[Paleopsych] Clay Shirky: Ontology is Overrated -- Categories, Links, and Tags

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Tue Jun 28 01:09:10 UTC 2005

Clay Shirky: Ontology is Overrated -- Categories, Links, and Tags 

[1]Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet

Economics & Culture, Media & Community

    [2]clay at shirky.com

Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags

    This piece is based on two talks I gave in the spring of 2005 -- one
    at the O'Reilly ETech conference in March, entitled "Ontology Is
    Overrated", and one at the IMCExpo in April entitled "Folksonomies &
    Tags: The rise of user-developed classification." The written version
    is a heavily edited concatenation of those two talks.

    Today I want to talk about categorization, and I want to convince you
    that a lot of what we think we know about categorization is wrong. In
    particular, I want to convince you that many of the ways we're
    attempting to apply categorization to the electronic world are
    actually a bad fit, because we've adopted habits of mind that are left
    over from earlier strategies.

    I also want to convince you that what we're seeing when we see the Web
    is actually a radical break with previous categorization strategies,
    rather than an extension of them. The second part of the talk is more
    speculative, because it is often the case that old systems get broken
    before people know what's going to take their place. (Anyone watching
    the music industry can see this at work today.) That's what I think is
    happening with categorization.

    What I think is coming instead are much more organic ways of
    organizing information than our current categorization schemes allow,
    based on two units -- the link, which can point to anything, and the
    tag, which is a way of attaching labels to links. The strategy of
    tagging -- free-form labeling, without regard to categorical
    constraints -- seems like a recipe for disaster, but as the Web has
    shown us, you can extract a surprising amount of value from big messy
    data sets.

    PART I: Classification and Its Discontents [3]#

    Q: What is Ontology? A: It Depends on What the Meaning of "Is" Is.

    I need to provide some quick definitions, starting with ontology. It
    is a rich irony that the word "ontology", which has to do with making
    clear and explicit statements about entities in a particular domain,
    has so many conflicting definitions. I'll offer two general ones.

    The main thread of ontology in the philosophical sense is the study of
    entities and their relations. The question ontology asks is: What
    kinds of things exist or can exist in the world, and what manner of
    relations can those things have to each other? Ontology is less
    concerned with what is than with what is possible.

    The knowledge management and AI communities have a related definition
    -- they've taken the word "ontology" and applied it more directly to
    their problem. The sense of ontology there is something like "an
    explicit specification of a conceptualization."

    The common thread between the two definitions is essence, "Is-ness."
    In a particular domain, what kinds of things can we say exist in that
    domain, and how can we say those things relate to each other?

    The other pair of terms I need to define are categorization and
    classification. These are the act of organizing a collection of
    entities, whether things or concepts, into related groups. Though
    there are some field-by-field distinctions, the terms are in the main
    used interchangeably.

    And then there's ontological classification or categorization, which
    is organizing a set of entities into groups, based on their essences
    and possible relations. A library catalog, for example, assumes that
    for any new book, its logical place already exists within the system,
    even before the book was published. That strategy of designing
    categories to cover possible cases in advance is what I'm primarily
    concerned with, because it is both widely used and badly overrated in
    terms of its value in the digital world.

    Now, anyone who deals with categorization for a living will tell you
    they can never get a perfect system. In working classification
    systems, success is not "Did we get the ideal arrangement?" but rather
    "How close did we come, and on what measures?" The idea of a perfect
    scheme is simply a Platonic ideal. However, I want to argue that even
    the ontological ideal is a mistake. Even using theoretical perfection
    as a measure of practical success leads to misapplication of

    Now, to the problems of classification.

    Cleaving Nature at the Joints [5]#

    [ The Periodic Table of the Elements ]

    The periodic table of the elements is my vote for "Best.
    Classification. Evar." It turns out that by organizing elements by the
    number of protons in the nucleus, you get all of this fantastic value,
    both descriptive and predictive value. And because what you're doing
    is organizing things, the periodic table is as close to making
    assertions about essence as it is physically possible to get. This is
    a really powerful scheme, almost perfect. Almost.

    All the way over in the right-hand column, the pink column, are noble
    gases. Now noble gas is an odd category, because helium is no more a
    gas than mercury is a liquid. Helium is not fundamentally a gas, it's
    just a gas at most temperatures, but the people studying it at the
    time didn't know that, because they weren't able to make it cold
    enough to see that helium, like everything else, has different states
    of matter. Lacking the right measurements, they assumed that
    gaseousness was an essential aspect -- literally, part of the essence
    -- of those elements.

    Even in a nearly perfect categorization scheme, there are these kinds
    of context errors, where people are placing something that is merely
    true at room temperature, and is absolutely unrelated to essence,
    right in the center of the categorization. And the category 'Noble
    Gas' has stayed there from the day they added it, because we've all
    just gotten used to that anomaly as a frozen accident.

    If it's impossible to create a completely coherent categorization,
    even when you're doing something as physically related to essence as
    chemistry, imagine the problems faced by anyone who's dealing with a
    domain where essence is even less obvious.

    Which brings me to the subject of libraries.

    Of Cards and Catalogs [6]#

    The periodic table gets my vote for the best categorization scheme
    ever, but libraries have the best-known categorization schemes. The
    experience of the library catalog is probably what people know best as
    a high-order categorized view of the world, and those cataloging
    systems contain all kinds of odd mappings between the categories and
    the world they describe.

    Here's the first top-level category in the Soviet library system:

A: Marxism-Leninism
A1: Classic works of Marxism-Leninism
A3: Life and work of C.Marx, F.Engels, V.I.Lenin
A5: Marxism-Leninism Philosophy
A6: Marxist-Leninist Political Economics
A7/8: Scientific Communism

    Some of those categories are starting to look a little bit dated.

    Or, my favorite -- this is the Dewey Decimal System's categorization
    for religions of the world, which is the 200 category.

Dewey, 200: Religion
210 Natural theology
220 Bible
230 Christian theology
240 Christian moral & devotional theology
250 Christian orders & local church
260 Christian social theology
270 Christian church history
280 Christian sects & denominations
290 Other religions

    How much is this not the categorization you want in the 21st century?

    This kind of bias is rife in categorization systems. Here's the
    Library of Congress' categorization of History. These are all the
    top-level categories -- all of these things are presented as being

      D: History (general)
DA: Great Britain
DB: Austria
DC: France
DD: Germany
DE: Mediterranean
DF: Greece
DG: Italy
DH: Low Countries
DJ: Netherlands

DK: Former Soviet Union
DL: Scandinavia
DP: Iberian Peninsula
DQ: Switzerland
DR: Balkan Peninsula
DS: Asia
DT: Africa
DU: Oceania
DX: Gypsies

    I'd like to call your attention to the ones in bold: The Balkan
    Peninsula. Asia. Africa.

    And just, you know, to review the geography:

    [ Spot the difference? ]

    Yet, for all the oddity of placing the Balkan Peninsula and Asia in
    the same level, this is harder to laugh off than the Dewey example,
    because it's so puzzling. The Library of Congress -- no slouches in
    the thinking department, founded by Thomas Jefferson -- has a staff of
    people who do nothing but think about categorization all day long. So
    what's being optimized here? It's not geography. It's not population.
    It's not regional GDP.

    What's being optimized is number of books on the shelf. That's what
    the categorization scheme is categorizing. It's tempting to think that
    the classification schemes that libraries have optimized for in the
    past can be extended in an uncomplicated way into the digital world.
    This badly underestimates, in my view, the degree to which what
    libraries have historically been managing an entirely different

    The musculature of the Library of Congress categorization scheme looks
    like it's about concepts. It is organized into non-overlapping
    categories that get more detailed at lower and lower levels -- any
    concept is supposed to fit in one category and in no other categories.
    But every now and again, the skeleton pokes through, and the skeleton,
    the supporting structure around which the system is really built, is
    designed to minimize seek time on shelves.

    The essence of a book isn't the ideas it contains. The essence of a
    book is "book." Thinking that library catalogs exist to organize
    concepts confuses the container for the thing contained.

    The categorization scheme is a response to physical constraints on
    storage, and to people's inability to keep the location of more than a
    few hundred things in their mind at once. Once you own more than a few
    hundred books, you have to organize them somehow. (My mother, who was
    a reference librarian, said she wanted to reshelve the entire
    University library by color, because students would come in and say
    "I'm looking for a sociology book. It's green...") But however you do
    it, the frailty of human memory and the physical fact of books make
    some sort of organizational scheme a requirement, and hierarchy is a
    good way to manage physical objects.

    The "Balkans/Asia" kind of imbalance is simply a byproduct of physical
    constraints. It isn't the ideas in a book that have to be in one place
    -- a book can be about several things at once. It is the book itself,
    the physical fact of the bound object, that has to be one place, and
    if it's one place, it can't also be in another place. And this in turn
    means that a book has to be declared to be about some main thing. A
    book which is equally about two things breaks the 'be in one place'
    requirement, so each book needs to be declared to about one thing more
    than others, regardless of its actual contents.

    People have been freaking out about the virtuality of data for
    decades, and you'd think we'd have internalized the obvious truth:
    there is no shelf. In the digital world, there is no physical
    constraint that's forcing this kind of organization on us any longer.
    We can do without it, and you'd think we'd have learned that lesson by

    And yet.

    The Parable of the Ontologist, or, "There Is No Shelf" [7]#

    A little over ten years ago, a couple of guys out of Stanford launched
    a service called Yahoo that offered a list of things available on the
    Web. It was the first really significant attempt to bring order to the
    Web. As the Web expanded, the Yahoo list grew into a hierarchy with
    categories. As the Web expanded more they realized that, to maintain
    the value in the directory, they were going to have to systematize, so
    they hired a professional ontologist, and they developed their
    now-familiar top-level categories, which go to subcategories, each
    subcategory contains links to still other subcategories, and so on.
    Now we have this ontologically managed list of what's out there.

    Here we are in one of Yahoo's top-level categories, Entertainment.

    [ Yahoo's Entertainment Category ]

    You can see what the sub-categories of Entertainment are, whether or
    not there are new additions, and how many links roll up under those
    sub-categories. Except, in the case of Books and Literature, that
    sub-category doesn't tell you how many links roll up under it. Books
    and Literature doesn't end with a number of links, but with an "@"
    sign. That "@" sign is telling you that the category of Books and
    Literature isn't 'really' in the category Entertainment. Yahoo is
    saying "We've put this link here for your convenience, but that's only
    to take you to where Books and Literature 'really' are." To which one
    can only respond -- "What's real?"

    Yahoo is saying "We understand better than you how the world is
    organized, because we are trained professionals. So if you mistakenly
    think that Books and Literature are entertainment, we'll put a little
    flag up so we can set you right, but to see those links, you have to
    'go' to where they 'are'." (My fingers are going to fall off from all
    the air quotes.) When you go to Literature -- which is part of
    Humanities, not Entertainment -- you are told, similarly, that
    booksellers are not 'really' there. Because they are a commercial
    service, booksellers are 'really' in Business.

    [ 'Literature' on Yahoo ]

    Look what's happened here. Yahoo, faced with the possibility that they
    could organize things with no physical constraints, added the shelf
    back. They couldn't imagine organization without the constraints of
    the shelf, so they added it back. It is perfectly possible for any
    number of links to be in any number of places in a hierarchy, or in
    many hierarchies, or in no hierarchy at all. But Yahoo decided to
    privilege one way of organizing links over all others, because they
    wanted to make assertions about what is "real."

    The charitable explanation for this is that they thought of this kind
    of a priori organization as their job, and as something their users
    would value. The uncharitable explanation is that they thought there
    was business value in determining the view the user would have to
    adopt to use the system. Both of those explanations may have been true
    at different times and in different measures, but the effect was to
    override the users' sense of where things ought to be, and to insist
    on the Yahoo view instead.

    File Systems and Hierarchy [8]#

    It's easy to see how the Yahoo hierarchy maps to technological
    constraints as well as physical ones. The constraints in the Yahoo
    directory describes both a library categorization scheme and,
    obviously, a file system -- the file system is both a powerful tool
    and a powerful metaphor, and we're all so used to it, it seems

    [ Hierarchy ]

    There's a top level, and subdirectories roll up under that.
    Subdirectories contain files or further subdirectories and so on, all
    the way down. Both librarians and computer scientists hit the same
    next idea, which is "You know, it wouldn't hurt to add a few secondary
    links in here" -- symbolic links, aliases, shortcuts, whatever you
    want to call them.

    [ Plus Links ]

    The Library of Congress has something similar in its second-order
    categorization -- "This book is mainly about the Balkans, but it's
    also about art, or it's mainly about art, but it's also about the
    Balkans." Most hierarchical attempts to subdivide the world use some
    system like this.

    Then, in the early 90s, one of the things that Berners-Lee showed us
    is that you could have a lot of links. You don't have to have just a
    few links, you could have a whole lot of links.

    [ Plus Lots of Links ]

    This is where Yahoo got off the boat. They said, "Get out of here with
    that crazy talk. A URL can only appear in three places. That's the
    Yahoo rule." They did that in part because they didn't want to get
    spammed, since they were doing a commercial directory, so they put an
    upper limit on the number of symbolic links that could go into their
    view of the world. They missed the end of this progression, which is
    that, if you've got enough links, you don't need the hierarchy
    anymore. There is no shelf. There is no file system. The links alone
    are enough.

    [ Just Links (There Is No Filesystem) ]

    One reason Google was adopted so quickly when it came along is that
    Google understood there is no shelf, and that there is no file system.
    Google can decide what goes with what after hearing from the user,
    rather than trying to predict in advance what it is you need to know.

    Let's say I need every Web page with the word "obstreperous" and
    "Minnesota" in it. You can't ask a cataloguer in advance to say "Well,
    that's going to be a useful category, we should encode that in
    advance." Instead, what the cataloguer is going to say is,
    "Obstreperous plus Minnesota! Forget it, we're not going to optimize
    for one-offs like that." Google, on the other hand, says, "Who cares?
    We're not going to tell the user what to do, because the link
    structure is more complex than we can read, except in response to a
    user query."

    Browse versus search is a radical increase in the trust we put in link
    infrastructure, and in the degree of power derived from that link
    structure. Browse says the people making the ontology, the people
    doing the categorization, have the responsibility to organize the
    world in advance. Given this requirement, the views of the catalogers
    necessarily override the user's needs and the user's view of the
    world. If you want something that hasn't been categorized in the way
    you think about it, you're out of luck.

    The search paradigm says the reverse. It says nobody gets to tell you
    in advance what it is you need. Search says that, at the moment that
    you are looking for it, we will do our best to service it based on
    this link structure, because we believe we can build a world where we
    don't need the hierarchy to coexist with the link structure.

    A lot of the conversation that's going on now about categorization
    starts at a second step -- "Since categorization is a good way to
    organize the world, we should..." But the first step is to ask the
    critical question: Is categorization a good idea? We can see, from the
    Yahoo versus Google example, that there are a number of cases where
    you get significant value out of not categorizing. Even Google adopted
    DMOZ, the open source version of the Yahoo directory, and later they
    downgraded its presence on the site, because almost no one was using
    it. When people were offered search and categorization side-by-side,
    fewer and fewer people were using categorization to find things.

    When Does Ontological Classification Work Well? [9]#

    Ontological classification works well in some places, of course. You
    need a card catalog if you are managing a physical library. You need a
    hierarchy to manage a file system. So what you want to know, when
    thinking about how to organize anything, is whether that kind of
    classification is a good strategy.

    Here is a partial list of characteristics that help make it work:

    Domain to be Organized

      * Small corpus
      * Formal categories
      * Stable entities
      * Restricted entities
      * Clear edges

    This is all the domain-specific stuff that you would like to be true
    if you're trying to classify cleanly. The periodic table of the
    elements has all of these things -- there are only a hundred or so
    elements; the categories are simple and derivable; protons don't
    change because of political circumstances; only elements can be
    classified, not molecules; there are no blended elements; and so on.
    The more of those characteristics that are true, the better a fit
    ontology is likely to be.

    The other key question, besides the characteristics of the domain
    itself, is "What are the participants like?" Here are some things
    that, if true, help make ontology a workable classification strategy:

      * Expert catalogers
      * Authoritative source of judgment
      * Coordinated users
      * Expert users

    DSM-IV, the 4th version of the psychiatrists' Diagnostic and
    Statistical Manual, is a classic example of an classification scheme
    that works because of these characteristics. DSM IV allows
    psychiatrists all over the US, in theory, to make the same judgment
    about a mental illness, when presented with the same list of symptoms.
    There is an authoritative source for DSM-IV, the American Psychiatric
    Association. The APA gets to say what symptoms add up to psychosis.
    They have both expert cataloguers and expert users. The amount of
    'people infrastructure' that's hidden in a working system like DSM IV
    is a big part of what makes this sort of categorization work.

    This 'people infrastructure' is very expensive, though. One of the
    problem users have with categories is that when we do head-to-head
    tests -- we describe something and then we ask users to guess how we
    described it -- there's a very poor match. Users have a terrifically
    hard time guessing how something they want will have been categorized
    in advance, unless they have been educated about those categories in
    advance as well, and the bigger the user base, the more work that user
    education is.

    You can also turn that list around. You can say "Here are some
    characteristics where ontological classification doesn't work well":

      * Large corpus
      * No formal categories
      * Unstable entities
      * Unrestricted entities
      * No clear edges

      * Uncoordinated users
      * Amateur users
      * Naive catalogers
      * No Authority

    If you've got a large, ill-defined corpus, if you've got naive users,
    if your cataloguers aren't expert, if there's no one to say
    authoritatively what's going on, then ontology is going to be a bad

    The list of factors making ontology a bad fit is, also, an almost
    perfect description of the Web -- largest corpus, most naive users, no
    global authority, and so on. The more you push in the direction of
    scale, spread, fluidity, flexibility, the harder it becomes to handle
    the expense of starting a cataloguing system and the hassle of
    maintaining it, to say nothing of the amount of force you have to get
    to exert over users to get them to drop their own world view in favor
    of yours.

    The reason we know SUVs are a light truck instead of a car is that the
    Government says they're a light truck. This is voodoo categorization,
    where acting on the model changes the world -- when the Government
    says an SUV is a truck, it is a truck, by definition. Much of the
    appeal of categorization comes from this sort of voodoo, where the
    people doing the categorizing believe, even if only unconciously, that
    naming the world changes it. Unfortunately, most of the world is not
    actually amenable to voodoo categorization.

    The reason we don't know whether or not Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is
    science fiction, for example, is because there's no one who can say
    definitively yes or no. In environments where there's no authority and
    no force that can be applied to the user, it's very difficult to
    support the voodoo style of organization. Merely naming the world
    creates no actual change, either in the world, or in the minds of
    potential users who don't understand the system.

    Mind Reading [10]#

    One of the biggest problems with categorizing things in advance is
    that it forces the categorizers to take on two jobs that have
    historically been quite hard: mind reading, and fortune telling. It
    forces categorizers to guess what their users are thinking, and to
    make predictions about the future.

    The mind-reading aspect shows up in conversations about controlled
    vocabularies. Whenever users are allowed to label or tag things,
    someone always says "Hey, I know! Let's make a thesaurus, so that if
    you tag something 'Mac' and I tag it 'Apple' and somebody else tags it
    'OSX', we all end up looking at the same thing!" They point to the
    signal loss from the fact that users, although they use these three
    different labels, are talking about the same thing.

    The assumption is that we both can and should read people's minds,
    that we can understand what they meant when they used a particular
    label, and, understanding that, we can start to restrict those labels,
    or at least map them easily onto one another.

    This looks relatively simple with the Apple/Mac/OSX example, but when
    we start to expand to other groups of related words, like movies,
    film, and cinema, the case for the thesaurus becomes much less clear.
    I learned this from Brad Fitzgerald's design for LiveJournal, which
    allows user to list their own interests. LiveJournal makes absolutely
    no attempt to enforce solidarity or a thesaurus or a minimal set of
    terms, no check-box, no drop-box, just free-text typing. Some people
    say they're interested in movies. Some people say they're interested
    in film. Some people say they're interested in cinema.

    The cataloguers first reaction to that is, "Oh my god, that means you
    won't be introducing the movies people to the cinema people!" To which
    the obvious answer is "Good. The movie people don't want to hang out
    with the cinema people." Those terms actually encode different things,
    and the assertion that restricting vocabularies improves signal
    assumes that that there's no signal in the difference itself, and no
    value in protecting the user from too many matches.

    When we get to really contested terms like queer/gay/homosexual, by
    this point, all the signal loss is in the collapse, not in the
    expansion. "Oh, the people talking about 'queer politics' and the
    people talking about 'the homosexual agenda', they're really talking
    about the same thing." Oh no they're not. If you think the movies and
    cinema people were going to have a fight, wait til you get the queer
    politics and homosexual agenda people in the same room.

    You can't do it. You can't collapse these categorizations without some
    signal loss. The problem is, because the cataloguers assume their
    classification should have force on the world, they underestimate the
    difficulty of understanding what users are thinking, and they
    overestimate the amount to which users will agree, either with one
    another or with the catalogers, about the best way to categorize. They
    also underestimate the loss from erasing difference of expression, and
    they overestimate loss from the lack of a thesaurus.

    Fortune Telling [11]#

    The other big problem is that predicting the future turns out to be
    hard, and yet any classification system meant to be stable over time
    puts the categorizer in the position of fortune teller.

    Alert readers will be able to spot the difference between Sentence A
    and Sentence B.

A: "I love you."
B: "I will always love you."

    Woe betide the person who utters Sentence B when what they mean is
    Sentence A. Sentence A is a statement. Sentence B is a prediction.

    But this is the ontological dilemma. Consider the following

A: "This is a book about Dresden."
B: "This is a book about Dresden,
  and it goes in the category 'East Germany'."

    That second sentence seems so obvious, but East Germany actually
    turned out to be an unstable category. Cities are real. They are real,
    physical facts. Countries are social fictions. It is much easier for a
    country to disappear than for a city to disappear, so when you're
    saying that the small thing is contained by the large thing, you're
    actually mixing radically different kinds of entities. We pretend that
    'country' refers to a physical area the same way 'city' does, but it's
    not true, as we know from places like the former Yugoslavia.

    There is a top-level category, you may have seen it earlier in the
    Library of Congress scheme, called Former Soviet Union. The best they
    were able to do was just tack "former" onto that entire zone that
    they'd previously categorized as the Soviet Union. Not because that's
    what they thought was true about the world, but because they don't
    have the staff to reshelve all the books. That's the constraint.

    Part II: The Only Group That Can Categorize Everything Is Everybody

    "My God. It's full of links!" [13]#

    When we reexamine categorization without assuming the physical
    constraint either of hierarchy on disk or of hierarchy in the physical
    world, we get very different answers. Let's say you wanted to merge
    two libraries -- mine and the Library of Congress's. (You can tell
    it's the Library of Congress on the right, because they have a few
    more books than I do.)

    [ Two Categorized Collections of Books ]

    So, how do we do this? Do I have to sit down with the Librarian of
    Congress and say, "Well, in my world, Python In A Nutshell is a
    reference work, and I keep all of my books on creativity together." Do
    we have to hash out the difference between my categorization scheme
    and theirs before the Library of Congress is able to take my books?

    No, of course we don't have to do anything of the sort. They're able
    to take my books in while ignoring my categories, because all my books
    have ISBN numbers, International Standard Book Numbers. They're not
    merging at the category level. They're merging at the globally unique
    item level. My entities, my uniquely labeled books, go into Library of
    Congress scheme trivially. The presence of unique labels means that
    merging libraries doesn't require merging categorization schemes.

    [ Merge ISBNs ]

    Now imagine a world where everything can have a unique identifier.
    This should be easy, since that's the world we currently live in --
    the URL gives us a way to create a globally unique ID for anything we
    need to point to. Sometimes the pointers are direct, as when a URL
    points to the contents of a Web page. Sometimes they are indirect, as
    when you use an Amazon link to point to a book. Sometimes there are
    layers of indirection, as when you use a URI, a uniform resource
    identifier, to name something whose location is indeterminate. But the
    basic scheme gives us ways to create a globally unique identifier for

    And once you can do that, anyone can label those pointers, can tag
    those URLs, in ways that make them more valuable, and all without
    requiring top-down organization schemes. And this -- an explosion in
    free-form labeling of links, followed by all sorts of ways of grabbing
    value from those labels -- is what I think is happening now.

    Great Minds Don't Think Alike [14]#

    Here is del.icio.us, Joshua Shachter's social bookmarking service.
    It's for people who are keeping track of their URLs for themselves,
    but who are willing to share globally a view of what they're doing,
    creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a
    personal view for each user.

    [ Front Page of del.icio.us ]

    As you can see here, the characteristics of a del.icio.us entry are a
    link, an optional extended description, and a set of tags, which are
    words or phrases users attach to a link. Each user who adds a link to
    the system can give it a set of tags -- some do, some don't. Attached
    to each link on the home page are the tags, the username of the person
    who added it, the number of other people who have added that same
    link, and the time.

    Tags are simply labels for URLs, selected to help the user in later
    retrieval of those URLs. Tags have the additional effect of grouping
    related URLs together. There is no fixed set of categories or
    officially approved choices. You can use words, acronyms, numbers,
    whatever makes sense to you, without regard for anyone else's needs,
    interests, or requirements.

    The addition of a few simple labels hardly seems so momentous, but the
    surprise here, as so often with the Web, is the surprise of
    simplicity. Tags are important mainly for what they leave out. By
    forgoing formal classification, tags enable a huge amount of
    user-produced organizational value, at vanishingly small cost.

    There's a useful comparison here between gopher and the Web, where
    gopher was better organized, better mapped to existing institutional
    practices, and utterly unfit to work at internet scale. The Web, by
    contrast, was and is a complete mess, with only one brand of pointer,
    the URL, and no mechanism for global organization or resources. The
    Web is mainly notable for two things -- the way it ignored most of the
    theories of hypertext and rich metadata, and how much better it works
    than any of the proposed alternatives. (The Yahoo/Google strategies I
    mentioned earlier also split along those lines.)

    With those changes afoot, here are some of the things that I think are
    coming, as advantages of tagging systems:

      * Market Logic - As we get used to the lack of physical constraints,
        as we internalize the fact that there is no shelf and there is no
        disk, we're moving towards market logic, where you deal with
        individual motivation, but group value.
        As Schachter says of del.icio.us, "Each individual categorization
        scheme is worth less than a professional categorization scheme.
        But there are many, many more of them." If you find a way to make
        it valuable to individuals to tag their stuff, you'll generate a
        lot more data about any given object than if you pay a
        professional to tag it once and only once. And if you can find any
        way to create value from combining myriad amateur classifications
        over time, they will come to be more valuable than professional
        categorization schemes, particularly with regards to robustness
        and cost of creation.
        The other essential value of market logic is that individual
        differences don't have to be homogenized. Look for the word
        'queer' in almost any top-level categorization. You will not find
        it, even though, as an organizing principle for a large group of
        people, that word matters enormously. Users don't get to
        participate those kind of discussions around traditional
        categorization schemes, but with tagging, anyone is free to use
        the words he or she thinks are appropriate, without having to
        agree with anyone else about how something "should" be tagged.
        Market logic allows many distinct points of view to co-exist,
        because it allows individuals to preserve their point of view,
        even in the face of general disagreement.
      * User and Time are Core Attributes - This is absolutely essential.
        The attitude of the Yahoo ontologist and her staff was -- "We are
        Yahoo We do not have biases. This is just how the world is. The
        world is organized into a dozen categories." You don't know who
        those people were, where they came from, what their background
        was, what their political biases might be.
        Here, because you can derive 'this is who this link is was tagged
        by' and 'this is when it was tagged, you can start to do inclusion
        and exclusion around people and time, not just tags. You can start
        to do grouping. You can start to do decay. "Roll up tags from just
        this group of users, I'd like to see what they are talking about"
        or "Give me all tags with this signature, but anything that's more
        than a week old or a year old."
        This is group tagging -- not the entire population, and not just
        me. It's like Unix permissions -- right now we've got tags for
        user and world, and this is the base on which we will be inventing
        group tags. We're going to start to be able to subset our
        categorization schemes. Instead of having massive categorizations
        and then specialty categorization, we're going to have a spectrum
        between them, based on the size and make-up of various tagging
      * Signal Loss from Expression - The signal loss in traditional
        categorization schemes comes from compressing things into a
        restricted number of categories. With tagging, when there is
        signal loss, it comes from people not having any commonality in
        talking about things. The loss is from the multiplicity of points
        of view, rather than from compression around a single point of
        view. But in a world where enough points of view are likely to
        provide some commonality, the aggregate signal loss falls with
        scale in tagging systems, while it grows with scale in systems
        with single points of view.
        The solution to this sort of signal loss is growth. Well-managed,
        well-groomed organizational schemes get worse with scale, both
        because the costs of supporting such schemes at large volumes are
        prohibitive, and, as I noted earlier, scaling over time is also a
        serious problem. Tagging, by contrast, gets better with scale.
        With a multiplicity of points of view the question isn't "Is
        everyone tagging any given link 'correctly'", but rather "Is
        anyone tagging it the way I do?" As long as at least one other
        person tags something they way you would, you'll find it -- using
        a thesaurus to force everyone's tags into tighter synchrony would
        actually worsen the noise you'll get with your signal. If there is
        no shelf, then even imagining that there is one right way to
        organize things is an error.
      * The Filtering is Done Post Hoc - There's an analogy here with
        every journalist who has ever looked at the Web and said "Well, it
        needs an editor." The Web has an editor, it's everybody. In a
        world where publishing is expensive, the act of publishing is also
        a statement of quality -- the filter comes before the publication.
        In a world where publishing is cheap, putting something out there
        says nothing about its quality. It's what happens after it gets
        published that matters. If people don't point to it, other people
        won't read it. But the idea that the filtering is after the
        publishing is incredibly foreign to journalists.
        Similarly, the idea that the categorization is done after things
        are tagged is incredibly foreign to cataloguers. Much of the
        expense of existing catalogue systems is in trying to prevent
        one-off categories. With tagging, what you say is "As long as a
        lot of people are tagging any given link, the rare tags can be
        used or ignored, as the user likes. We won't even have to expend
        the cost to prevent people from using them. We'll just help other
        users ignore them if they want to."
        Again, scale comes to the rescue of the system in a way that would
        simply break traditional cataloging schemes. The existence of an
        odd or unusual tag is a problem if it's the only way a given link
        has been tagged, or if there is no way for a user to avoid that
        tag. Once a link has been tagged more than once, though, users can
        view or ignore the odd tags as it suits them, and the decision
        about which tags to use comes after the links have been tagged,
        not before.
      * Merged from URLs, Not Categories - You don't merge tagging schemes
        at the category level and then see what the contents are. As with
        the 'merging ISBNs' idea, you merge individual contents, because
        we now have URLs as unique handles. You merge from the URLs, and
        then try and derive something about the categorization from there.
        This allows for partial, incomplete, or probabilistic merges that
        are better fits to uncertain environments -- such as the real
        world -- than rigid classification schemes.
      * Merges are Probabilistic, not Binary - Merges create partial
        overlap between tags, rather than defining tags as synonyms.
        Instead of saying that any given tag "is" or "is not" the same as
        another tag, del.icio.us is able to recommend related tags by
        saying "A lot of people who tagged this 'Mac' also tagged it
        'OSX'." We move from a binary choice between saying two tags are
        the same or different to the Venn diagram option of "kind of
        is/somewhat is/sort of is/overlaps to this degree". That is a
        really profound change.

    Tag Distributions on del.icio.us [15]#

    Here's something showing what I mean about the breakdown of binary

    [ Tags per user ]

    This is a chart based on a small sample of links from the del.icio.us
    front page, taken during a 2-hour window. The X axis is the 64 users
    who posted links during that period. The Y axis is the total number of
    discrete kinds of tags that those users have ever used in their
    history on del.icio.us.

    The chart shows a great variability in tagging strategies among the
    various users. The user all the way to the left has an enormous number
    of unique tags, almost 600 of them. Then there's this group of people
    who are not quite power taggers but who tag quite a bit, and of course
    to the right of them there's the characteristic long tail of people
    who use many fewer tags than the power taggers. (Because this is a
    two-hour snapshot, it has a natural bias towards frequent del.icio.us
    users. I'm trying to get a larger data set. My guess is the tail goes
    out quite a bit further than this.) But this is what organization
    looks like when you turn it over to the users -- many different
    strategies, each of which works in its own context, but which can also
    be merged.

      [ A single user's tags ]

    This is a single user's tags. From here, you can tell something about
    this person -- he or she is obviously a Flash programmer -- the
    commonest tag here is Flash, followed by a number of other frequently
    used tags mainly related to programming. Like the front page, this
    distribution has the organic signature. Experts don't catalog this
    way; experts who learn how to catalogue produce much more consistent
    labeling. Here, it's whatever the user thought would help them
    remember the link later.

    You can see there's a tag "to_read". A professional cataloguer would
    look at this tag in horror -- "This is context-dependent and
    temporary." Well, so was the category "East Germany." Once you expand
    your time scale to include the actual life of the categorization
    scheme itself, you recognize that the distinction between temporary
    and permanent is awfully vague. There isn't in fact a binary condition
    of a tag that can or cannot survive any kind of long-term examination.

    [ Different tag 'signatures' for different URLs ]

    Then there's this set of graphs. This is to me in a way the most
    interesting and least well understood part of the del.icio.us right
    now -- these are two different URLs and the tags that a whole group of
    users applied to them. The graph at the bottom left refers to a site
    for downloading old versions of programs that are no longer supported.
    You can see here that there is broad communal consensus. 140 people
    tagged this Software. Then, the next commonest tag, with only 20
    occurrences, is Windows, then Old, then Download, and so forth. For
    this URL, there's a core consensus -- this link is about software --
    and after that one bit of commonality, there is a really sharp, clear
    fall off in tags.

    The graph at the upper right, by contrast, shows the tags for a page
    detailing how to embed standing searches in Gmail. You can see the
    tags -- Gmail, Firefox, Search, Javascript, GreaseMonkey -- this is a
    much smearier distribution, with a much less sharp fall-off. The
    consensus view is that this link is about more kinds of things than
    the software download link is, or, rather, occupies more contexts for
    del.icio.us users than the software download link does.

    Looking at this sort of data, we can start to say, of particular URLs,
    that the users tagging this URL either did or did not center around a
    certain core tags, with this degree of certainty, and, thanks to the
    time stamps, we can even start to understand how the distribution of a
    URLs tags changes over time. It was 5 years between the spread of the
    link and Google's figuring out how to use whole collections of links
    to create additional value. We're early in the use of tags, so we
    don't yet have large, long-lived data sets to look at, but they are
    being built up quickly, and we're just figuring out how to extract
    novel value from whole collections of tags.

    Organization Goes Organic [16]#

    We are moving away from binary categorization -- books either are or
    are not entertainment -- and into this probabilistic world, where N%
    of users think books are entertainment. It may well be that within
    Yahoo, there was a big debate about whether or not books are
    entertainment. But they either had no way of reflecting that debate or
    they decided not to expose it to the users. What instead happened was
    it became an all-or-nothing categorization, "This is entertainment,
    this is not entertainment." We're moving away from that sort of
    absolute declaration, and towards being able to roll up this kind of
    value by observing how people handle it in practice.

    It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy. Does the world
    make sense or do we make sense of the world? If you believe the world
    makes sense, then anyone who tries to make sense of the world
    differently than you is presenting you with a situation that needs to
    be reconciled formally, because if you get it wrong, you're getting it
    wrong about the real world.

    If, on the other hand, you believe that we make sense of the world, if
    we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind
    of sense to the world, then you don't privilege one top level of
    sense-making over the other. What you do instead is you try to find
    ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which
    is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal.
    You do it without a goal of explicitly getting to or even closely
    matching some theoretically perfect view of the world.

    Critically, the semantics here are in the users, not in the system.
    This is not a way to get computers to understand things. When
    del.icio.us is recommending tags to me, the system is not saying, "I
    know that OSX is an operating system. Therefore, I can use predicate
    logic to come up with recommendations -- users run software, software
    runs on operating systems, OSX is a type of operating system -- and
    then say 'Here Mr. User, you may like these links.'"

    What it's doing instead is a lot simpler: "A lot of users tagging
    things foobar are also tagging them frobnitz. I'll tell the user
    foobar and frobnitz are related." It's up to the user to decide
    whether or not that recommendation is useful -- del.icio.us has no
    idea what the tags mean. The tag overlap is in the system, but the tag
    semantics are in the users. This is not a way to inject linguistic
    meaning into the machine.

    It's all dependent on human context. This is what we're starting to
    see with del.icio.us, with Flickr, with systems that are allowing for
    and aggregating tags. The signal benefit of these systems is that they
    don't recreate the structured, hierarchical categorization so often
    forced onto us by our physical systems. Instead, we're dealing with a
    significant break -- by letting users tag URLs and then aggregating
    those tags, we're going to be able to build alternate organizational
    systems, systems that, like the Web itself, do a better job of letting
    individuals create value for one another, often without realizing it.

    Thank you very much.
    Thanks to Alicia Cervini for invaluable editorial help.

[17]Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet

Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source

    [18]clay at shirky.com


    1. http://www.shirky.com/
    2. mailto:clay at shirky.com
    4. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html#what_is_ontology
    6. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html#of_cards_and_catalogs
   10. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html#mind_reading
   11. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html#fortune_telling
   12. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html#the_only_group
   13. http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
   17. http://www.shirky.com/
   18. mailto:clay at shirky.com

More information about the paleopsych mailing list