A great new video is flying around the Interwebs, by Michael Wesch:
It’s all about tagging now.
The other day, I was asked by a coworker to explain the difference between categories and tags. After trying to explain it for a couple minutes, the u…

muhahaa… all very dramatic

@Brad – why can’t we create synonyms for tags, so we can gather them in useful clusters. Google obviously does this with keywords.. I plan to provide mechanisms for users to do it in my framework (e.g. loreStorm

For example:
http://www.yout...h?v=uVFsxev-2sk

===============================

Now we call it a server.”

Seriously, lol. Aside from a catchy tune and time-maneuvered editing, there’s nothing to see here. Definitely no great insight. Move along folks.

Okay, you are correct. You never said Web 3.0 _is going_ to trigger WW3, you said Web 3.0 _would_ trigger WW3. Very clear difference, thanks for pointing out my mistake and please accept my apology.

!?

Today I discovered this excellent YouTube video via TechCrunch, which is a must-see for information professionals in search of an engaging way to open a discussion about emerging technologies and information management with a non-specialist, non-ent…

Superficial fluff.

Information evolution is a big event happening now. Web 2.0 is not a pure marketing term, and neither will Web 3.0 be. These version numbers represent a line in history. They show that we/b evolve/s.

– Yihong

The the act of categorization and organization is how we understand things and place them in context to see the relationships between a collection of things.

There is no book — but library catalogs only link to objects, and make no distinction about what is in these objects. You can’t go to a library catalog to find a poem, you can only look up collections of poems which may contain that poem.

You can’t look up a quote, or date or fact in a library catalog, because it is only a catalog of objects.

But Google isn’t much better because it has replaced one object, the book, with an other object, the page or file. If the subject of a Web Page is what you are searching for you have a good chance of finding it. If, on the other hand you are looking for information contained in some page like a quote, event, or fact, then Google will be only slightly better at finding it than the library catalog.

Tags are very useful tools, but they do not organize. At best they are mnemonic breadcrumbs which record word associations. They are good at short term knee jerk categorization. But how many times have you gone to tag a page on del.icio.us and seen tags like “toread”. How will tags like this be of any use to anyone but to the person who tagged it, and even for them, when they try to remember what tag they used for that page a year from now, are they going to remember that it was tagged “toread”?

Keyword search and tagging are useful tools, but they certainly aren’t the only tools we need. I’m finding now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find things in my bookmarks in del.icio.us — there are too many tags. If I look for a link in “library” but forget to look in “libraries”, “archive” and “archives” I may not find the bookmark. Tags are flat, and they don’t scale very well.

Subject headings used in libraries and thesauri have solved these problems. A library is not a room full of books because of its catalog system. This makes a library greater than the sum of it’s parts. But the Web is just a cloud of pages and unstructured links. We invoke Google’s secret algorithms to distill meaning from chaos, but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s a hit and miss affair build on popularity. Google is brilliant at finding new content, but the older an item is, the deeper it gets buried in the cloud until there are no more links left to it and it vanishes from our search engines.

We need persistent means of categorizing, indexing and remembering things.
The Web has the attention span of, “a ferret on crystal meth”. Libraries are designed to remember the recorded memory and experience of the human race so that future generations will be able to remember what their parents had forgotten.

We still have a long ways to go…

This guy ought to get a film contract. He’s sort of a non-linear God with the grace to make order from chaos.

Think on this: If my kids young kids were to just spend a day deconstructing this one video (and his prior vid), they would have mental fodder for the rest of their years in formal education.

Kicks-butt. This is what Sunday AM pondering was made for.
Thanks for the breakfast banter, Duncan.

Mark Alan Effinger
http://www.RichContent.com

The smallest unit of meaning is the question and answer. That’s what I see as Web 3.0. It is not a search term, ala Google. Because when I have a question, it is personal, and I don’t want to translate it into a search term.

That’s where I’m going with http://helpglobe.com

The companies that don’t understand how this shift in information is / has occurred, will certainly falter (MSM anyone). We now contribute, create, police, monitor and utilize the information that is out there. There are a significant possibilities that this creates, but there are also huge concerns. Who is policing and monitoring? What are their motivations.

My belief is that you need to ensure that enough people are engaged to simply far outnumber those who would use these new tools in detrimental ways. Wikipedia is obviously an excellent example of that. Most contributors work to provide factual information and closely watch when spammers and others (jokesters, politicians, etc) attempt to manipulate information for their specific purpose.

Great video.

@11….
I didn’t say Web 3.0 “is going” to trigger WW3. I wrote — “It ‘would’ trigger new age wars or Civil wars in countries or World War III”. You said it.

http://www.head...com/archives/28

How can you tell?

Can you believe something written?

Can you believe a picture? Has it been ’shopped?

Can you believe a video?

Can you believe anything?

What is the basis for belief? For trust?

If this is the future, I am scared. For all of us.

If there is a Web3.0, I hope that trust and validation techniques are at its core.