Comments on: Do we need participatory information architecture? http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/ / knowledge connects people. Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:43:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Theatons Toys http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-14947 Theatons Toys Wed, 28 May 2008 12:51:19 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/#comment-14947 Enough about web 2.0... when do we move to web 3.0 or do we first go to web 2.2.1 ? The whole idea of web 2.0 and web 1.0 is stupid in my opinion. Enough about web 2.0… when do we move to web 3.0 or do we first go to web 2.2.1 ?

The whole idea of web 2.0 and web 1.0 is stupid in my opinion.

]]> By: Lucas McDonnell http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-5351 Lucas McDonnell Sat, 04 Aug 2007 14:58:12 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/#comment-5351 Naguib -- I think this is the right approach. In my experience, content owners usually know their content better than any taxonomist or vocabulary manager ever could, and putting the control in the hands of the owner makes the most sense. It takes a bit of faith to relinquish some of that central control, but I think it's worth it in the end. Thanks for your comment. Naguib — I think this is the right approach. In my experience, content owners usually know their content better than any taxonomist or vocabulary manager ever could, and putting the control in the hands of the owner makes the most sense. It takes a bit of faith to relinquish some of that central control, but I think it’s worth it in the end. Thanks for your comment.

]]> By: Naguib http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-5284 Naguib Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:34:27 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/#comment-5284 We are planning to allow various site admins to develop their own taxonomy. We only provide them with general guidelines and we have the control over the central repository of our KM system. We are planning to allow various site admins to develop their own taxonomy. We only provide them with general guidelines and we have the control over the central repository of our KM system.

]]> By: Lucas McDonnell http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-5275 Lucas McDonnell Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:14:06 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/#comment-5275 I think this is a very important point Angela. Too often I think the assumption is that we can abandon structuring data and rely solely on user-generated organization of content. While this works for many systems, it doesn't work for all systems. Cataloguing is a great example -- while users'/library patrons' input is very useful in determining what others might want to read, there still needs to be a set of rules that books are organized within. I agree with you that we essentially need to be doing more of both -- structuring content as well as users to add value and organize as they please. I think this is a very important point Angela. Too often I think the assumption is that we can abandon structuring data and rely solely on user-generated organization of content. While this works for many systems, it doesn’t work for all systems. Cataloguing is a great example — while users’/library patrons’ input is very useful in determining what others might want to read, there still needs to be a set of rules that books are organized within.

I agree with you that we essentially need to be doing more of both — structuring content as well as users to add value and organize as they please.

]]> By: Angela Carito-Walmsley http://lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/comment-page-1/#comment-5254 Angela Carito-Walmsley Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:22:58 +0000 http://www.lucasmcdonnell.com/do-we-need-participatory-information-architecture/#comment-5254 O’Reilly does a great job of summarizing some of the “Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies”. He includes “trusting users as co-developers” as one of the competencies of a true Web 2.0 company. I believe the same can be said for building an information architecture and taxonomy. Having spent the better portion of my lifetime as a cataloguer, and now someone who is obsessed with social bookmarking on del.icio.us, I appreciate the value of structured content, while at the same time allowing users to “add value” to that content. For me, it’s not an “either / or” decision, but a meshing of both worlds – building a formal (yet “organic”) taxonomy, while at the same time allowing user-generated tagging to augment and add value to that existing infrastructure. I agree with you – O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 examples don’t supplant those in the first column. They are just some of the tools we can use to “make the web make sense”. (So, yes, we definitely need partipatory information architecture :-) O’Reilly does a great job of summarizing some of the “Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companies”. He includes “trusting users as co-developers” as one of the competencies of a true Web 2.0 company.

I believe the same can be said for building an information architecture and taxonomy. Having spent the better portion of my lifetime as a cataloguer, and now someone who is obsessed with social bookmarking on del.icio.us, I appreciate the value of structured content, while at the same time allowing users to “add value” to that content. For me, it’s not an “either / or” decision, but a meshing of both worlds – building a formal (yet “organic”) taxonomy, while at the same time allowing user-generated tagging to augment and add value to that existing infrastructure.

I agree with you – O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 examples don’t supplant those in the first column. They are just some of the tools we can use to “make the web make sense”. (So, yes, we definitely need partipatory information architecture :-)

]]>