrelated to folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and folkloristic work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the Internet). This branch of ontology deals with the intersection between highly structured taxonomies or hierarchies and loosely structured folksonomy, asking what best features can be taken by both for a system of classification. The strength of flat-tagging schemes is their ability to relate one item to others like it. Folksonomy allows large disparate groups of users to collaboratively label massive, dynamic information systems. The strength of taxonomies are their browsability: users can easily start from more generalized knowledge and target their queries towards more specific and detailed knowledge. Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.
民间分类法与民间分类法无关，这种文化实践在人类学和民间分类学著作中得到了广泛的记载。民间分类法是文化上提供的、代际间传播的、相对稳定的分类系统，特定文化中的人们使用这些系统来理解他们周围的整个世界(而不仅仅是互联网)。本体论的这个分支处理高度结构化的分类法或层次结构与松散结构大众分类法之间的交叉，询问这两者对于一个分类系统可以采用哪些最佳特性。平面标签方案的优势在于它们能够将一个项目与类似的其他项目联系起来。大众分类允许大型不同用户群体协作标记大规模的动态信息系统。分类法的优势在于它们的可浏览性: 用户可以很容易地从更广泛的知识开始，并将他们的查询定向到更具体和详细的知识。大众分类法着眼于对标签进行分类，从而创建易于维护和扩展的可浏览的信息空间。
| pages = 101–114
| date = June 2008
| doi = 10.1080/09298210802479284 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.492.2457
Social tagging for knowledge acquisition is the specific use of tagging for finding and re-finding specific content for an individual or group. Social tagging systems differ from traditional taxonomies in that they are community-based systems lacking the traditional hierarchy of taxonomies. Rather than a top-down approach, social tagging relies on users to create the folksonomy from the bottom up.
知识获取的社会标签是为个人或群体寻找和重新寻找特定内容而使用的特定标签。社会标签系统不同于传统的分类系统，因为它们是基于社区的系统，缺乏传统的分类系统等级。社会标签不是自顶向下的方法，而是依靠用户自下而上地创建大众分类法。
| s2cid = 17063867
}}</ref>
Common uses of social tagging for knowledge acquisition include personal development for individual use and collaborative projects. Social tagging is used for knowledge acquisition in secondary, post-secondary, and graduate education as well as personal and business research. The benefits of finding/re-finding source information are applicable to a wide spectrum of users. Tagged resources are located through search queries rather than searching through a more traditional file folder system. The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users. Tags are beneficial for a couple of reasons. First, they help to structure and organize large amounts of digital resources in a manner that makes them easily accessible when users attempt to locate the resource at a later time. The second aspect is social in nature, that is to say that users may search for new resources and content based on the tags of other users. Even the act of browsing through common tags may lead to further resources for knowledge acquisition.
社会标签在获取知识方面的常见用途包括个人发展和协作项目。社会标签用于中学、高等教育、研究生教育以及个人和商业研究中的知识获取。查找/重新查找源信息的好处适用于范围广泛的用户。标记的资源是通过搜索查询定位的，而不是通过更传统的文件夹系统进行搜索。标签的社会化方面也允许用户利用来自成千上万其他用户的元数据。标签是有益的，有几个原因。首先，它们帮助构建和组织大量的数字资源，以便当用户以后试图查找资源时能够方便地访问这些资源。第二个方面是社会化的本质，也就是说用户可以根据其他用户的标签来搜索新的资源和内容。甚至通过普通标签浏览也可能为获取知识提供更多的资源。
Folksonomies can be used for [[K-12]] education, business, and higher education. More specifically, folksonomies may be implemented for social bookmarking, teacher resource repositories, e-learning systems, collaborative learning, collaborative research, professional development and teaching. Wikipedia is also a prime example of folksonomy.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bryzgalin |first1=E.A. |last2=Voiskounsky |first2=A.E. |last3=Kozlovskiy |first3=S.A. |title=Psychological Analysis of Practical Experience in "Wikipedia" Development |journal=Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy Zhurnal |date=1 September 2019 |issue=73 |pages=17–39 |doi=10.17223/17267080/73/2|doi-access=free }}</ref>{{better source needed|date=May 2020}}{{clarify|date=May 2020}}
==Benefits and disadvantages==
Folksonomies are a trade-off between traditional centralized classification and no classification at all,<ref>Gupta, M., et al., ''An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics'', C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497.</ref> and have several advantages:<ref>Quintarelli, E., ''Folksonomies: power to the people''. 2005.</ref><ref>Mathes, A., ''Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata''. 2004.</ref><ref>Wal, T.V. ''Folksonomy''. 2007</ref>
* Tagging is easy to understand and do, even without training and previous knowledge in classification or indexing
* The vocabulary in a folksonomy directly reflects the user's vocabulary
* Folksonomies are flexible, in the sense that the user can add or remove tags
* Tags consist of both popular content and long-tail content, enabling users to browse and discover new content even in narrow topics
* Tags reflect the user's conceptual model without cultural, social, or political bias
* Enable the creation of communities, in the sense that users who apply the same tag have a common interest
* Folksonomies are multi-dimensional, in the sense that users can assign any number and combination of tags to express a concept
There are several disadvantages with the use of tags and folksonomies as well,<ref>Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, ''Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices''. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006.</ref> and some of the advantages (see above) can lead to problems. For example, the simplicity in tagging can result in poorly applied tags.<ref>Hayman, S., ''Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking'', in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney.</ref> Further, while controlled vocabularies are exclusionary by nature,<ref>Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: ''Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005''</ref> tags are often ambiguous and overly personalized.<ref>Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, ''Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags?'' D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.</ref> Users apply tags to documents in many different ways and tagging systems also often lack mechanisms for handling [[synonym]]s, [[acronym]]s and [[homonym]]s, and they also often lack mechanisms for handling [[spelling]] variations such as misspellings, [[Grammatical number|singular/plural]] form, [[Grammatical conjugation|conjugated]] and [[Compound (linguistics)|compound]] words. Some tagging systems do not support tags consisting of multiple words, resulting in tags like "viewfrommywindow". Sometimes users choose specialized tags or tags without meaning to others.
==Elements and types==
A folksonomy emerges when users tag content or information, such as web pages, photos, videos, podcasts, tweets, scientific papers and others. Strohmaier et al.<ref>Strohmaier, M., C. Körner, and R. Kern, ''Understanding why users tag: A survey of tagging motivation literature and results from an empirical study''. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2012. 17: p. 1-11.</ref> elaborate the concept: the term "tagging" refers to a "voluntary activity of users who are annotating resources with term-so-called 'tags' – freely chosen from an unbounded and uncontrolled vocabulary". Others explain tags as an unstructured textual label<ref>Ames, M.N.M., ''Why We Tag: Motivations for Annotation in Mobile and Online Media'', in SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2007, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 971-980.</ref> or keywords,<ref>Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: ''Tidying up Tags?'' D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.</ref> and that they appear as a simple form of metadata.<ref>Brooks, C.H. and N. Montanez, ''Improved annotation of the blogosphere via autotagging and hierarchical clustering'', in WWW '06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web. 2006, ACM Press: New York, NY, USA. p. 625-632.</ref>
Folksonomies consist of three basic entities: users, tags, and resources. Users create tags to mark resources such as: web pages, photos, videos, and podcasts. These tags are used to manage, categorize and summarize online content. This collaborative tagging system also uses these tags as a way to index information, facilitate searches and navigate resources. Folksonomy also includes a set of URLs that are used to identify resources that have been referred to by users of different websites. These systems also include category schemes that have the ability to organize tags at different levels of granularity.<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992">Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.</ref>
Vander Wal identifies two types of folksonomy: broad and narrow.<ref name="Vander Wal">{{cite web |title=Explaining and Showing Broad and Narrow Folksonomies |url=http://www.vanderwal.net/random/entrysel.php?blog=1635 | last = Vander Wal | first=Thomas |access-date= 2013-03-05}}</ref> A broad folksonomy arises when multiple users can apply the same tag to an item, providing information about which tags are the most popular. A narrow folksonomy occurs when users, typically fewer in number and often including the item's creator, tag an item with tags that can each be applied only once. While both broad and narrow folksonomies enable the searchability of content by adding an associated word or phrase to an object, a broad folksonomy allows for sorting based on the popularity of each tag, as well as the tracking of emerging trends in tag usage and developing vocabularies.<ref name="Vander Wal"/>
An example of a broad folksonomy is [[Delicious (website)|del.icio.us]], a website where users can tag any online resource they find relevant with their own personal tags. The photo-sharing website [[Flickr]] is an oft-cited example of a narrow folksonomy.
==Folksonomy vs. taxonomy==
'Taxonomy' refers to a [[hierarchical categorization]] in which relatively well-defined classes are nested under broader categories. A ''folksonomy'' establishes categories (each tag is a category) without stipulating or necessarily deriving a hierarchical structure of parent-child relations among different tags. (Work has been done on techniques for deriving at least loose hierarchies from clusters of tags.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Laniado|first1=David|title=Using WordNet to turn a folksonomy into a hierarchy of concepts|journal=CEUR Workshop Proceedings|volume=314|issue=51|url=http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-314/51.pdf|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref>)
{{Reflist|30em|refs = Bateman, S., Brooks, C., McCalla, G., & Brusilovsky, P. (2007, May). Applying collaborative tagging to e-learning. In Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2007).
{{通货再膨胀 | 30em | refs = Bateman，s. ，Brooks，c. ，McCalla，g. ，& Brusilovsky，p. (2007，May)。将分众分类法应用于电子学习。第16届国际万维网会议论文集(WWW2007)。
Supporters of folksonomies claim that they are often preferable to taxonomies because folksonomies democratize the way information is organized, they are more useful to users because they reflect current ways of thinking about domains, and they express more information about domains.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Weinberger|first1=David|title=Folksonomy as Symbol|url=http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=6254|website=Joho the Blog|access-date=7 August 2015}}</ref> Critics claim that folksonomies are messy and thus harder to use, and can reflect transient trends that may misrepresent what is known about a field.
Civan, A., Jones, W., Klasnja, P., & Bruce, H. (2008). Better to organize personal information by folders or by tags?: The devil is in the details.Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,45(1), 1-13.
Klasnja，p. ，& Bruce，h. (2008).最好是用文件夹还是标签来组织个人信息？: 细节是魔鬼。美国信息科学与技术学会会报，45(1) ，1-13。
An empirical analysis of the complex dynamics of tagging systems, published in 2007,<ref name="WWW07-ref" >Harry Halpin, Valentin Robu, Hana Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1242572.1242602 The Complex Dynamics of Collaborative Tagging], Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM Press, 2007.</ref> has shown that consensus around stable distributions and shared vocabularies does emerge, even in the absence of a central [[controlled vocabulary]]. For content to be searchable, it should be categorized and grouped. While this was believed to require commonly agreed on sets of content describing tags (much like keywords of a journal article), some research has found that in large folksonomies common structures also emerge on the level of categorizations.<ref name="TWEB-ref" >V. Robu, H. Halpin, H. Shepherd [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1594173.1594176 Emergence of consensus and shared vocabularies in collaborative tagging systems], ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 3(4), art. 14, 2009.</ref>
Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York.
傅维(2008)。社会标签的微观结构: 一个理性模型。参见: ACM 2008计算机支持的协同工作会议论文集，第页。229–238.美国计算机协会，纽约。
Accordingly, it is possible to devise mathematical [[models of collaborative tagging]] that allow for translating from personal tag vocabularies (personomies) to the vocabulary shared by most users.<ref>Robert Wetzker, Carsten Zimmermann, Christian Bauckhage, and Sahin Albayrak [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1718487.1718497 I tag, you tag: translating tags for advanced user models], Proc. International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM Press, 2010.</ref>
Guy, M. and E. Tonkin, Folksonomies: Tidying up Tags? D-Lib Magazine, 2006. 12(Number 1): p. 1-15.
和 e. Tonkin，《民俗学: 整理标签？D-Lib 杂志，2006。第12页(第1页) : 第1-15页。
Folksonomy is unrelated to [[folk taxonomy]], a cultural practice that has been widely documented in anthropological and [[folkloristics|folkloristic]] work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied, intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the [[Internet]]).<ref name="Berlin, B. 1992"/>
Gupta, M., et al., An Overview of Social Tagging and Applications, in Social Network Data Analytics, C.C. Aggarwal, Editor. 2011, Springer. p. 447-497
社会标签和应用的概述，《社会网络数据分析》 ，c.c。阿加瓦尔，编辑。2011，Springer.P. 447-497
The study of the structuring or classification of folksonomy is termed ''folksontology''.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.heppnetz.de/files/vandammeheppsiorpaes-folksontology-semnet2007-crc.pdf | title=FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies | access-date=April 20, 2012 | author=Van Damme, Céline|display-authors=etal}}</ref> This branch of [[ontology (information science)|ontology]] deals with the intersection between highly structured taxonomies or hierarchies and loosely structured folksonomy, asking what best features can be taken by both for a system of classification. The strength of flat-tagging schemes is their ability to relate one item to others like it. Folksonomy allows large disparate groups of users to collaboratively label massive, dynamic information systems. The strength of taxonomies are their browsability: users can easily start from more generalized knowledge and target their queries towards more specific and detailed knowledge.<ref>Trattner, C., Körner, C., Helic, D.: [http://www.christophtrattner.info/pubs/iknow2011.pdf Enhancing the Navigability of Social Tagging Systems with Tag Taxonomies]. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2011</ref> Folksonomy looks to categorize tags and thus create browsable spaces of information that are easy to maintain and expand.
Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
赫尔德，c. ，& 克莱斯，美国。(2009).在觅食中学习: 社会标签对知识获取的影响。在多学科协同学习中(pp。254-266).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
== Social tagging for knowledge acquisition ==
Social tagging for [[knowledge acquisition]] is the specific use of tagging for finding and re-finding specific content for an individual or group. Social tagging systems differ from traditional taxonomies in that they are community-based systems lacking the traditional hierarchy of taxonomies. Rather than a top-down approach, social tagging relies on users to create the folksonomy from the bottom up.<ref name=":0">Held, C., & Cress, U. (2009). Learning by Foraging: The impact of social tags on knowledge acquisition. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 254-266). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.</ref>
Hayman, S., Folksonomies and Tagging: New developments in social bookmarking, in Proceedings of Ark Group Conference: Developing and Improving Classification Schemes, 2007, Sydney. 2007: Sydney.
Folksonomies 和标签: 社会性书签的新发展，在《方舟集团会议记录: 发展和改进分类方案》 ，2007年，悉尼。2007: 悉尼。
Common uses of social tagging for knowledge acquisition include personal development for individual use and collaborative projects. Social tagging is used for knowledge acquisition in secondary, post-secondary, and graduate education as well as personal and business research. The benefits of finding/re-finding source information are applicable to a wide spectrum of users. Tagged resources are located through search queries rather than searching through a more traditional file folder system.<ref>Fu, W. (2008). The microstructures of social tagging: a rational model. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York.</ref> The social aspect of tagging also allows users to take advantage of metadata from thousands of other users.<ref name=":0" />
Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33-44.
金默尔，j. ，克雷斯，美国，和赫尔德，c. (2010)。个人和集体知识之间的相互作用: 组织学习和知识建设的技术。知识管理研究与实践，8(1) ，33-44。
Users choose individual tags for stored resources. These tags reflect personal associations, categories, and concepts. All of which are individual representations based on meaning and relevance to that individual. The tags, or keywords, are designated by users. Consequently, tags represent a user's associations corresponding to the resource. Commonly tagged resources include videos, photos, articles, websites, and email.<ref name=":1">Kimmerle, J., Cress, U., & Held, C. (2010). The interplay between individual and collective knowledge: technologies for organisational learning and knowledge building. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 8(1), 33-44.</ref> Tags are beneficial for a couple of reasons. First, they help to structure and organize large amounts of digital resources in a manner that makes them easily accessible when users attempt to locate the resource at a later time. The second aspect is social in nature, that is to say that users may search for new resources and content based on the tags of other users. Even the act of browsing through common tags may lead to further resources for knowledge acquisition.<ref name=":0" />
Kipp, M. and D.G. Campbell, Patterns and Inconsistencies in Collaborative Tagging Systems: An Examination of Tagging Practices. Proceedings Annual General Meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2006.
基普，m. 和 d.g。分众分类法系统中的模式和不一致性: 标记实践的检验。2006年美国信息科学与技术学会会议录。
Tags that occur more frequently with specific resources are said to be more strongly connected. Furthermore, tags may be connected to each other. This may be seen in the frequency in which they co-occur. The more often they co-occur, the stronger the connection. Tag clouds are often utilized to visualize connectivity between resources and tags. Font size increases as the strength of association increases.<ref name=":1" />
Kroski, E., The Hive Mind: Folksonomies and User-Based Tagging. 2005.
蜂群思维: 大众分类法和基于用户的标签。2005.
Tags show interconnections of concepts that were formerly unknown to a user. Therefore, a user's current cognitive constructs may be modified or augmented by the metadata information found in aggregated social tags. This process promotes knowledge acquisition through cognitive irritation and equilibration. This theoretical framework is known as the co-evolution model of individual and collective knowledge.<ref name=":1" />
Lavoué, É. (2011). Social tagging to enhance collaborative learning. In Advances in Web-Based Learning-ICWL 2011 (pp. 92-101). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Lavoué, É.(2011).社交标签可以增强合作学习。《基于网络的学习进展》-icwl 2011(pp。92-101).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
The co-evolution model focuses on cognitive conflict in which a learner's prior knowledge and the information received from the environment are dissimilar to some degree.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> When this incongruence occurs, the learner must work through a process cognitive equilibration in order to make personal cognitive constructs and outside information congruent. According to the coevolution model, this may require the learner to modify existing constructs or simply add to them.<ref name=":0" /> The additional cognitive effort promotes information processing which in turn allows individual learning to occur.<ref name=":1" />
Mathes, A., Folksonomies - Cooperative Classification and Communication Through Shared Metadata. 2004.
民俗学 -- 通过共享元数据进行合作分类和交流。2004.
==Examples==
Quintarelli, E., Folksonomies: power to the people. 2005.
民俗学: 人民的力量。2005.
* [[BibSonomy]]: social bookmarking and publication-sharing system
* [[Delicious (website)|del.icio.us]]: public tagging service
Vander Wal, Thomas. "Folksonomy Coinage and Definition". Retrieved October 25, 2015 from http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
范德 · 沃尔，托马斯。“大众分类法的造词和定义”。2015年10月25日， http://www.vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html
* [[Diigo]]: [[social bookmarking]] website
* [[Flickr]]: shared photos
Weinberger, D. (2007). Everything is miscellaneous: The power of the new digital disorder. Times Books, New York.
温伯格(2007)。一切都是杂乱无章的: 新数字混乱的力量。时代出版社，纽约。
* [[Instagram]]: online photo-sharing and social networking service
* Many [[Library catalog#Online catalogs|libraries' online catalogs]]<ref>Steele, T. (2009). The new cooperative cataloging. Library Hi Tech, 27 (1), 68-77</ref><ref>Corey A. Harper and [[Barbara B. Tillett]], [https://archive.today/20130410094132/https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/3269/1/ccq_s Library of Congress controlled vocabularies and their application to the Semantic Web]</ref>
}}
}}
* [[Mendeley]]: social reference management software
* [[Pinterest]]: photosharing and publishing website
* [[Steam (service)|Steam]] video game store
* [[StumbleUpon]]: content discovery engine
* [[Twitter]] [[hashtag]]s
* The [[World Wide Web Consortium]]'s [[Annotea]] project with user-generated tags in 2002.
* [[WordPress]]: blogging tool and Content Management System
*[http://tumblr.com Tumblr] tags
==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Automatic image annotation|Autotagging]]
* [[Blogosphere]]
* [[Collective intelligence]]
* [[Enterprise bookmarking]]
Category:Collective intelligence
类别: 集体智慧
* [[Faceted classification]]
Category:Knowledge representation
类别: 知识表示
* [[Hierarchical clustering]]
Category:Metadata
类别: 元数据
* [[Semantic annotation]]
Category:Semantic Web
分类: 语义网
* [[Semantic similarity]]
Category:Social bookmarking
类别: 社会性书签
* [[Thesaurus]]
Category:Taxonomy
分类: 分类学
* [[Weak ontology]]
Category:Web 2.0 neologisms
类别: Web 2.0新词
* [[Wiki]]
Category:Sociology of knowledge
类别: 知识社会学
{{div col end}}
Category:Information architecture
分类: 信息架构
<noinclude>
<small>This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Folksonomy]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[协同标记/edithistory]]</small></noinclude>
[[Category:待整理页面]]