Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Sounds like a job for Knowledge Integrator!
- And I will quote you! You've hit the nail on the head about confidence. Thanks a lot for the boost.
--- 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, 11:37 PM
> Thanks for this reply. I don't think there is such a
> thing as "success" in most taxonomy work there is
> only the possibility of improvement, much of it hard-won.
> What worried me about the reaction to the CMSWatch thing
> was how easily we can be distracted from the very difficult
> challenges we face (and I don't think yours are
> atypical) and how easily we are dismayed by a very distorted
> representation of what we do. We're in a tough,
> demanding, rapidly evolving field. We should in theory be
> used to remaining constant through such misrepresentation
> because we're used to it - though we might be annoyed
> that this comes as a sideswipe from people who should know
> BTW, Theresa Regli (who has a strong background in taxonomy
> work herself, which compounds the misdemeanour in my view)
> was the author of that particular prediction, and has come
> back to defend herself quite robustly on my blog at
> Maybe I'm being more cranky and stuffy than I need to
> be, but I really think we have to be more assertive and
> confident about what we do. Now Taxonomeus might be a step
> in that direction!!
> Patrick Lambe
> weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
> website: www.straitsknowledge.com
> book: www.organisingknowledge.com
> Have you seen our KM Method Cards?
> On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Keipat Patkei wrote:
> > Patrick,
> > 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!
> > Thanks,
> > Keith DeWeese