نخيتكم مانخيت رخوم

[sara1]

السلام عليكم
كيفكم ؟ان شاء الله بخير
بدخل بالموضوع ع طول بصراحه انا مطلوب مني حل أسايمنت في مادة تنظيم المعلومات هو عباره عن شابتر من كتاب( لاتخافون مو طويل ) المهم انو اقراه واكتب اللي انا فهمته اخر موعد للتسليم السبت الساعه 9 مساء
الورطه انو انا ما اعرف اللغه E وترجمته ترجمة قوقل ماطلعت الترجمه مفهومه وحاولت اقراه مافهمت منه شي واللي يسلمكم لاتبخلو علي فرجو همي لو تقرونه وتعطوني اللي فهمتوه مو لازم تكتبون الترجمه (من فرج عن مسلم كربة من كرب الدنيا فرج الله عنه كربة من كرب يوم القيامه )
ماراح انساكم من دعواتي
Who (or What) is Organizing?

In the preceding quote Svenonius identifies three different ways for the “work of organizing information” to be performed: by professional indexers and catalogers, by the populace at large, and by automated (computerized) processes. Because our notion of the Organizing System is broader than the “bibliographic universe,” it is necessary to extend her taxonomy. In particular, we identify authors as a subset of the non-professional user population, and further distinguish users in informal and formal/institutional contexts.

Professional organizers undergo extensive training to learn the concepts, controlled descriptive vocabularies, and standard classifications in the particular domains in which they work. They can create and maintain Organizing Systems with consistent high quality, but “any task that requires an organizing intelligence to engage in research is costly” (Svenonius, 2000, p.27). Expanding the scope of Organizing Systems beyond the “bibliographic universe” expands the class of professional organizers to include the employees of commercial information services like Westlaw and LexisNexis, who add controlled and, often, proprietary metadata to legal and government documents and other news sources. Scientists and scholars with deep expertise in a domain often function as the professional organizers for data collections, scholarly publications and proceedings, and other specialized information resources in their respective disciplines.

Authors are unlikely to be professional organizers, but presumably the author best understands why something was created and the purposes for which it can be used. To the extent that an author wants to help others find the item, they will assign descriptions or classifications that they expect will be useful to those users.

On the other hand, non-author users in the “populace at large” are most often creating organization for their own benefit. Not only are these ordinary users unlikely to use standard
descriptors and classifications, the organization they impose sometimes so closely reflects their own perspective and goals that it isn’t useful or accurate for others. For example, many pictures in Flickr are tagged with “mywife” or “mybaby” or “mytruck” (or “my” concatenated with almost anything), and many web sites in del.icio.us are tagged with “readthis” or “buythis”— highly subjective tags that clearly wouldn’t mean the same thing to other users.

Fortunately most users of these sorts of “Web 2.0” or “community content” applications at least partly recognize that organization emerges from the aggregated contributions of all users, which provides incentive to use less egocentric descriptors and classifications. The staggering number of users and items on the most popular sites inevitably leads to some amount of “tag convergence” simply because of the statistics of large sample sizes. Whether this tag convergence represents “collective intelligence” or merely “crowdsourcing” is a matter for debate, but in either case it doesn’t yield the same organization that would come from professional organizers.

The creation of Organizing Systems from collective contributions of loosely coupled participants in social networks or Web 2.0 applications seems to work best in domains where the economic costs and benefits are small . In contrast, where business efficiency or competitive advantage depends on an Organizing System, more formal processes like those of standards or quasi-standards organizations are typically used to define descriptive vocabularies and other kinds of information models. Even so, for simple information models, the “microformats” movement can be seen as an attempt to supplant formally created Organizing Systems with crowdsourced ones.

Tagging, bookmarking, and rating mechanisms are increasingly being adapted for use inside companies as techniques for knowledge management, a trend named “Enterprise 2.0” to contrast with “Web 2.0” (McAfee, 2009). Because every user is authenticated to their real identities, and organizational norms and incentives restrict and shape the purposes and nature of the descriptions that users provide, these applications seem to capture expertise and interests implicitly and at lower cost than traditional knowledge management applications. Similarly, a class of Organizing Systems targeted for academic researchers, including CiteULike and Connotea, has had some success combining authoritative or professional metadata about books
and publications with user-generated tags. The former metadata is reliable for retrieving the specific item, and the latter is more useful in support of exploratory browsing to find related information.

Automated and computerized processes can create the descriptions and classifications in an Organizing System “on the way in” or “on the way out,” but in both cases, their use is primarily driven by scale. The benefits of digital cameras, videorecorders, and similar devices would be far fewer if people had to manually identify each item when creatign it. Instead, as we discussed earlier in this section, the devices can automatically assign some contextual metadata. Similarly, competitive pressures on vendors to provide real-time and context-sensitive information services mandates automated collection of contextual information like location from mobile phones, portable book readers and tablet computers.

Finally, the vast size of the web and the even greater size of the deep or invisible web— composed of the information stores of business and proprietary information services (He, et al 2007)—makes it impossible to imagine today that it could be organized by anything other than the massive computational power of search engine providers like Google and Microsoft. Nevertheless, in the earliest days of the web, significant human effort was applied to organize it. Most notable is Yahoo!, founded by Jerry Yang and David Filo in 1994 as a directory of favorite web sites. For many years the Yahoo! homepage was the best way to find relevant websites by browsing the extensive system of classification. Today’s Yahoo! homepage emphasizes a search engine that makes it appear more like Google or Microsoft Bing, but the Yahoo directory can still be found if you search for it.

[sara1]

حرام عليكم ولا رد