![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
For a proposal to allow Tagging on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats#MediaWiki issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a spelling error in the Hash Tag section. I changed the spelling 'favorite' (incorrect) to 'favourite' (correct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that Facebook should be added to the "popular websites that use tags" section. Not only is facebook a large website, but it's photo tagging feature is the first of it's kind (as far as I know, but I could be wrong.). I propose adding the following entry (please, any input would be appreciated)
DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an odd case since Facebook uses the term "tagging" in a different way from what tagging means in Flickr, Delicious, YouTube, etc. - Facebook's tags are nothing to do with classification, just about identifying the people in pictures. We should probably note it in the article somehow though. Dreamyshade ( talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Who on earth said tags were, first and foremost, for classification ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.112.181 ( talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I just went through and changed most of the article (I'd worked on it offline). I'm wary of making such major changes unilaterally, especially since I'm somewhat biased, so please discuss if I went too far astray on any point. One issue is that I didn't fully address the concerns in the "History" section above — this is tricky and I need to find more decent citations for the history of tagging. Dreamyshade ( talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you can find a March 2002 reference to me using tags at http://web.archive.org/web/20020525043925/http://muxway.org/ (note the link in the tags, eg "obsess" is to /index.cgi?tag=obsess, for example.) While keywords are not new, I believe that tagging is a larger concept than just assigning keywords to things, however - I feel that it also includes the retrieval of the set of used terms/keywords/whatever upon view of the items. Additionally, I am reasonably sure that I named this. JoshuaSchachter ( talk) 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's categorization system is similar to a tagging system, except it also allows hierarchies, in which tags are given tags. This should be mentioned. 71.167.63.236 ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No matter whether those are tags or categories or whatever, we probably don't want to mention Wikipedia in the article; see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Dreamyshade ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Increasingly, tagging systems allow hierarchies and/or create hierarchies - thus in many Web systems the tags have become tied to specific indexes - in fact the hierarchical tagging of Wikipedia is part of what has led to this change. I would advocate removing "non-hierarchical" from the definition of tag -- but didn't want to make the change directly since I know it could be controversial. See for example PubMed's use of XML tagging, or other large-scale info systems (as well as wikipedia itself) for examples of hierarchical tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAHendler ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
That subsection is not much use, since it tells us that Twitter (etc) messages can use hashtags (space in the subsection title; no space in the text: why?) but doesn't explain whether or how they differ from other types of tag. Loganberry ( Talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This text was added to the article today:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Text "Amazines" ignored (
help) The expanded tag field takes the basic premise of tagging beyond just web pages to capture knowledge about
structured and
semi-structured data. It was pioneered by the
Jumper 2.0 platform which collects expanded tags and stores them in a tag profile.
"Jumper Networks Press Release Jumper 2.0 Released under the GPL" (PDF). Jumper Networks, Inc.
26 March
2009. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) The expanded tag fields allow users to input more than keyword knowledge, they can
categorize the data, provide definitions, descriptions,
annotations, add comments and notes to the data, capture the system
metadata,
ontologies and
taxonomies, and much more.It's only cited with two press releases, which is probably not enough to justify putting it in the article. It should have citations in reliable sources to show that it's not just a usage coined by one company. There has also been a lot of wiki activity supporting information about Jumper 2.0 recently (see the histories of Jumper 2.0 and Enterprise bookmarking), and I suspect conflict of interest, but I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Dreamyshade ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've updated a broken link in this section. However, as far as I can tell, none of the links demonstrate the history of triple tags as described in this section - they don't disprove it either, they're just several isolated posts talking about tags of a similar form, making no reference to one another. There's no news-style discussion of "wider acceptance" or the development of the format. It's all primary sources, which is a bit awkward. -- Shimmin Beg ( talk) 09:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be possible to research a better history of tags. Some programming text editors such as Emacs were extended to support tags; these tags were indices into software that could comprise more than one file, originally supporting operations on those tags for navigating to definitions and references of variables. I'm not sure when such early and limited tag facilities were invented; possibly in the early 1970s. David Spector ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, Biogeographist, I think the Emacs use of tagging was indeed an early kind of hyperlinking (that doesn't exclude it from a history of tags, since it was one of the first uses of tags and was called tags). It did not have the facility to click a link embedded in program source text, but it did have the ability to go to the definition or reference of a tag in the source files, and such tags were automatically generated (although the author had to run a special tool to create or update the tag lists).
This early use of tagging was (and probably still is) also available in some program development systems, too (IDEs or PDSs). I believe that hyperlinks are different from both uses of tagging. The two uses of tagging are: first, as summaries of key contents of mail messages, websites, and other data, and second, as automatically-generated lists of definitions and references in editors, IDEs, and WYSIWYG formatted editors like Microsoft Word used to view items like variable names, function names, and index or table of contents entries or referenced document pages, having the functionality of instant source viewing. (The tags facility in Word is called cross-references.) I'm sure that the concise description in this paragraph could be improved and made clearer.
As to finding a reference to this Emacs facility, page http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Tags.html is a good reference because it is authoritative due to being part of the programming manual for Emacs. Reference https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/284927/description-of-the-smart-tags-in-word describes Smart Tags in Word, which are words underlined with dotted lines that could be clicked--these are like automatically generated hyperlinks, not true tags. Reference https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-a-cross-reference-300b208c-e45a-487a-880b-a02767d9774b describes cross-references in Word, which are true tags.
If you agree that some of this information belongs in the history of tagging, please do the editing for me. I'm a bit fragile due to my current cancer treatment. Thanks, David Spector ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your thoughts, specifically that Emacs tags are not "tags" in the sense of keywords that classify data into orthogonal categories. However, in history, that's exactly what the designers of Emacs chose to call their generated and hyperlinked cross-references. And yes, depending on the sophistication and discipline with which humans choose tags, those tags can be used to generate context-free grammars suitable for AI use (for example, to encode expert knowledge). Keep going with your analysis, and then edit the history; I'm certain you will do a great job. David Spector ( talk) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the article on tags assigned to files that was created yesterday by User:Equalhuman should be merged into this article. The bold term in the lead sentence of tags assigned to files is tag, and the lead sentence of that article repeats nearly verbatim the lead sentence of this article. The content of that article is brief enough that it can easily be merged into this article. The only article that links to that article is this article. In summary, I see no good reason why tags assigned to files deserves to be an article separate from this one. Biogeographist ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merger complete. — Merge completed; no objections after more than a week.
Biogeographist (
talk)
11:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not the most informed person on how they have been used that way, since around a year ago I found out that the hashtag #MEGALINKS and others similarly named like it have been used to transmit to child porn download links on Twitter, so should a 'Criminal Use' sub-heading be added to the Advantages and Disadvantages section? - 24/5/21 (UTC-3)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
For a proposal to allow Tagging on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats#MediaWiki issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a spelling error in the Hash Tag section. I changed the spelling 'favorite' (incorrect) to 'favourite' (correct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I think that Facebook should be added to the "popular websites that use tags" section. Not only is facebook a large website, but it's photo tagging feature is the first of it's kind (as far as I know, but I could be wrong.). I propose adding the following entry (please, any input would be appreciated)
DaRkAgE7 [Talk] 06:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an odd case since Facebook uses the term "tagging" in a different way from what tagging means in Flickr, Delicious, YouTube, etc. - Facebook's tags are nothing to do with classification, just about identifying the people in pictures. We should probably note it in the article somehow though. Dreamyshade ( talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Who on earth said tags were, first and foremost, for classification ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.112.181 ( talk) 01:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi everybody! I just went through and changed most of the article (I'd worked on it offline). I'm wary of making such major changes unilaterally, especially since I'm somewhat biased, so please discuss if I went too far astray on any point. One issue is that I didn't fully address the concerns in the "History" section above — this is tricky and I need to find more decent citations for the history of tagging. Dreamyshade ( talk) 07:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, you can find a March 2002 reference to me using tags at http://web.archive.org/web/20020525043925/http://muxway.org/ (note the link in the tags, eg "obsess" is to /index.cgi?tag=obsess, for example.) While keywords are not new, I believe that tagging is a larger concept than just assigning keywords to things, however - I feel that it also includes the retrieval of the set of used terms/keywords/whatever upon view of the items. Additionally, I am reasonably sure that I named this. JoshuaSchachter ( talk) 06:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's categorization system is similar to a tagging system, except it also allows hierarchies, in which tags are given tags. This should be mentioned. 71.167.63.236 ( talk) 15:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No matter whether those are tags or categories or whatever, we probably don't want to mention Wikipedia in the article; see Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Dreamyshade ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Increasingly, tagging systems allow hierarchies and/or create hierarchies - thus in many Web systems the tags have become tied to specific indexes - in fact the hierarchical tagging of Wikipedia is part of what has led to this change. I would advocate removing "non-hierarchical" from the definition of tag -- but didn't want to make the change directly since I know it could be controversial. See for example PubMed's use of XML tagging, or other large-scale info systems (as well as wikipedia itself) for examples of hierarchical tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAHendler ( talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
That subsection is not much use, since it tells us that Twitter (etc) messages can use hashtags (space in the subsection title; no space in the text: why?) but doesn't explain whether or how they differ from other types of tag. Loganberry ( Talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This text was added to the article today:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Text "Amazines" ignored (
help) The expanded tag field takes the basic premise of tagging beyond just web pages to capture knowledge about
structured and
semi-structured data. It was pioneered by the
Jumper 2.0 platform which collects expanded tags and stores them in a tag profile.
"Jumper Networks Press Release Jumper 2.0 Released under the GPL" (PDF). Jumper Networks, Inc.
26 March
2009. {{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) The expanded tag fields allow users to input more than keyword knowledge, they can
categorize the data, provide definitions, descriptions,
annotations, add comments and notes to the data, capture the system
metadata,
ontologies and
taxonomies, and much more.It's only cited with two press releases, which is probably not enough to justify putting it in the article. It should have citations in reliable sources to show that it's not just a usage coined by one company. There has also been a lot of wiki activity supporting information about Jumper 2.0 recently (see the histories of Jumper 2.0 and Enterprise bookmarking), and I suspect conflict of interest, but I haven't been able to figure that out yet. Dreamyshade ( talk) 18:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've updated a broken link in this section. However, as far as I can tell, none of the links demonstrate the history of triple tags as described in this section - they don't disprove it either, they're just several isolated posts talking about tags of a similar form, making no reference to one another. There's no news-style discussion of "wider acceptance" or the development of the format. It's all primary sources, which is a bit awkward. -- Shimmin Beg ( talk) 09:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It might be possible to research a better history of tags. Some programming text editors such as Emacs were extended to support tags; these tags were indices into software that could comprise more than one file, originally supporting operations on those tags for navigating to definitions and references of variables. I'm not sure when such early and limited tag facilities were invented; possibly in the early 1970s. David Spector ( talk) 13:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, Biogeographist, I think the Emacs use of tagging was indeed an early kind of hyperlinking (that doesn't exclude it from a history of tags, since it was one of the first uses of tags and was called tags). It did not have the facility to click a link embedded in program source text, but it did have the ability to go to the definition or reference of a tag in the source files, and such tags were automatically generated (although the author had to run a special tool to create or update the tag lists).
This early use of tagging was (and probably still is) also available in some program development systems, too (IDEs or PDSs). I believe that hyperlinks are different from both uses of tagging. The two uses of tagging are: first, as summaries of key contents of mail messages, websites, and other data, and second, as automatically-generated lists of definitions and references in editors, IDEs, and WYSIWYG formatted editors like Microsoft Word used to view items like variable names, function names, and index or table of contents entries or referenced document pages, having the functionality of instant source viewing. (The tags facility in Word is called cross-references.) I'm sure that the concise description in this paragraph could be improved and made clearer.
As to finding a reference to this Emacs facility, page http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Tags.html is a good reference because it is authoritative due to being part of the programming manual for Emacs. Reference https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/284927/description-of-the-smart-tags-in-word describes Smart Tags in Word, which are words underlined with dotted lines that could be clicked--these are like automatically generated hyperlinks, not true tags. Reference https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Create-a-cross-reference-300b208c-e45a-487a-880b-a02767d9774b describes cross-references in Word, which are true tags.
If you agree that some of this information belongs in the history of tagging, please do the editing for me. I'm a bit fragile due to my current cancer treatment. Thanks, David Spector ( talk) 12:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your thoughts, specifically that Emacs tags are not "tags" in the sense of keywords that classify data into orthogonal categories. However, in history, that's exactly what the designers of Emacs chose to call their generated and hyperlinked cross-references. And yes, depending on the sophistication and discipline with which humans choose tags, those tags can be used to generate context-free grammars suitable for AI use (for example, to encode expert knowledge). Keep going with your analysis, and then edit the history; I'm certain you will do a great job. David Spector ( talk) 15:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I propose that the article on tags assigned to files that was created yesterday by User:Equalhuman should be merged into this article. The bold term in the lead sentence of tags assigned to files is tag, and the lead sentence of that article repeats nearly verbatim the lead sentence of this article. The content of that article is brief enough that it can easily be merged into this article. The only article that links to that article is this article. In summary, I see no good reason why tags assigned to files deserves to be an article separate from this one. Biogeographist ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Merger complete. — Merge completed; no objections after more than a week.
Biogeographist (
talk)
11:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
While I'm not the most informed person on how they have been used that way, since around a year ago I found out that the hashtag #MEGALINKS and others similarly named like it have been used to transmit to child porn download links on Twitter, so should a 'Criminal Use' sub-heading be added to the Advantages and Disadvantages section? - 24/5/21 (UTC-3)