Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2823Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Sounds like a job for Knowledge Integrator!

Expand Messages
  • Keipat Patkei
    Jan 12, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      I agree with you 100%, but I can't dismiss the fact, either, that, though we all know politics can kill a taxonomy project, many of them can't succeed without politics, too. Also, I can't ignore the fact that your successes have not necessarily been mine, and that's just the way it is.

      I think the renaming of titles, whether it's to help get on comparable, 21st century payscales with other co-workers or just clarify what we do within the confines of a string of letters that can fit on a conference badge, is a real and constant challenge for many.

      Also, in some environments where marketing and sales are "all," the challenges might be even worse, and these exercises in coming up with new titles speaks to constant attempts of people to defend what they do and know; or appease and placate "stakeholders" who have been over sold on the benefits of taxonomy by not being able to understand it in the first place because they've never directly engaged in it!

      I think it's all about trying to communicate something of what we do during times of intense scrutiny and justification. Some have it better than others, others are just learning, and still others are giving up all based on their individual realms of experience.

      Also, I appreciate the CMS Watch prediction because it's allowed me to rethink and recast it to my benefit, which, as I think I've mentioned, now means to me that the practice of taxonomy isn't dead because CVs aren't going anywhere fast, but the notion that a singular taxonomy or even the which ever ones might be tacked on to CMS systems and sold as meeting all needs just might be. And if that taxonomy that does meet all needs is "out there," please, someone, help me find it because it would make things a whole lot easier at my work place :-)

      BTW, I'm quoting you frequently in a year end, state of the taxonomy report I'm currently writing, even though I no longer know if any amount of review of my last years successes cast against your great thoughts is really going to matter to my stakeholders' fantasy land expectations of what quality results should be or what passes as precise automatic tagging.

      At this point, with IT still not able to "get it" and vocally dismissing it, and "Marketing" thinking it can do it better, and Editors/Producers still thinking they should just tag any old words to content "because the social networkers and folksonomists say we don't need taxonomy"--all this even after countless presentations and demos and successful launches and numbers going up--I'm just not sure what will help--maybe calling myself Taxonomeus, God of Taxonomy is worth a try!


      Keith DeWeese

      --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

      > From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
      > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Sounds like a job for Knowledge Integrator!
      > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 5:21 AM
      > So it's fun thinking up new names for ourselves. But
      > back to whether
      > or not we have any future as "taxonomists" I find
      > it a bit worrying
      > that we supposed masters and mistresses of the science of
      > naming are
      > so easily thrown off our balance about our own name by such
      > a "banal
      > and shallow" prediction from CMS Watch (to quote Nick
      > Berry).
      > I've blogged about this here:
      > http://www.greenchameleon.com/ok/view/what_are_we/
      > We build taxonomies. We sell taxonomies. We manage them.
      > People ask us
      > to help them with their taxonomies. We belong to a
      > community of
      > practice organised for discussing taxonomy work - the word
      > "taxonomy"
      > drew us here. Yes, many of us do other things as well, and
      > we have
      > names for those disciplines and identities alongside the
      > taxonomy
      > identity.
      > And we have pragmatic ways of describing ourselves
      > differently
      > depending on who the audience is and how informed they are
      > likely to
      > be. But I do find it odd we are so insecure even amongst
      > ourselves. Is
      > it really in the nature of taxonomists to be so fickle
      > about names or
      > just our own? Are we so unsuccessful in our current label
      > that we need
      > to find another to struggle under? And would a label change
      > actually
      > remove the challenges we face in what we do?
      > Patrick
      > Patrick Lambe
      > weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
      > website: www.straitsknowledge.com
      > book: www.organisingknowledge.com
      > Have you seen our KM Method Cards?
      > http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic