Group items tagged

- Comment comprendre l’interrelation entre le Web grand public comme étant lui-même un agencement ou un dispositif de support et d’inscription de nos conduites sous forme de données et les phénomènes, objets et catégories qui sont au centre des intérêts actuels de connaissance des SHS, des arts et des Lettres ? (plan ontologique).

d’agencements sociotechniques porteurs de certaines relations de pouvoir dont il s’agirait de mener à bien une reconceptualisation plus critique

La recherche contemporaine s’oriente-t-elle vers un irénisme ultra-empirique ou est-ce plutôt le projet d’une (hyper)démocratisation de la science qui se joue ? (plan épistémique et politique).

Despite these individual contributions (which we will revisit in more detail in Section 2), to fully understand tagging systems we believe a holistic approach is necessary. Walker [24] describes tagging as “feral hypertext”, a structure out of control, where the same tag is assigned to different resources with different semantic senses, and thus associates otherwise unrelated resources. However, by considering the entire model, computer systems could make inferences that “domesticate” (to use Walker’s terms) these “feral” tags. For example, tag semantics and synonyms could potentially be inferred by analyzing the structure of the social network, and identifying certain portions of the network that use certain tags for the same resource, or related resources, interchangeably. These tags may be synonymous

Different designs and user incentives can have a major influence on the usefulness of information for various purposes and applications, and in a reciprocal fashion, on how users appropriate and utilize these systems. The design of the system may solicit tagging useful for discovery, retrieval, remembrance, social interaction, or possibly, all of the above

Other likely explanations for the observed correlation between social connection and common tag usage may be found in the descriptive categories of sociolinguistics which studies how different geographic and social formations structure the coherence and diffusion of semantic and syntactic structures in various ”lects” within a larger sociolinguistic system. Some of these example lects include: dialect (a lect used by a geographicallydefined community); sociolect (a lect used by a socially defined community); ethnolect (a lect spoken by a particular ethnic group); ecolect (a lect spoken within a household or family); and idiolect (a lect particular to a certain person). If we conceptualize social tagging systems within the theoretical frame of sociolinguistics, these and other “lects” seem especially applicable to understanding and classifying the apparent isomorphism between social and linguistic structures we observed in Flickr. The structures, changes, and diffusion within and amongst various “lects” in social tagging systems will likely have similar patterns to those found in social network analyses and in sociolinguistic language maps.