# Zoteronomics
In order to carry out this assignment 3, we’ve chosen to utilize Zotero as our tool of choice. Considering the Greek “taxis” meaning arrangement, and “nomos” meaning law (‘Taxonomy’, 2020), we replaced the arrangement part with Zotero, as the taxonomic method morphed into ‘zoteronomics’ – a different take on the subject of folksonomy. We here take on a definition of folksonomy, as the collective acts of idiosyncratic grass-roots categorization with lowered bars of entry in regards to taxonomic perfection (Pink, 2005). This improvised ad hoc portmanteau portrays the essence of our efforts exhibited throughout this assignment; we don’t see it as exactly taxonomy (lacking elements of scientific rigidity) nor folksonomy (lacking the broader grass-roots element), defining our work within the specific context of the particularities of Zotero.

## Ambitions and decisions
The original task had designated Calibre as the main platform, but we felt that Calibre was standing in our way in different regards. The main argument for leaving Calibre behind was the lack of centralisation, in that if we were not prepared to utilize a third-party serv-er-based version then we would be limited to collaborating in a way where we would all need to synchronize our tagging-efforts in a structured manner in order to avoid doubles and conflicting tagging. This builds on a general ambition to create an approach towards this assignment, of not designating a single member of the group as gatekeeper of the pro-ject as it progresses. By opting for a cloud-based centralised tool, Zotero, we weren’t bound to be physically present in the same room - which would have been considered as highly impractical during a pandemic. This decision also supported a liberal and social approach to the tagging-procedure, as each tag did not need to be critically examined col-lectively before being put in action. This has allowed each member of the group to con-tribute with texts and tags, which were then addressed in plenum when inaccuracies or inconsistencies occurred.

## Disembodied metadata
There are extensive differences in the act of maintaining or creating a “library” when working with Zotero rather than Calibre. First and foremost, Zotero is not fixed on having the material or object, itself - be it a book, an article or the like - although it is possible to a certain extent. A Zotero library is rather made up of arbitrary relational data-structures which is built purely by metadata on metadata, meaning that it does not necessarily function as a library in the classical way of being able to sort-to-find objects, but instead as a system for maintaining references. It has been built upon invariable and fixed standards making up the type of an object, which in turn then has the final say in the relevant metadata or taxonomies applying to that specific type. Novels afford and require a different type of metadata than a journal, which is then treated different than a scientific article. We consider this approach to metadata attached to a prototypical and fixated taxonomy as “disembodied metadata”, as the object represented by the metadata can be interdicted from what is stored in Zotero.

## Hierarchy
The Collection-function remains the only way to express hierarchy in Zotero, which we have used to differentiate between syllabus and non-syllabus material as child-objects to the parent folder entitled “Curating Data Stud. Grup.” (see appendix file “[Zotero Screendump.png](https://curatingdata.broholttrans.dk/resources/Zotero%20screendump.png). Further down in the hierarchy, we discussed whether the most practical solution to further organise the material would be either according to the week in which it was part of the syllabus, or according to the general theme of the given week. The latter allows for greater legibility both for us, in case we cannot remember which week we were introduced to what topic, but also for an outsider who has no knowledge about the texts' relation to the course. Sorting according to week is, however, more practical as our shared experience of attending the course allows us to locate texts quickly from our memory of when it was incorporated in relation to the course as a whole. We ended up opting for sorting by week, with additional tagging of objects ac-cording to the theme of the week.

## Dynamic categorization of knowledge
As Katharina Weinstock (2020) describes types of collections as valid art forms, we in our group responded positively towards the description of our ‘curatorial things’ as “[d]etached from their original functions and subjected to processes of de- and recontextualisation, the status of found objects proves malleable” (Weinstock, 2020, p. 234), as the meaning and significance of our objects would constantly change depending on the constellation in which we were attempting to place it. The interrelations were dynamic and under constant negotiation, as the introduction of every new text would shake up the previously established (at rest) relations, thus requiring even more granular levels of categorization.
The introduction of a third sub-genre of literature, in our case ‘Alternative History’, inevitably dictated an urgency towards the introduction of new tags. But also a re-evaluation of prior tags of previously negotiated texts, as this introduction alone then forced a judge-ment of their relation to the theme which had been introduced into the collection; whether or not the content of said texts could feasibly be considered ‘alternative’ or ‘scientifically factual’ in regards to its historicity. With this introduction alone, the entirety of the collec-tion then needed reframing in the light of facts and history being shaped by politics. When labelling alien-related texts as ‘alternative history’, we indirectly deny its value in main-stream knowledge production. The reality of assessing whether sources are credible is, of course, much more complex and subjective, but the affordances of tagging require a binary differentiation; a tag is either or it is not. Thereby, our efforts of zoteronomics can be said to demonstrate a paradigm of what qualifies as scientific research, illustrating how knowledge is constructed and not objective, but instead subject to politics and socially negotiated.

## The outcome
The final end-product of our efforts can be examined manually and thoroughly through the exported CSV file (see appendix “[Curating Data Stud.Grup..csv](https://curatingdata.broholttrans.dk/resources/Curating%20Data%20Stud.Grup..csv)”), where all tags and all possible metadata are machine- and human-readable. This also stands to show the inevitable inaccuracies of our work as is, and has been included in an effort to portray these efforts of zoteronomics as transparent as possible. By creating what we would in this case term a pseudo-folksonomy through the instantiation of our own portmanteau, zoteronomics, we’ve here experienced first-hand how it inductively expresses the politics and shared values of the tagging-process.

## Bibliography
* Pink, D. H. (2005, December 11). Folksonomy (Published 2005). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/folksonomy.html
* Taxonomy. (2020). In Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/taxonomy
* Weinstock, K. (2020). Rearranging the World: Found Objects and the Collection, Pre- and Post-Internet. In B. von Bismarck & B. Meyer-Krahmer (Eds.), Curatorial Things: Cultures of the Curatorial 4 (pp. 229–253). STERNBER PR.

## Appendix
* Appendix "[Zotero Screendump.png](https://curatingdata.broholttrans.dk/resources/Zotero%20screendump.png)": 
* Appendix “[Curating Data Stud.Grup..csv](https://curatingdata.broholttrans.dk/resources/Curating%20Data%20Stud.Grup..csv)”