Group items tagged

The thread that runs through all of this discussion is the most burning question to ask before implementing any folksonomy: What are you willing to do to make it work for your user community? What kind of skills can you and your organization bring to the task? What kinds of hassles and conflicts are you willing to settle? And who in your organization is best suited to oversee such an endeavor? In each of the examples presented here there is a way to contact the ones who run the community, hear complaints, listen to suggestions or provide help to those in need. While there is necessarily a greater (Wikipedia) or lesser (ESPGame) need for supervision, there is nonetheless someone in charge. Who that is for your organization is essential to the success of the community.

In the list which follows, the elements in the NLM Metadata schema are outlined

Professor Nov, an information systems expert, produced a nice data point that seems to be methodologically sound, covering eight different motivations for contributing to Wikipedia.

The intrinsic motivations in the list may add a bit of extra incentive, but the main goal is to get one's point of view heard.

Isn't increased participation and feedback from our "users" -- readers and viewers -- a good thing? Of course it is, but the problem with Web 2.0 is not how it introduces these elements to the media, but how it's seen as replacing traditional media.

catalog and community where users can upload work or select a piece of public domain writing, create reading groups and tag literature.

a web-based format where users can read and discuss the book right inside the text. The Unbound Reader uses "proximity chat," which allows users to discuss the book with other readers close to them in the text (thus focusing discussion, and, as an added benefit, keeping people from hearing about the end). It also has shared annotations, so people can leave a comment on any paragraph and other readers can respond.

I've finally put together a slidecast on how to create a slidecast (very meta). It's short (only 3 min), but it shows off the basics of how to use slideshare to make web multimedia using only a ppt file and an mp3.

It's a 1964 recording of the great librarian S.R. Ranganathan giving a fifteen-minute talk about his connections with Melvil Dewey.

Findability is the quality of an object (be it a physical object, a person, or a bit of data) to be locatable and navigable. While larger than the concept of search on the Internet, nevertheless this talk by Peter Morville from the 2006 O'Reilly Emerging Technology conference deals principally with issues of search over the web.

Web 2.0 Summit program chair John Battelle moderated a public policy discussion with Art Brodsky, the communications director of Public Knowledge, Ebay's Tod Cohen and Amazon.com's Paul Misener.

The gist was that computer scientists have come up with a new way to tackle the massive task of classifying images in large databases by making a game of it.

Built on Semantic Web technologies, hakia is a new "meaning-based" (semantic) search engine with the purpose of improving search relevancy and interactivity -- the potential benefits for end users are search efficiency, richness of information, and saving time.

My colleague Dean Giustini and I have collaborated on an article, The Semantic Web as a large, searchable catalogue: a librarian’s perspective. In it, we argue that librarians will play a prominent role in Web 3.0. The current Web is disjointed and disorganized, and searching is much like looking for a needle in the haystack.

We'll explore these ideas and offer solutions for those struggling with new models of service, technology, and a decidedly opaque climate.

In essence, the Web Communications Department is new, but pulls from resources, people, and ideas rooted deep in The University of Oklahoma's culture. We're not about change for change's sake. We're about transforming the current OU website into an intuitive resource for the entire community.