Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization

Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and pub...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Knowledge organization 2015, Vol.42 (5), p.263-268
1. Verfasser: Gross, Tina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 268
container_issue 5
container_start_page 263
container_title Knowledge organization
container_volume 42
creator Gross, Tina
description Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and publishing research that contradicts a popular misguided claim, and then seeing this evidence have little effect on the continued repetition of the claim. In this paper, which is part polemical essay, I attempt to contribute another tool for tackling this problem: a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization. Categorizing and devising names for the major strains of deprecation of knowledge organization, cataloging, and metadata will not defeat those arguments, but identifying and reframing them might strengthen the knowledge organization community's resolve to take them on. Warning: there might be neologisms!
doi_str_mv 10.5771/0943-7444-2015-5-263
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1824286000</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1824286000</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-cbc8633d0782be9c810f04db1c9559b8c347464f047e4f2d9cb96c82fcca79de3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kEtLAzEUhbNQsNT-AxcB19FM3nFXSn1gsSB1HTKZpExtk5pM0frrnbHi3Vzu4XAO9wPgqsI3XMrqFmtGkWSMIYIrjjgigp6B0b98ASalbHA_gkguyAjMX-yujWtoYwNffci_1x2cwpX9SjHtjjAFOO06694LTBE-x_S59c3aw2Ve29h-265N8RKcB7stfvK3x-Dtfr6aPaLF8uFpNl0gRyTrkKudEpQ2WCpSe-1UhQNmTV05zbmulaNMMsF6TXoWSKNdrYVTJDhnpW48HYPrU-4-p4-DL53ZpEOOfaWpFGFEif613sVOLpdTKdkHs8_tzuajqbAZOJkBiBmAmIGT4abnRH8AvQ9cCA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1824286000</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Gross, Tina</creator><creatorcontrib>Gross, Tina</creatorcontrib><description>Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and publishing research that contradicts a popular misguided claim, and then seeing this evidence have little effect on the continued repetition of the claim. In this paper, which is part polemical essay, I attempt to contribute another tool for tackling this problem: a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization. Categorizing and devising names for the major strains of deprecation of knowledge organization, cataloging, and metadata will not defeat those arguments, but identifying and reframing them might strengthen the knowledge organization community's resolve to take them on. Warning: there might be neologisms!</description><identifier>ISSN: 0943-7444</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5771/0943-7444-2015-5-263</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Wuerzburg: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH und Co KG</publisher><subject>Knowledge organization ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>Knowledge organization, 2015, Vol.42 (5), p.263-268</ispartof><rights>Copyright International Society for Knowledge Organization 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,4012,27906,27907,27908</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gross, Tina</creatorcontrib><title>Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization</title><title>Knowledge organization</title><description>Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and publishing research that contradicts a popular misguided claim, and then seeing this evidence have little effect on the continued repetition of the claim. In this paper, which is part polemical essay, I attempt to contribute another tool for tackling this problem: a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization. Categorizing and devising names for the major strains of deprecation of knowledge organization, cataloging, and metadata will not defeat those arguments, but identifying and reframing them might strengthen the knowledge organization community's resolve to take them on. Warning: there might be neologisms!</description><subject>Knowledge organization</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>0943-7444</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kEtLAzEUhbNQsNT-AxcB19FM3nFXSn1gsSB1HTKZpExtk5pM0frrnbHi3Vzu4XAO9wPgqsI3XMrqFmtGkWSMIYIrjjgigp6B0b98ASalbHA_gkguyAjMX-yujWtoYwNffci_1x2cwpX9SjHtjjAFOO06694LTBE-x_S59c3aw2Ve29h-265N8RKcB7stfvK3x-Dtfr6aPaLF8uFpNl0gRyTrkKudEpQ2WCpSe-1UhQNmTV05zbmulaNMMsF6TXoWSKNdrYVTJDhnpW48HYPrU-4-p4-DL53ZpEOOfaWpFGFEif613sVOLpdTKdkHs8_tzuajqbAZOJkBiBmAmIGT4abnRH8AvQ9cCA</recordid><startdate>2015</startdate><enddate>2015</enddate><creator>Gross, Tina</creator><general>Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH und Co KG</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2015</creationdate><title>Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization</title><author>Gross, Tina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c274t-cbc8633d0782be9c810f04db1c9559b8c347464f047e4f2d9cb96c82fcca79de3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Knowledge organization</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gross, Tina</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><jtitle>Knowledge organization</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gross, Tina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization</atitle><jtitle>Knowledge organization</jtitle><date>2015</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>263</spage><epage>268</epage><pages>263-268</pages><issn>0943-7444</issn><abstract>Most knowledge organization practices have opinionated detractors. Some criticisms are informed and serious, but unsubstantiated assertions and fatuous dismissals are so commonplace that practitioners grow weary of the perpetual need to refute them. Many have had the experience of conducting and publishing research that contradicts a popular misguided claim, and then seeing this evidence have little effect on the continued repetition of the claim. In this paper, which is part polemical essay, I attempt to contribute another tool for tackling this problem: a taxonomy of attacks on knowledge organization. Categorizing and devising names for the major strains of deprecation of knowledge organization, cataloging, and metadata will not defeat those arguments, but identifying and reframing them might strengthen the knowledge organization community's resolve to take them on. Warning: there might be neologisms!</abstract><cop>Wuerzburg</cop><pub>Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH und Co KG</pub><doi>10.5771/0943-7444-2015-5-263</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0943-7444
ispartof Knowledge organization, 2015, Vol.42 (5), p.263-268
issn 0943-7444
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1824286000
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Knowledge organization
Taxonomy
title Naming and Reframing: A Taxonomy of Attacks on Knowledge Organization
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T11%3A55%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Naming%20and%20Reframing:%20A%20Taxonomy%20of%20Attacks%20on%20Knowledge%20Organization&rft.jtitle=Knowledge%20organization&rft.au=Gross,%20Tina&rft.date=2015&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=263&rft.epage=268&rft.pages=263-268&rft.issn=0943-7444&rft_id=info:doi/10.5771/0943-7444-2015-5-263&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1824286000%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1824286000&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true