What is Folksonomy?

Folksonomy, a blend of “folk” and “taxonomy,” is a user-generated system of organizing and categorizing information through freely chosen tags. Unlike traditional taxonomies, which rely on structured and expert-driven classification, folksonomy leverages the collective input of users to assign descriptive labels, or “tags,” to digital content such as images, videos, articles, and web pages.

This approach emerged with the rise of Web 2.0 and social media platforms, where collaboration and user participation became central to content creation and management. Platforms like Flickr, Delicious, and YouTube popularized the concept, allowing users to tag content with keywords that resonate with their understanding and needs. Folksonomy offers several advantages, including improved accessibility, personalized content discovery, and adaptability to evolving user language. However, it also presents challenges, such as inconsistency in tagging, ambiguity, and lack of hierarchical structure.

Today, folksonomy is critical in modern digital environments, from enhancing search engine optimization (SEO) to facilitating knowledge organization in social and collaborative networks. As technology advances, the integration of folksonomy with artificial intelligence and natural language processing continues to refine its effectiveness and potential.

What is Folksonomy?

Folksonomy, a concept rooted in the collaborative nature of Web 2.0, refers to a system of categorizing and organizing digital information through user-generated tags. Unlike traditional taxonomies, which are meticulously crafted by experts using controlled vocabularies, folksonomy empowers users to assign descriptive labels to content based on their individual perspectives and understanding. This democratized approach has gained traction on platforms like Flickr, YouTube, and Delicious, where users actively tag photos, videos, and bookmarks to enhance content discoverability.

One of the key advantages of folksonomy is its flexibility and adaptability to real-time changes in language and trends, making it especially effective in dynamic and user-centric environments. By reflecting the diverse ways people perceive and describe information, it provides a personalized and inclusive system of organization. However, this openness can also lead to challenges, such as inconsistencies in tagging, lack of hierarchical relationships, and potential ambiguities when the same tag is used in different contexts.

Despite these challenges, folksonomy has proven to be a significant tool in the digital age, bridging the gap between structured, expert-driven classification systems and the fluid, evolving nature of human language and interaction. It has paved the way for a participatory model of information organization, offering insights into user behavior and preferences while complementing traditional methods of knowledge management.

When and How Did the Concept of Folksonomy Emerge?

The concept of folksonomy emerged in the early 2000s with the advent of Web 2.0, a phase in internet development characterized by user-generated content, interactivity, and social networking. The term was coined by Thomas Vander Wal in 2004 to describe a system of categorizing and organizing information using user-generated tags. This approach grew out of the need for more flexible, user-centered ways to manage the massive amounts of content being created and shared online.

Folksonomy’s emergence was closely linked to platforms that allowed individuals to actively participate in tagging and sharing digital resources. Early adopters of the concept included websites like Delicious (a social bookmarking platform) and Flickr (a photo-sharing platform). These platforms encouraged users to label or “tag” content with keywords they deemed relevant, enabling others to discover and explore information based on shared tags.

The rise of folksonomy can be attributed to its democratic and collaborative nature, which contrasted with traditional taxonomies created by experts using predefined vocabularies. By allowing users to contribute to the classification process, folksonomy provided a dynamic, real-time method of organizing information that reflected how people naturally think and communicate. This user-driven approach to categorization represented a shift from hierarchical and rigid systems to a more fluid, participatory model, laying the groundwork for modern practices in social media, content curation, and knowledge management.

How does folksonomy work in digital platforms?

Folksonomy works in digital platforms by allowing users to organize and categorize content through the application of freely chosen descriptive labels, known as tags. These tags serve as keywords or phrases that represent the content’s meaning, purpose, or relevance. The process is collaborative and dynamic, reflecting the perspectives and language of the users themselves. Here’s how it functions step by step:

• Content Creation and Tagging: When users upload or share content—such as images, videos, articles, or bookmarks—they assign one or more tags to describe the item. For example, a user might upload a photo of a sunset and tag it with words like “sunset,” “beach,” and “vacation.”
• Tag Aggregation: Tags contributed by multiple users are collected and aggregated in the platform’s database. This creates a “tag cloud” or an index where each tag is associated with related content. The frequency of tag usage can influence visibility, with popular tags often appearing more prominently.
• Search and Discovery: Users can search for content by entering specific tags or browsing through the tag cloud. For instance, searching for the tag “recipes” on a platform like Pinterest would retrieve all user-tagged content related to recipes. Tags serve as informal metadata, improving discoverability without requiring structured classification systems.
• Dynamic and Evolving System: Unlike traditional taxonomies, folksonomy evolves over time as users continue to add, remove, or modify tags based on trends, preferences, or language changes. This makes it a highly adaptable system that reflects the collective input of the user community.
• Personalization and Collaboration: Folksonomy allows users to personalize their tagging systems while also benefiting from shared contributions. For example, a user on a bookmarking site like Delicious might tag a website with “web development” for their reference, and another user searching for that tag can discover the same resource.

Advantages of Folksonomy in Digital Platforms

Folksonomy offers several advantages in digital platforms, making it a popular and effective method for organizing and categorizing information. Below are the key benefits:

• User Engagement and Participation: Folksonomy fosters a sense of collaboration by allowing users to directly contribute to the organization of content through tagging. This interactive process engages users as active participants rather than passive consumers. By enabling individuals to label and categorize information according to their own preferences, platforms build a stronger connection with their audience. Users feel valued as their contributions help shape how content is structured and discovered by others.
• Reflects Real-World Language: One of the key strengths of folksonomy is its ability to mirror how people naturally communicate and think. The tags created by users often reflect everyday language, trends, and even slang, making content more relatable and accessible. Unlike controlled vocabularies used in traditional classification systems, folksonomy evolves organically with cultural and linguistic shifts, ensuring that the tagging system remains relevant and effective for diverse users.
• Improved Discoverability: Folksonomy enhances content visibility by allowing multiple tags to be associated with a single item. For instance, a travel photo tagged with “beach,” “vacation,” and “sunset” can appear in searches for any of these terms. This increases the chances of content being discovered by users with varying search habits or preferences, making it easier for platforms to connect users with the information they need.
• Flexibility and Adaptability: Unlike traditional taxonomies, which are rigid and require significant effort to modify, folksonomy is highly flexible. Users can create new tags as needed, allowing the system to adapt to emerging trends or evolving terminologies. For example, when new technology or cultural phenomena arise, users can instantly create relevant tags, ensuring the tagging system stays up-to-date without requiring a complete overhaul.
• Cost-Effective: By leveraging user contributions for tagging, folksonomy significantly reduces the need for hiring experts to develop and maintain structured classification systems. This user-driven approach minimizes costs associated with organizing and updating content, making it an economical solution for digital platforms, particularly those handling large volumes of data.
• Personalized Content Organization: Folksonomy enables users to organize content in ways that align with their unique needs and perspectives. For example, someone interested in recipes might tag a food-related blog post as “quick meals,” while another user might use “budget cooking.” This personalized tagging ensures that users can create and navigate systems tailored to their preferences, enhancing their overall experience on the platform.
• Community Insights: Aggregated tags provide a wealth of data about user behavior, interests, and trends. By analyzing these tags, platforms can gain valuable insights into what topics are most popular, how users interact with content, and how their preferences change over time. This information can inform platform improvements, content recommendations, and targeted marketing strategies, enhancing the overall utility of the system.
• Cross-Referencing: Tags in a folksonomy system act as informal metadata, enabling users to cross-reference related content. For instance, a video tagged with “environment,” “climate change,” and “sustainability” can be linked to articles, podcasts, or images with similar tags. This creates a network of interconnected resources, helping users explore related topics more effectively and gain a broader understanding of the subject.
• Encourages Collaboration: Folksonomy fosters a sense of community by enabling users to interact and collaborate indirectly through shared tags. On platforms like Pinterest or Flickr, users can discover content tagged by others with similar interests, creating an ecosystem of shared knowledge. This collaborative environment not only enhances content discovery but also strengthens the bonds within the user community, making the platform more engaging and interactive.

Folksonomy’s advantages lie in its ability to democratize content organization, adapt to user needs, and reflect the evolving nature of language and culture. By engaging users, improving discoverability, and providing cost-effective scalability, folksonomy has become an indispensable tool for modern digital platforms. Its dynamic, user-centered approach ensures that platforms remain relevant, accessible, and efficient in managing and retrieving vast amounts of information.

How does folksonomy differ from traditional taxonomies?

Folksonomy and traditional taxonomies represent contrasting paradigms in the organizational landscape of information. Traditional taxonomies, characterized by top-down structuring and expert-driven categorization, follow predetermined hierarchies to classify content systematically. In contrast, folksonomy, a product of user-generated tagging, adopts a bottom-up approach, allowing individuals to freely assign labels to information based on their perspectives and preferences. This dichotomy encapsulates a broader divergence in principles, encompassing authority, flexibility, and semantic precision issues. Understanding these differences provides insight into the dynamic interplay between structured, expert-guided systems and the more fluid, user-driven evolution of folksonomies in the ongoing quest to organize and navigate the vast realms of digital information.

Key Components of a Folksonomy System

Folksonomy, a user-driven system for organizing and categorizing information through tags, has become a vital tool in the digital age. It enables users to collaboratively label and retrieve content, offering a flexible and evolving alternative to traditional classification systems. But what makes a folksonomy system work? Here are the primary elements:

1. Users (Community Contributors): Its users are at the heart of any folksonomy system. These individuals actively participate by tagging content, bringing their diverse perspectives and linguistic styles to the platform. Each user contributes a unique layer of interpretation, making the system dynamic and reflective of a broad range of viewpoints. The level of user engagement directly influences the richness and relevance of the tagging ecosystem.
2. Content or Resources: The foundation of a folksonomy system is the digital content being tagged. This can include images, videos, articles, web pages, bookmarks, or social media posts. Without these resources, there would be nothing to categorize or retrieve. The nature of the content determines the types of tags users create, which can range from descriptive keywords to thematic labels.
3. Tags (User-Generated Keywords): Tags are the core element of folksonomy. These freely chosen keywords or phrases are assigned by users to describe the content. Unlike traditional taxonomies that rely on standardized vocabularies, tags in folksonomy are informal and flexible, reflecting the user’s unique interpretation of the resource. This freedom allows the system to adapt to changing trends and diverse user preferences.
4. Tagging Interface: To facilitate tagging, the system provides a user-friendly interface where users can assign, edit, or delete tags. This interface may include simple input fields for entering tags, auto-suggestions for related tags, or features for browsing previously used tags. A well-designed tagging interface is crucial for encouraging participation and ensuring ease of use.
5. Tag Cloud or Visualization Tools: Folksonomy systems often include a tag cloud, a visual representation of tags aggregated across the platform. Frequently used tags are displayed more prominently, often in larger or bolder fonts, while less common tags appear smaller. This visualization helps users identify popular topics, explore trends, and discover related content intuitively.
6. Search and Discovery Mechanism: An effective search and discovery mechanism is vital for a folksonomy system. Users can search for specific tags, browse related tags, or explore content through tag clouds. This functionality ensures that the tagging system organizes information and makes it easily accessible, improving the overall user experience.
7. Metadata and Tag Aggregation: As users tag content, the system aggregates these tags to form informal metadata. This metadata acts as a contextual layer, providing insights into how content is described by the community. Tag aggregation enables connections between related resources, enhancing content discoverability and enriching the user’s understanding of the material.
8. Social Interaction Features: Many folksonomy systems include social features that allow users to interact and collaborate. For instance, users can view how others have tagged the same content, comment on tags, or share tagged items. These features foster a sense of community, encouraging users to engage more deeply with the platform and its content.
9. Algorithmic Support: Behind the scenes, algorithms play a significant role in optimizing the folksonomy system. They may suggest tags based on existing ones, rank tags by popularity, or detect redundant or ambiguous tags. By automating these processes, the system becomes more efficient and effective in managing large volumes of data.
10. Platform or Host System: The digital platform that hosts the content and tagging functionality is the structural backbone of the folksonomy system. It provides the infrastructure for uploading content, tagging, aggregating tags, and facilitating search and retrieval. A well-designed platform ensures seamless integration of all components and a smooth user experience.

The success of a folksonomy system depends on the harmonious integration of its key components. From user participation and flexible tagging to robust search mechanisms and algorithmic support, each element plays a crucial role in creating a dynamic, user-centric approach to organizing information.

How Do Users Contribute to the Creation of Folksonomies?

Users contribute to the creation of folksonomies by actively tagging digital content with descriptive keywords that reflect their personal understanding and interpretation. This process, central to the functioning of a folksonomy, allows users to organize and categorize resources such as images, videos, bookmarks, and articles. Unlike traditional systems reliant on expert-driven classifications, folksonomies thrive on user participation, enabling individuals to apply freely chosen tags to content. Each tag acts as informal metadata, enhancing the discoverability and accessibility of the resource.

Users also bring diversity to the system by tagging content based on their unique perspectives, interests, and cultural contexts. This leads to a rich pool of tags that reflects real-world language and trends, making the system more adaptable and inclusive. As users interact with content, their contributions are aggregated, allowing popular tags to emerge and form patterns that guide others in navigating the platform. Furthermore, users help shape the evolution of folksonomies by introducing new tags, modifying existing ones, and promoting specific keywords that align with changing language and societal trends.

Through their participation, users make content easier to find and foster collaboration and community engagement. Social features in many folksonomy-driven platforms enable users to build upon each other’s tags, creating a shared vocabulary that connects individuals with similar interests. Over time, user activity provides valuable feedback to the system, informing improvements to search mechanisms and content organization.

What Motivates Individuals to Tag and Categorize Content in Folksonomy-Based Systems?

Individuals are motivated to tag and categorize content in folksonomy-based systems for various reasons that combine personal, social, and practical factors. One significant motivator is the desire for personal organization and retrieval. By tagging resources with descriptive keywords, users create a system that allows them to easily locate content when needed. For example, tagging a recipe with terms like “vegan,” “quick meals,” and “healthy” ensures that it can be found quickly at a later time. Similarly, users are motivated by the prospect of making content more discoverable to others. Tagging content with relevant keywords enhances its visibility within the platform, helping others find useful resources and fostering a sense of contribution to the community.

Social interaction and community engagement are also powerful motivators. Folksonomy-based systems often include features that allow users to explore and interact with tags created by others, creating opportunities to connect with individuals who share similar interests. Platforms like Pinterest and Instagram exemplify how shared tags and hashtags can build communities and encourage collaboration. Additionally, users are driven by the potential for recognition and visibility. Popular tags can increase the reach of their contributions, making them more prominent in searches and amplifying their audience on social media platforms.

Another key driver is the opportunity for self-expression. By assigning tags that resonate with their personal understanding or identity, users can showcase their interests and perspectives. Many also find satisfaction in knowledge sharing, as tagging content with accurate and relevant keywords helps others discover valuable information. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of online platforms motivates users to adapt to trends and align their tags with popular topics, ensuring their content remains relevant and engaging.

The ease of use and accessibility of tagging systems also contribute to participation. Unlike traditional classification methods that require expertise, folksonomy is simple and user-friendly, encouraging even casual users to tag content. For some, the process of tagging itself is enjoyable, providing intrinsic satisfaction and a sense of achievement in contributing to a larger system. Together, these motivations drive users to actively participate in folksonomy-based systems, ensuring they remain vibrant, collaborative, and user-centric.

How Does Folksonomy Improve Content Organization and Discovery?

Folksonomy improves content organization and discovery by utilizing user-generated tags to create a flexible and dynamic system that reflects real-world language and user behavior. Unlike traditional classification systems, which rely on expert-driven hierarchies and controlled vocabularies, folksonomy allows users to tag content with freely chosen keywords based on their understanding and preferences. This user-centric approach ensures that content is categorized in ways that resonate with diverse audiences, making it more intuitive and accessible. For instance, a single piece of content can have multiple tags, such as “travel,” “adventure,” and “budget-friendly,” catering to different search intents and enhancing discoverability across various contexts.

Additionally, folksonomy adapts to evolving trends and language in real-time. As users continue to add or modify tags, the system evolves to stay relevant, ensuring that content remains easy to find even as topics and terminology change. Tags serve as informal metadata, improving searchability by enabling users to locate content using familiar keywords or phrases. The ability to cross-reference tags also fosters connections between related resources, creating a network of interconnected content that encourages exploration and deeper understanding. Furthermore, visual tools like tag clouds highlight popular or trending tags, guiding users toward relevant content and making navigation more efficient.

By democratizing the organization process, folksonomy accommodates various perspectives and search behaviors, making it inclusive and adaptable. Its collaborative nature allows users to contribute collectively, building a richer and more comprehensive tagging system. This scalability ensures that even in platforms with vast amounts of content, information remains well-organized and easily retrievable. Overall, folksonomy enhances content organization and discovery by prioritizing flexibility, inclusivity, and user engagement, making it an indispensable tool in modern digital platforms.

What Advantages Does Folksonomy Offer Over Traditional Classification Systems?

Folksonomy offers several advantages over traditional classification systems by leveraging user-generated tags to organize and categorize content in a flexible, inclusive, and dynamic manner. Unlike traditional systems, which rely on expert-designed taxonomies and rigid controlled vocabularies, folksonomy allows users to describe content using their own language and understanding. This makes it more intuitive and user-centric, as it reflects how people naturally think and search. Additionally, folksonomy adapts in real time to changing language, trends, and user needs. Users can create or modify tags as necessary, ensuring the system stays relevant and responsive, whereas traditional systems often require significant effort to update.

Another key advantage of folksonomy is its inclusivity and ability to support multiple perspectives. While traditional systems assign content to specific categories, folksonomy enables users to tag the same item with a variety of keywords, catering to different search intents. For instance, a photo might be tagged as “nature,” “landscape,” and “adventure,” making it discoverable by users with diverse interests. This approach enhances content visibility and ensures accessibility to a broader audience. Furthermore, folksonomy is highly scalable, as it grows organically with user contributions. As more users tag content, the system becomes richer and more comprehensive, maintaining efficiency even with large datasets.

Cost-effectiveness is another advantage of folksonomy, as it eliminates the need for extensive expert oversight. Users voluntarily tag content, reducing the time and expense associated with developing and maintaining traditional classification systems. Moreover, folksonomy promotes user engagement and fosters a sense of community as individuals actively participate in shaping the system. This participatory approach enhances the user experience and encourages collaboration and knowledge sharing. Overall, folksonomy’s flexibility, adaptability, and user-driven nature make it a superior alternative to traditional classification systems, especially in dynamic and evolving digital environments.

How Does the Lack of Controlled Vocabulary Impact the Effectiveness of Folksonomy?

The lack of controlled vocabulary in folksonomy has both advantages and challenges, which significantly influence its overall effectiveness. Controlled vocabularies, as used in traditional classification systems, provide consistency and standardization in how content is categorized and retrieved. In contrast, folksonomy relies on user-generated tags, allowing individuals to freely assign keywords based on their preferences and understanding. While this openness fosters inclusivity and adaptability, it also introduces potential drawbacks that can affect the system’s efficiency and usability.

One of the primary impacts of lacking a controlled vocabulary is inconsistency in tagging. Since users create tags independently, they may use different words or phrases to describe the same concept. For example, one user might tag a photo as “automobile,” while another might use “car.” This variability can lead to fragmentation in the tagging system, making it harder for users to discover all relevant content without searching multiple terms.

Another challenge is ambiguity and lack of precision. In a folksonomy system, tags may be vague or context-dependent, leading to confusion. For instance, a tag like “apple” could refer to the fruit, the technology company, or even a color. Without controlled vocabulary to disambiguate terms, users may struggle to find the specific content they are seeking, reducing the system’s effectiveness for information retrieval. Additionally, the absence of controlled vocabulary can lead to tag redundancy and synonymy. Users often create multiple tags with similar meanings, such as “recipes,” “cooking,” and “meal prep,” which can clutter the system and dilute its organizational clarity. Over time, this redundancy can make it harder to maintain a cohesive structure, especially as the volume of tagged content grows.

Despite these challenges, the lack of controlled vocabulary also has advantages. It allows for greater flexibility and inclusivity, as users can create tags that reflect real-world language, regional variations, and evolving trends. This dynamic approach ensures that the system remains adaptive and relevant to diverse audiences. Moreover, the openness encourages user engagement, as contributors are not constrained by predefined terms.

To mitigate the challenges posed by the absence of controlled vocabulary, some platforms integrate algorithmic support and natural language processing (NLP) tools. These technologies can group similar tags, suggest relevant terms, and identify relationships between tags to improve consistency and usability. While the lack of controlled vocabulary introduces complexity, it also enables folksonomy to be more democratic, adaptable, and reflective of user behavior, making it a valuable tool in modern information systems.

Can Folksonomy and Traditional Cataloging Systems Coexist Effectively?

Folksonomy and traditional cataloging systems can coexist effectively by leveraging their respective strengths to create a more comprehensive and user-friendly approach to organizing and retrieving information. Traditional cataloging systems rely on structured hierarchies and controlled vocabularies curated by experts, ensuring consistency, precision, and reliability. In contrast, folksonomy brings flexibility, adaptability, and inclusivity by allowing users to tag content with their own keywords based on real-world language and trends. Together, these systems complement each other, addressing the limitations inherent in each approach.

For example, traditional cataloging systems provide a stable foundation for precise and authoritative classification, which is essential in specialized fields like academic libraries. However, they can be rigid and may not reflect contemporary language or emerging trends. Folksonomy, driven by user contributions, enriches these systems by introducing diverse perspectives and adapting quickly to evolving terminology. Users can add tags that reflect colloquial or modern terms, making content more accessible to a wider audience and enhancing discoverability.

This coexistence is especially valuable in digital platforms where large datasets require both scalability and organization. Technological advancements, such as machine learning and natural language processing, further facilitate the integration of these systems. Algorithms can link user-generated tags to controlled vocabularies, creating a seamless experience that blends the strengths of both. By combining the structure of traditional cataloging with the flexibility of folksonomy, platforms can provide a robust, inclusive, and adaptable system that meets the diverse needs of users while maintaining organizational integrity.

How Can Libraries Incorporate User-Generated Tags into Their Existing Cataloging Systems?

Libraries can incorporate user-generated tags into their existing cataloging systems by creating a hybrid approach that combines the precision of traditional cataloging with the flexibility of folksonomy. This begins with updating Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs) or Integrated Library Systems (ILS) to allow patrons to add descriptive tags to resources such as books, articles, and media. These user-generated tags can be stored as a separate metadata layer alongside controlled vocabularies like MARC or RDA, ensuring that the integrity of traditional cataloging standards remains intact while enhancing discoverability through user-defined language.

To improve the quality and relevance of tags, libraries can provide clear guidelines for tagging, encouraging users to use descriptive and contextually appropriate terms. Visual tools like tag clouds can be employed to display popular or trending tags, aiding in navigation and encouraging user participation. Integrating these tags into the library’s search functionality allows patrons to retrieve resources using terms they find intuitive, complementing the formal classification system and broadening access to materials.

Additionally, libraries can leverage technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) to manage and optimize tags by grouping similar terms, identifying synonyms, and suggesting corrections. Moderation processes, either automated or manual, can help ensure the appropriateness and consistency of tags. Libraries should also actively promote tagging features through user engagement initiatives, such as workshops or online tutorials, to highlight the impact of tags on resource discovery and foster a sense of community contribution.

By integrating user-generated tags thoughtfully and maintaining a balance with traditional cataloging, libraries can create a dynamic, inclusive, and user-friendly system. This approach enhances the discoverability and relevance of library resources and strengthens connections with patrons by making them active participants in the organization of knowledge.

References:

1. Cleveland, A. D., & Cleveland, D. B. (2013). Introduction to Indexing and Abstracting: Fourth Edition. ABC-CLIO.
2. Ashikuzzaman, M., Basak, D. J. R., Hasan, M. N., Akanda, A. K. M. E. A., & Haque, M. A. (2019). Folksonomy Practices in the Academic Libraries in Bangladesh: Present Status, Potentials, and Prospects. In P. D. F. Alam (Ed.), 1st International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (i-IKM) (p. 207). http://iikm.ewubd.edu/
3. Andrews, P., Pane, J., & Zaihrayeu, I. (2010). Where are the Concepts in the Folksonomy Model? [Departmental Technical Report]. University of Trento. http://eprints.biblio.unitn.it/1936/
4. Auray, N. (2007). Folksonomy: The New Way to Serendipity (SSRN Scholarly Paper 1009113). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1009113
5. Balby Marinho, L., Buza, K., & Schmidt-Thieme, L. (2008). Folksonomy-Based Collabulary Learning. In A. Sheth, S. Staab, M. Dean, M. Paolucci, D. Maynard, T. Finin, & K. Thirunarayan (Eds.), The Semantic Web—ISWC 2008 (pp. 261–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_17
6. Damme, C. V., Hepp, M., & Siorpaes, K. (n.d.). FolksOntology: An Integrated Approach for Turning Folksonomies into Ontologies.
7. Hayman, S. (n.d.). FOLKSONOMIES AND TAGGING:
8. Hee Jin, P. (2009). Understanding a folksonomy as a web classification [University of British Columbia]. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0070892
9. Kumari, P., & Pandit, A. A. (2018). A Brief Overview of Folksonomy and its applications. 2018 10th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/CICN.2018.8864955
10. Kumbhar, R. (2012). 8—Modern knowledge organisation systems and interoperability. In R. Kumbhar (Ed.), Library Classification Trends in the 21st Century (pp. 95–113). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-660-9.50008-4
11. Liu, K., Fang, B., & Zhang, W. (2010). Ontology emergence from folksonomies. Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 1109–1118. https://doi.org/10.1145/1871437.1871578
12. Noruzi, A. (n.d.). Editorial Folksonomies: Why do we need controlled vocabulary?
13. Peters, I., & Stock, W. G. (2007). Folksonomy and information retrieval. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450440226
14. Schuler, K., Peterson, C. P., & Vincze, E. (Eds.). (2009). Chapter 1—Trends in Enterprise E-discovery from the Corporate Perspective. In E-discovery: Creating and Managing an Enterprisewide Program (pp. 1–18). Syngress. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-59749-296-6.00001-8
15. Spiteri, L. (2007). Structure and form of folksonomy tags: The road to the public library catalogue. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/105204
16. Titus, N., Subrahmanian, E., & Ramani, K. (2009). Folksonomy and Designing: An Exploration. 821–829. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2007-35139
17. Trant, J. (2009). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1), Article 1. https://jodi-ojs-tdl.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/269