Tagging的分類與知識意涵：以flickr首頁圖片為例

Implications of Tagging on Classification and Knowledge: A Case Study on Flickr's Homepage Photos

10.30386/MCR.200904_(99).0008

吳筱玫(Hsiao-Mei Wu)；周芷伊(Chih-Yi Chou)

Tag ； 大眾分類 ； flickr ； 知識 ； 社群 ； tag ； folksonomy ； flickr ； knowledge ； groups

新聞學研究

99期（2009 / 04 / 01）

265 - 305

繁體中文

Web2.0創造了一個以使用者為中心，多向、由下而上的溝通模式，其中Tagging是由使用者自訂關鍵字的分類方式，它所呈現出的秩序特徵，打破了過去由上層或中心的「專家」決定的權力結構，與傳統的分類學大不相同，但在打破傳統秩序後，Tag 展現出怎樣的分類樣貌？這些分類對知識形塑有何影響？需要進一步釐清。本研究以19張flickr首頁相片為本，試圖對其結構散漫的Tags做系統性歸納。研究結果可以看出，Tagging最少有四種主要型態：(1)與主題相關；(2)以公開分享為目的；(3)以私人收藏為目的；(4)情感性標籤，這顯示Tag的命名是功能式的，以「功能」而非「事物」做為分類基礎。而Tag的訂定標準是多重的，不是簡單的二元對立，因此拉近了正統知識分類與日常生活經驗之間的距離，化解了主體／客體、理性／感性、階層／水平之間的界線，把對能指的玩弄，變成為知識創造的一個元素。

The rise of Web 2.0 stimulates a user-centered, bottom-up, and multiply interactive model of communication. One of its key concepts, tagging, the foundation of folksonomy, encourages users to create keywords with natural thoughts. As a result, traditional taxonomy that symbolizes the top-down, expert-oriented power structure is no longer dominating the order of classification, which has significant impacts on our understanding of knowledge construction. This paper empirically examines 19 photos, 324 tags from the flickr homepages. Four main categories are formulated in such unorganized tagging order: (1) those related to the subjects of photos; (2) those tagged for public sharing; (3) those meant to identify as self-collections, and (4) the affective tags. The findings indicate that tags are better categorized in terms of function rather than taxonomical object. Since rational objects and emotional feelings can both be accommodated for classification, tagging in effect minimizes the distance between normalized knowledge and everyday life experience, dissolving the boundaries of subject and object, rational and sentimental, as well as hierarchical and parallel oppositions. It is expected that the play of signifiers will be a significant role in the production of knowledge in the near future.

1. Derrida, J.(1978).Writing and difference.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
2. Derrida, J.(1976).Of grammatology.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Foucault, M.(1994).The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences.New York:Vintage Books.
4. Giger, P.(2006).Participation literacy: Part I: Constructing the Web 2.0 concept.Sweden:Blekinge Institute of Technology.
5. Golder, S. A.,Huberman, B. A.(2006).Usage parrterns of collaborative tagging systems.Journal of Information Science,32(2),198-208.
6. Tagging tagging.: A classification model for user keywords in scientific bibliography management systems
7. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
8. Lyotard, J-F.(1989).The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
9. Position paper, tagging, taxonomy, flickr, article, toread
10. Computer Mediated Communication-LIS590CMC
11. What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software
12. Facetag: Integrating bottom-up and top-down classification in a social tagging system
13. Smith, G.(2008).Tagging: People-powered metadata for the social web.Berkeley, CA:New Riders.
14. Tapscott, D.,Williams, A. D.(2006).Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything.New York:Portfolio.
15. 發展博物館藏品數位化後設資料(Metadata)需考量的因素與條件
16. 李彬(2003)。符號透視：傳播內容的本體詮釋。上海:復旦大學出版社。
17. 《CEO經關商業評論》精選
18. 楊雅婷(2006)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。世新大學資訊傳播學研究所。
19. 鄭祥福(1995)。李歐塔。台北:生智。
20. 鄭學侖(2007)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學資訊管理研究所。

1. 邱子恒、林佳蓉、吳可久(2014)。兒童視覺化資訊檢索介面知識分類架構之初探。國家圖書館館刊，103(1)，79-100。