Talk:Folk taxonomy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Folk taxonomy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tree of Life Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Based in apperance/convergent evolution

Is there any folk taxonomy effectively based in phenotypes, in convergent evolution in regards to morphology? Where eels, worms and snakes would belong together, bats with pteranodons and birds and so on... Tazmanian devils with canines, and so forth... Any knowledge of this? I think it would maek the best example of what folk taxonomy can be... made at face value and all... Herle King 04:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I risk to say... Phenetics do this? I know I'm answering my own question... In a way, but... Am I right? 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some examples: saber-toothed cat and ungulate. --Una Smith (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE OR NOT

Firstly, I'd like to say that suggesting a page is Merged without even providing any reason is dubious behaviour. As the originator of the Folk Taxonomy page, I would like to strongly resist the suggestion that the page be merged with the Folksonomy page.

Folk Taxonomy is a term for a vernacular Taxonomy. Many anthropologists have studied folk taxonomies. Many folk taxonomies are very effective embedded systems of knowledge. There is a reason that the term folk taxonomy exists - it is to differentiate them from scientific taxonomies.

Folksonomies is a recently invented word for something like the mass creation of meta-referents. Folksonomies is a very interesting concept and may turn out to be an important part of our lives and studies. On the other hand, it may not.

Both these terms exist for very clear reasons. Just because they are similar is no reason to merge them. If you want to merge something, you could merge Folk Taxonomy with Taxonomy, though I would be against it. And you _could_ merge Tag with Folksonomy. But a suggestion that we merge Folk Taxonomy with Folksonomy betrays a total misunderstanding of what the terms actually mean.

I disagree with the merge. If anything Folksonomy should be merged into Folk Taxonomy. Folk Taxonomy is a "folk" type of taxonomy. To me this is far more readily understandable than "Folksonomy". Then again I'm not even sure I know what Folksonomies are.. errr... what Folksonomy is. I'd say, if they are the same, merge here, and if they are different somehow don't merge. --Ben 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merge as well. At best, folksonomy is a portmanteau of folk taxonomy, which should be the main article. I suggest we reditect folksonomy here and mention the term on this page as a variant. Jokestress 21:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging either of these articles. Folk taxonomy (aka folk classification) is a branch of anthropological inquiry with a long-established scholarly literature dating back more than a century; folksonomy is a new coinage referring to a form of Web-based meta-tagging. These topics are discrete, though perhaps cursorily related.

Yes, folk taxonomy is a term with a much longer tradition. I disagree with the merge as well. Hirzel 13:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger as well. For better or worse, folksonomy is quite a different thing from folk taxonomy. --Macrakis 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both folksonomy (the social phenomenon) and folk taxonomy (one model of it, a folksonomy as a taxonomy) should be merged into a single article on weak ontology, while strong ontology should redirect to ontology (computer science) and make liberal reference to ontology as formally defined in philosophy.

A tag scheme, a category scheme, a semantic web, a database schema, an entity relationship diagram, a keyword list, all of these are examples of weak ontology. It doesn't become "strong" until someone digs through it and looks for contradictions and mixed metaphors and so on...

The suggestion to merge these two pages is a pretty good example of systemic bias. There is a long tradition of folk taxonomy study within anthropology and linguistics. It focuses on the learned, shared, and transmitted classification systems developed by a culture or subculture. Folksonomy is a trendy neologism that refers specifically to the classification schemes that Internet users create in sites like this. The previous suggestion (that both pages should be merged under weak ontology stems from a much more specific bias: the notion (unnamed, so far as I know, that the entire world should be refactored to conform to the categorization schema generated by analytical philosophy. However, there is nothing wrong with creating a category that organizes pages along those lines; that would be a valuable contribution! Bryan 17:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What most everybody else said: a folksonomy isn't a taxonomy of any kind, let alone a folk taxonomy.

On a separate note: is it correct to say that astrology is a folk taxonomy, or that it uses a folk taxonomy (and similarly for astronomy and taxonomy)? I would say the latter: there is much more to astrology and astronomy than the classification systems embedded in them. --Pzriddle 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"quantitatively informative" unclear

The last phrase of the article that I see:

"...and can tend to refer to generalized rather than quantitatively informative traits in an organism."

Although a layman, I am generally interested in taxonomic issues. I've read a couple of books on the subject, and (for example) I know the difference between Linnaean taxonomy and cladism. Yet I have no idea what "quantitatively informative" is supposed to mean. Something to do with genetics, perhaps? It's probably a jargon term that some scientists would understand, but I suggest a more understandable term or phrase would be better here.

… qualitatively? The user who added it is not around to ask, but it may have an attempt to make a point that leveraged their contributions on topics where science confronts reactionary views (race, creationism, etc.). It seems to skirt the primary reason why authorities, 'scientists[!]', avoid folk taxonomy and present it as a 'generally' unproblematic system. Unless I am missing something, the whole sentence could be removed. cygnis insignis 07:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Folk taxonomy" as synonym for "ethnotaxonomy"?

I raised an issue on Talk:Ethnotaxonomy about "folk taxonomy" as a synonym of "ethnotaxonomy" (with examples), and whether a merge proposal would be in order. If not, it would be helpful for the articles in question to explain what differences justify separate treatment. --A12n (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: WR120

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Paigebodnar, Ghach, Toricooper (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Catiamehring, Cmalves24, Ra04ghav.

— Assignment last updated by Cmalves24 (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]