Talk:Folk taxonomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Based in apperance/convergent evolution

Is there any folk taxonomy effectively based in phenotypes, in convergent evolution in regards to morphology? Where eels, worms and snakes would belong together, bats with pteranodons and birds and so on... Tazmanian devils with canines, and so forth... Any knowledge of this? I think it would maek the best example of what folk taxonomy can be... made at face value and all... Herle King 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MERGE OR NOT

Firstly, I'd like to say that suggesting a page is Merged without even providing any reason is dubious behaviour. As the originator of the Folk Taxonomy page, I would like to strongly resist the suggestion that the page be merged with the Folksonomy page.

Folk Taxonomy is a term for a vernacular Taxonomy. Many anthropologists have studied folk taxonomies. Many folk taxonomies are very effective embedded systems of knowledge. There is a reason that the term folk taxonomy exists - it is to differentiate them from scientific taxonomies.

Folksonomies is a recently invented word for something like the mass creation of meta-referents. Folksonomies is a very interesting concept and may turn out to be an important part of our lives and studies. On the other hand, it may not.

Both these terms exist for very clear reasons. Just because they are similar is no reason to merge them. If you want to merge something, you could merge Folk Taxonomy with Taxonomy, though I would be against it. And you _could_ merge Tag with Folksonomy. But a suggestion that we merge Folk Taxonomy with Folksonomy betrays a total misunderstanding of what the terms actually mean.

I disagree with the merge. If anything Folksonomy should be merged into Folk Taxonomy. Folk Taxonomy is a "folk" type of taxonomy. To me this is far more readily understandable than "Folksonomy". Then again I'm not even sure I know what Folksonomies are.. errr... what Folksonomy is. I'd say, if they are the same, merge here, and if they are different somehow don't merge. --Ben 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge as well. At best, folksonomy is a portmanteau of folk taxonomy, which should be the main article. I suggest we reditect folksonomy here and mention the term on this page as a variant. Jokestress 21:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with merging either of these articles. Folk taxonomy (aka folk classification) is a branch of anthropological inquiry with a long-established scholarly literature dating back more than a century; folksonomy is a new coinage referring to a form of Web-based meta-tagging. These topics are discrete, though perhaps cursorily related.

Yes, folk taxonomy is a term with a much longer tradition. I disagree with the merge as well. Hirzel 13:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger as well. For better or worse, folksonomy is quite a different thing from folk taxonomy. --Macrakis 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Both folksonomy (the social phenomenon) and folk taxonomy (one model of it, a folksonomy as a taxonomy) should be merged into a single article on weak ontology, while strong ontology should redirect to ontology (computer science) and make liberal reference to ontology as formally defined in philosophy.

A tag scheme, a category scheme, a semantic web, a database schema, an entity relationship diagram, a keyword list, all of these are examples of weak ontology. It doesn't become "strong" until someone digs through it and looks for contradictions and mixed metaphors and so on...

The suggestion to merge these two pages is a pretty good example of systemic bias. There is a long tradition of folk taxonomy study within anthropology and linguistics. It focuses on the learned, shared, and transmitted classification systems developed by a culture or subculture. Folksonomy is a trendy neologism that refers specifically to the classification schemes that Internet users create in sites like this. The previous suggestion (that both pages should be merged under weak ontology stems from a much more specific bias: the notion (unnamed, so far as I know, that the entire world should be refactored to conform to the categorization schema generated by analytical philosophy. However, there is nothing wrong with creating a category that organizes pages along those lines; that would be a valuable contribution! Bryan 17:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What most everybody else said: a folksonomy isn't a taxonomy of any kind, let alone a folk taxonomy.

On a separate note: is it correct to say that astrology is a folk taxonomy, or that it uses a folk taxonomy (and similarly for astronomy and taxonomy)? I would say the latter: there is much more to astrology and astronomy than the classification systems embedded in them. --Pzriddle 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)