Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Bir Akademik Çevrede Uzman ve Deneyimsiz Kullanıcıların Etiketleme Davranışlarının Boyutları

Expert vs. Novices Dimensions of Tagging Behaviour in an Educational Setting

Journal Name:

  • Bilgi Dünyası

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
The organization and representation of information and knowledge have always been exclusively in the domain of professionals and experts. This has begun to change with the development of folksonomies as alternative, user-generated models of organizing information. The aim of this paper is to research the efficiency in tagging and folksonomy. The flexibility of tagging allows users to classify their collections of items in the ways that they find useful, but the personalized variety of terms can present challenges when searching and browsing. In order to determine the efficiency of tagging research evidence about the nature of tagging and tagging behaviour of specific user groups is needed. This paper contributes to research findings in this domain by presenting findings from a study exploring differences in expert and novices tagging. The research was conducted by giving freshman students, with no prior knowledge of tagging or indexing and therefore determined as novices, an article in the social bookmarking service Delicious. Based only on title, subtitle and abstract of the article every student was supposed to assign tags to that article and do the same after reading the whole article. The same procedure was repeated with postgraduate students from the Department of Information Sciences with sufficiently experience and knowledge in tagging and indexing. In this way differences or similarities between tagging by more advanced users and tagging by average / amateur users could be analyzed and compared. The research has surfaced differences in tag numbers and tag distributions. The findings indicate more precision and consistency in tagging of the expert group, indicating that education in tagging could raise the quality of folksonomies on the long term.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bilginin düzenlenmesi ve sunulması özellikle uzmanların ilgi alanını oluşturmuştur. Bu durum, bilginin düzenlenmesinde bir seçenek sunan ve kullanıcı tarafından üretilen modeller olarak görülen folksonomilerin gelişmesiyle değişmeye başlamıştır. Bu çalışmanın amacı etiketleme vefolksonominin etkisini araştırmaktır. Etiketlemenin esnek yapısı, kullanıcılara kendi dermelerindeki bilgi kaynaklarını faydalı buldukları yöntemlerle sınıflandırmalarına olanak sağlamaktadır. Buna rağmen farklı kişiselleştirilmiş kavramlar, arama yaparken ve görüntülerken bazı zorluklara neden olabilmektedir. Etiketlemenin etkililiğini belirleyebilmek için, etiketlemenin doğası ve özel kullanıcı gruplarının etiketleme davranışı hakkında araştırma yapmak gereklidir. Bu araştırma, uzman ve deneyimsiz kullanıcılar arasındaki farkı belirlemeyi amaçlayan bir çalışmadan elde edilen bulguları sunmakta, ilgili alana katkı sağlamaktadır. Araştırma aynı zamanda, etiketleme veya indeksleme hakkında bilgisi olmayan ve “deneyimsiz kullanıcılar” olarak tanımlanan Üniversite 1. sınıf öğrencilerine sosyal işaretleme hizmeti sunan Delicious’da yer alan bir makale verilerek gerçekleştirilmiştir. Her öğrenciden, makalenin sadece başlık, alt başlık ve özünü bilerek onu etiketlemesi ve sonra makalenin tümünü okuyarak bir kez daha aynı işi yapması beklenmiştir. Aynı süreç Bilgi Bilim Bölümünde etiketleme ve indeksleme konusunda yeterli deneyim ve bilgiye sahip olan lisansüstü öğrencilerle tekrarlanmıştır. Deneyimli, orta düzeydeki ve deneyimsiz kullanıcıların etiketleme davranışları arasındaki farklılıklar ve benzerlikler bu yolla analiz edilmiş ve karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırma, etiket numaraları ve etiket dağılımlarındaki farklılıkları ortaya koymaktadır. Uzman grubun etiketleme davranışlarında daha kesin ve daha tutarlı bulgulara rastlanmış, ayrıca uzun dönemde etiketleme eğitiminin folksonomilerin niteliğini artıracağı sonucu elde edilmiştir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-bir-akademik-cevrede-uzman-deneyimsiz-kullanicilarin-etiketleme-davranislarinin-boyutlari.pdf
  • 1
1-16
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Adler, M. (2009). Transcending library catalogs: A comparative study of controlled terms in Library
of Congress Subject Headings and user-generated tags in LibraryThing for transgender books.
Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(4), 309-331.
Dasqupta, D. and Dasqupta, R. (2009). Social network using Web 2.0. Retrieved on September 26,
2011, from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/wssocialcollab/index.
html
Fichter, D. (2006). Intranet applications for tagging and folksonomies. Online, 30(3), 43-45.
Golder, S. A. and Huberman, B. A. (2006). Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal
of Information Science, 32(2), 198-208.
Guy, M. and Tonkin, E. (2006). Tidying up tags? D-Lib Magazine, 12(1). Retrieved on October 27,
2011 from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/Jan.06/guy/01guy.html
Heckner, M., Mühlbacher, S. and Wolff, C. (2008). Tagging tagging: analysing user keywords in
scientific bibliography management systems. Journal of Digital Information, 9(2). Retrieved on
November 14, 2011 from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/246
16
BİLGİ DÜNYASI, 2012, 13 (1) 1-16 Sonja ŠPİRANEC and Mislav BOROVAC
Heckner, M., Neubauer, T. and Wolff, C. (2008). Tree, funny, to_read, google: What are tags supposed
to achieve? A comparative analysis of user keywords for different digital resource types. In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Workshop on Search in Social Media (pp.3-10). New York: ACM.
Kipp, M. E. I. (2005). Complementary or discrete contexts in online indexing: A comparison of user,
creator, and intermediary keywords. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 29(4),
419-436.
Lee, C. S., Goh, D. H., Razikin, K., Chua, A. Y. K. (2009). Tagging, sharing and the influence of personal
experience. Journal of Digital Information, 10(1). Retrieved on February 20, 2012, from http://
journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/275/275
Marlow, C., Naaman, M., Boyd, D. and Davis, M. (2006). HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr,
academic article, to read. U. K. Wiil, P. J. Nürnberg and J. Rubart (Eds.). In HYPERTEXT 2006,
Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, August 22-25, 2006,
Odense, Denmark (pp.31-40). New York, NY: ACM.
Mathes, A. (2004). Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared
metadata. Retrieved on October 27 2011 from http://www.adammathes.com/academic/
computer-mediated-communication/folksonomies.html
Munk, B. T. and Mørk, K. (2007). Folksonomies, tagging communities, and tagging strategies: An
empirical study. Knowledge Organization, 34(3), 115-127.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from http://oreilly.com/
web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Peters, I. (2009). Folksonomies: Indexing and retrieval in Web 2.0. Berlin: De Gruyter Saur.
Pirmann, C. M. (2008). Enhancing subject access to materials in library OPACs: Are folksonomies the
answer?. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from http://courseweb.lis.illinois.edu/~pirmann2/
portfolio/indstudypaperfinal.pdf
Quintarelli, E. (2005). Folksonomies: Power to the people. Retrieved on September 28, 2011, from
http://www.iskoi.org/doc/folksonomies.htm
Rolla, P. J. (2009). User tags versus subject headings: Can user-supplied data improve subject
access to library collections? Library Resources & Technical Services, 53(3), 174-184.
Špiranec, S. and Banek Zorica, M. (2010). Information literacy 2.0: Hype or discourse refinement.
Journal of Documentation, 66(1), 140-153.
Thomas, M., Caudle, D. M. and Schmitz, C. M. (2009). To tag or not to tag? Library Hi Tech, 27(3),
411-434.
Tsai, L. C., Hwang, S. L. and Tang, K. H. (2011). Analysis of keyword-based tagging behaviours of
experts and novices. Online Information Review, 35(2), 272-290.
Vuorikari, R. and Ochoa, X. (2009). Exploratory analysis of the main characteristics of tags and
tagging of educational resources in a multi-lingual context. Journal of Digital Information,
10(2). Retrieved on February 20, 2012, from http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/447
Wetterstrom, M. (2008). The complementarity of tags and LCSH: A tagging experiment and
investigation into added value in a New Zealand Library context. The New Zealand Library &
Information Management Journal, 50(4), 296-310.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com