All social input strategies rely on the good-graces of well-intentioned users habituated to provide input over time to succeed… Social strategies will self-correct for this problem over time under the presumption that more users than not will provide “good” information.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of giving a presentation on taxonomy vs. folksonomy in the enterprise to the Deloitte Social Tagging &Taxonomy Community of Practice, thanks to an invitation by fellow taxonomy enthusiasts Annie Wang and Lee Romero.

It was a fun presentation (avariation on this talk) and the audience asked some great questions afterwards. I was only able to answer a couple of questions before time ran out, so Ioffered to answer the rest on my blog. Here are the additional questions &answers:

1. Are there tools for auto-correcting social tags?

I had mentioned the idea that folksonomies are considered to be “self-correcting” or self-tuning – through volume of tags and users, anomalies (like single-use tags, misspellings, etc.)tend to be pushed to the side and the majority will trend towards correct/useful tags.This is an idea that I picked up from awhitepaper on social tagging by Oracle:

Continues @ http://sethearley.wordpress.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• It’s not easy staying on the edge of chaos (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
• Metadata as source of digital anthropology (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
• Folksonomies: Business Use (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
• When Social Software Vendors Start Talking about Architecture, Something Is Changing (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)