User:GardenMoth25/Knowledge organization system/Bibliography

You will be compiling your bibliography and creating an outline of the changes you will make in this sandbox.

Bibliography As you gather the sources for your Wikipedia contribution, think about the following: Is the source from a reliable publication? Reliable publications include established newspapers, academic journals and books, textbooks, and other published sources with reputations for accuracy and fact-checking. Unreliable sources include blog posts and other self-published works, press releases, and social media posts. Is the source verifiable? In order for a source to be considered verifiable, other editors should be able to consult the source. Is the source independent of the subject? Is the source connected in any way to the subject? This is especially important when writing biographies or about organizations. For example, if you were writing a biography, sources like the person's webpage or personal blog would not be considered independent. Is the source primary or secondary? Primary sources include first-hand accounts, autobiographies, and other original content. Wikipedia allows limited use of primary sources, but typically only for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, and only if they are published and verifiable without requiring specialized knowledge. Secondary sources should be the main basis for a biography on Wikipedia. If you're working on a topic related to medicine or psychology, ensure that your sources follow these special guidelines. If you're creating a new article, consider the following: Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In order for a topic to meet the notability requirement, you must be able to identify 2-3 sources that are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject you're writing about. Finding sufficient sources to establish notability can be especially hard when writing about people or organizations. Sources that are not independent of the subject might be useful additions, but don't count towards the notability requirement. Wikipedia has developed special guidelines for writing about living persons. Please follow these carefully. Wikipedia has a series of guidelines for writing about different categories of people, such as academics and artists. If you're trying to create a new entry about a living person, please look at these carefully. If you're not sure whether a source is reliable, ask a librarian! If you have questions about Wikipedia's sourcing rules, you can use the Get Help button below to contact your Wikipedia Expert. Get Help

Bibliography

• Mazzocchi, Fulvio. “Knowledge Organization System (KOS): An Introductory Critical Account.” Knowledge Organization 45, no. 1 (2018): 54–78.^[1]
  • An overview of KOS considerations, philosophy, categorization schema.
• Zeng, Marcia Lei. “Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS).” Knowledge Organization 35, no. 2–3 (2008): 160–82.^[2]
  • A categorization scheme for KOS and definitions & examples for each type.
• Souza, Renato Rocha, Douglas Tudhope, and Maurício Barcellos Almeida. “Towards a Taxonomy of KOS: Dimensions for Classifying Knowledge Organization Systems.” Knowledge Organization 39, no. 3 (2012): 179–192.^[3]
  • A more detailed categorization scheme for KOS, and considerations for dimensionality.
• Jacob, Elin “Classification and Categorization: A Difference That Makes a Difference.” Library Trends 52 (2004): 515–540.^[4]
  • Specifying the differences between classification and categorization in the context of KOS.
• “Basic Register of Thesauri, Ontologies & Classifications,” November 2020.^[5]
  • A database of online KOS.
• Hjørland, Birger, and Claudio Gnoli. “ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization.” International Society for Knowledge Organization.^[6]
  • A resource for KOS definitions and exemplary uses.
• Hodge, Gail. Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files. Electronic ed. Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources, 2000.^[7]
  • An outline of and introduction to KOS in the context of digital libraries.
• Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Maayan, and Lala Hajibayova. “A New Framework for Ethical Creation and Evaluation of Multi-Perspective Knowledge Organization Systems.” Journal of Documentation 76, no. 6 (June 23, 2020): 1459–71.^[8]
  • Outlines and explores the ethical considerations within perspective-KOS design, and proposes criteria for their design.

References

1. Mazzocchi, Fulvio (2018-03-06). "Knowledge Organization System (KOS): An Introductory Critical Account". Knowledge Organization. 45 (1): 54–78. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-1-54. ISSN 0943-7444.
2. Zeng, Marcia Lei (2008-09-14). "Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS)". Knowledge Organization. 35 (2–3): 160–182. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2008-2-3-160. ISSN 0943-7444.
3. Souza, Renato Rocha; Tudhope, Douglas; Almeida, and Maurício Barcellos (2012-06-14). "Towards a Taxonomy of KOS: Dimensions for Classifying Knowledge Organization Systems". Knowledge Organization. 39 (3): 179–192. doi:10.5771/0943-7444-2012-3-179. ISSN 0943-7444.
4. Jacob, Elin (2004). "Classification and Categorization: A Difference that Makes a Difference". Library Trends. 52 (3): 515–540.
5. "BARTOC.org". Basic Register of Thesauri, Ontologies & Classifications. Verbundzentrale des GBV. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
6. Hjørland, Birger; Gnoli, Claudio (eds.). "ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization". International Society for Knowledge Organization. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
7. Hodge, Gail (2000). "Systems of Knowledge Organization for Digital Libraries: Beyond Traditional Authority Files". CLIR. ISBN 1887334769. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
8. Zhitomirsky-Geffet, Maayan; Hajibayova, Lala (2020-06-23). "A new framework for ethical creation and evaluation of multi-perspective knowledge organization systems". Journal of Documentation. 76 (6): 1459–1471. doi:10.1108/JD-04-2020-0053. ISSN 0022-0418.

Outline of proposed changes

The "Examples" section should be expanded, reorganized, categorized, and ranked based on KOS classification literature, such as those of Zeng^[1] and Souza et al.^[2]

Images and diagrams can also be added to represent the increasing complexity of different KOS, such as the "semantic staircase" in Zeng^[3] or the spectrum in Mazzocchi.^[3] This is especially helpful when specifying the difference between classification and categorization, as outlined in Jacob.^[4]

A section outlining issues in the scholarly understanding of KOS—such as those examined in Mazzocchi^[3]—can also be added. The epistemological history and considerations of KOS design can be discussed, although in-depth analysis may be best left to the existing epistemology page. Ethical and bias considerations of KOS design—such as those examined in Zhitomirsky-Geffet and Hajibayova^[5]—can be touched upon.

Links to other related topics should also be better-integrated—both within the article itself as well as links to the article. For instance, the "Structures" section of the "Metadata" Wiki article makes no reference to KOS despite listing examples of it.

Now that you have compiled a bibliography, it's time to plan out how you'll improve your assigned article. In this section, write up a concise outline of how the sources you've identified will add relevant information to your chosen article. Be sure to discuss what content gap your additions tackle and how these additions will improve the article's quality. Consider other changes you'll make to the article, including possible deletions of irrelevant, outdated, or incorrect information, restructuring of the article to improve its readability or any other change you plan on making. This is your chance to really think about how your proposed additions will improve your chosen article and to vet your sources even further. Note: This is not a draft. This is an outline/plan where you can think about how the sources you've identified will fill in a content gap. Get Help

1. Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).