Burning Down the Shelf: Standardized Classification, Folksonomies, and Ontological Politics

Classification systems are ridden with politics of ontologies, diverse ways of being. These politics allude to power structures that are inherent in classification, especially with regards to classification systems that have been standardized. Standardized classification alludes to the authority of a privileged ontology and/or perspective, and runs the risk of perpetuating informational imperialism through homogenization. In contrast, folksomies acknowledge local and situated knowledges by including the voices of multiple ontologies, rather than prescribing how information should be organized. This paper employs assemblage theory as a framework by which to analyze folksonomies, and how they contrast with standardized classification. Folksonomies recognize the tensions that exist between assemblages and their respective ontologies and ways of knowing and being, and allow for the emergence of knowledge that is negotiated and co-produced. In conclusion, this paper recommends combining standardized and vernacular classification for the benefits of both: the ability for standardized classification to span spatial and temporal bounds, and the ability for folksonomic classification to acknowledge multiple ways of being and build relationships through emergent knowledge.

[1]  Donna Harawy Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective , 2022, Philosophical Literary Journal Logos.

[2]  A. C. Foskett Better Dead Than Read: Further Studies in Critical Classification. , 1984 .

[3]  Jessica Dye,et al.  Folksonomy : A game of high-tech (and high-stakes) tag , 2006 .

[4]  Peter Mika Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics , 2005, International Semantic Web Conference.

[5]  D. Turnbull Maps Narratives and Trails: Performativity, Hodology and Distributed Knowledges in Complex Adaptive Systems – an Approach to Emergent Mapping , 2007 .

[6]  Hope A. Olson Mapping Beyond Dewey's Boundaries: Constructing Classification Space for Marginalized Knowledge Domains , 1998, Libr. Trends.

[7]  S. Huebner,et al.  Koorie culture and technology: a digital archive project for Victorian Koorie communities , 2007 .

[8]  Ramesh Srinivasan,et al.  Return to Babel: Emergent Diversity, Digital Resources, and Local Knowledge , 2007, Inf. Soc..

[9]  Philip A.E. Brey,et al.  The Social Ontology of Virtual Environments , 2003 .

[10]  A. Young Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. , 2001 .

[11]  B. C. Vickery,et al.  Ontologies , 1997, J. Inf. Sci..

[12]  S. L. Star,et al.  How things (actor-net) work: Classification, magic and the ubiquity of standards , 1996 .

[13]  Sandra Harding,et al.  Representing Reality: The Critical Realism Project , 2003 .

[14]  John R. Searle,et al.  Social ontology , 2006 .

[15]  T. Lawson Theorizing Ontology , 2003 .

[16]  Csaba Veres,et al.  The Language of Folksonomies: What Tags Reveal About User Classification , 2006, NLDB.

[17]  Steven Johnson,et al.  Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software , 2001 .

[18]  D. Bretherton,et al.  Reconciliation between Aboriginal and Other Australians: The “Stolen Generations” , 2006 .

[19]  A. Mol Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions , 1999 .

[20]  Elaine Peterson,et al.  Beneath the Metadata: Some Philosophical Problems with Folksonomy , 2006 .

[21]  Christopher Brooks,et al.  Collaborative tagging approaches for ontological metadata in adaptive e-learning systems , 2006 .

[22]  R. van Krieken The barbarism of civilization: cultural genocide and the 'stolen generations'. , 1999, The British journal of sociology.