From: "Ray Saintonge"
<saintonge(a)telus.net>
Yesterday I wrote:
A few hours ago I mildly protested against one of those categorizations. See
[[George Ritzer]], pigeonholed as a "writer".
Interestingly, though, you haven't changed it either.
It's clear from the article that he has been a writer. If you want to
add further categories, do go ahead.
Ec
This is surprisingly inconsistent. What exactly in the [[George Ritzer]]
article makes it clear that he has been a "writer"? As I tried to point out
on the talk page, well of course he has "written" something, but nothing
even remotely comparable to what the other categorized "writers" have
written, namely fiction.
Also, why should I change anything? I may be wrong. What's more, I'm not at
all familiar with those new categorizations, I don't think they have been
properly discussed, so why should I go ahead and contribute to something I'm
not convinced of?
I have no problem agreein that to say that Ritzer is a writer is a
remarkably shallow observation. But for this epistulary fugue I might
never have heard of Ritzer, so I am ill-equipped to participate in his
categorization.
The year-long discussion that preceded was focused on whether there
should be categories at all, and how such an idea might be technically
implemented. The discussion of specific categories was negligible.
Details of the scheme(s) have yet to mature.
Ec