February 20, 2015 by jjackson39
I had four tags to examine on History@work, gentrification, economic development, ethics, and social justice. While it seems at first glance that these tags would inevitably have much in common with one another I was pleased to see that the tags chosen for each article were finely-tuned to each topic and not haphazardly forced on articles where they could technically be used but wouldn’t serve the purpose of finding articles directly associated with the one a reader may currently be on.
When looking at the tags I was given I saw some overlap which at times was slightly confusing, but overall felt that these four tags shouldn’t be consolidated. The ‘economic development’ and ‘social justice’ tags were both included in articles like the one on a historic play about the Great Chicago Fire but these tags turn up largely different enough results to justify them remaining separate.
I incorrectly assumed that the ‘gentrification’ and ‘economic development’ tags would have significant overlap since they seem tangentially related but they actually had no crossover which showed to me the thoughtfulness with which the tags seem to be used. The ‘ethics’ tag seems to be a bit too focused just on the ethics of the history field and the tag doesn’t appear in several articles for other ethical issues such as discriminatory practices associated with gentrification.
There are several different schools of thought when approaching tags, with the most popular seemingly being “throw as many tags as possible and hope they stick”. Thankfully the tags here are more carefully done and instead of obfuscating a particular subject the tags themselves can help guide an interested reader to easily become more informed regarding a particular topic. This approach is greatly appreciated and should be mimicked when possible.