<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. The list</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Wikipedia, other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. as we know it, have
the following in common: they are a list of usually single words (entry words,
items, index words, etc.) associated with longer texts (articles) for which
connection (whether explicit or implicit) the whole collection is sought. The
way the number of items in the list is growing is either by inclusion of a new
item that an author knows enough, or by the inclusion of a new word as a stub
that a curious reader is not knowledgeable enough and wants to know more of.
Each entry word first is found somewhere out there (in the context) and is then
decontextualised, lemmatised, etc.) to be included in that list. If there are
homonyms, the original context of each occurence is partially reconstructed and
marked by disambiguation. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Context,
however, should be considered to introduce additional relevant points (sometimes
the originator for example), and if you go on without exactly specifying the
relations that a given context reflects, you should have a lot more contexts
shown in a structured fasion than normally found in dictionaries and/or in
encyclopedias (compare: categories, senses, semantic web, etc.).</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Given
that wikipedia and its sister projects are word-centered devices you can hardly
<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>go beyond basic grammar terms and
the alphabet used a) to bring an entry word to a common form (noun, single
word), and b) to sort them according to a single („senseless”) criterion that
keeps resulting in an alphabetic index only to rely on in searching. </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. The
text/article</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p><FONT face=Arial
size=2> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><FONT face=Arial size=2>Since on
learning about the world and/or words all of us progress from known items toward
unknown items by establishing various new connections and sorting the input
individually, it may be desirable to include a ring of pointers that a) take you
from scratch (trivia, dictionary entry) to the latest advances connected to an
entry word, b) allow you to check for covering the complete process of acquiring
knowledge in a given subject in succession. And context therefore
should not be dispersed aroud the free-floating text. In other words,
knowledge associated with an item should be graded and presented accordingly.
Using a hypertext structure is fine, but not using <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>other text processing tools such as
concordance (KWIC/KWOC) programs to recreate and/or remodel textual information
is not quite comprehensible with so many computers at hand.</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
size=2> </FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
size=2> apogr</FONT></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><o:p><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></o:p> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Ray Saintonge" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:saintonge@telus.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>saintonge@telus.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 11:45 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Categories considered
harmful</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Jakob wrote:<BR>> <BR>> >Categories considered
harmful<BR>> ><BR>> I generally appreciate your comments, but I would
never go so far as to <BR>> consider this initiative harmful.<BR>>
<BR>> >Since Version 1.3 of MediaWiki we have the nice category function.
In the <BR>> >german wikipedia there is a lot of confusion and struggle on
how to use <BR>> >categories in the right way. As a student of library
science I could tell <BR>> >several methods how to classify, index and
sort things but none of them <BR>> >seems to be applicable easily with the
current implementation of categories.<BR>> ><BR>> The confusion and
struggle that you are experiencing on the german <BR>> Wikipedia is being
faced by all the projects. Each is likely to find <BR>> its own way of
dealing with the issue, and the solutions are likely to <BR>> show
considerable variation. That's fine and very wiki. Some will
<BR>> undoubtedly be discarded at a later stage, as a part of a normal
<BR>> evolutionary process. We need to avoid being overly critical of
those <BR>> who experiment with other possibilities.<BR>> <BR>> I also
believe that effective categorization depends on having a <BR>> properly
functioning internal search function. Hopefully, the day will <BR>>
come when our developpers will be able to get past the constant stresses
<BR>> on the system, and find something that does not depend on Google.
:-)<BR>> <BR>> >As far as I can tell there are three main reasons for
Wikipedia's success:<BR>> ><BR>> >1. It's very easy to contribute
(Wikitax, everybody can edit)<BR>> >2. Every edit is monitored in
watchlists and list of lasts edits<BR>> > so we can control
each other<BR>> >3. There is a clear common mission - to create an
encyclopedia (+NPOV)<BR>> ><BR>> Agreed.<BR>> <BR>> >As far as
I also can see the category-function contradicts all of them:<BR>>
><BR>> To a significant extent, yes.<BR>> <BR>> >1. It's not
easy. <BR>> ><BR>> >It's not easy to know how to do it in the right
way because subject <BR>> >indexing is a complex issue and it's not easy
because of lacks in the <BR>> >implementation (no rename, no redirects, no
assignment of articles to <BR>> >categories without editing every single
the article pages). Editing an <BR>> >article I have to guess which
categories are existing, how they are <BR>> >spelled and the rules what to
classify into them and what not.<BR>> ><BR>> Perhaps it's too
easy. Anybody can propose any new category, including <BR>> misspelled
ones. Doing it without creating chaos is a different thing. <BR>>
It's especially difficult for people who specialize in a particular area
<BR>> of knowledge. To categorize effectively at its top level requires
an <BR>> ability to grasp the "big picture" of the Wikipedia.<BR>>
<BR>> >2. It's not controllable.<BR>> ><BR>> >You cannot watch
a category to get noticed on new articles or when <BR>> >somebody removes
an article from the category. <BR>> ><BR>> Mostly yes. Building
categories is a top-down activity. Categorizing <BR>> articles is a
bottom-up activity. The challenge lies in establishing an <BR>>
interface between these two activities.<BR>> <BR>> >3. There is no
common mission<BR>> ><BR>> >Can anybody tell the purpose of
categories? Finding articles (without <BR>> >a coordinated search
function?!) Browsing in topics (without a clear<BR>> >overview of all
categories?!) Are we trying to index articles with <BR>> >subject heading,
using a thesaurus, a classification or even a structure <BR>> >ontology?
Library science has invented several kind of schemes like that <BR>> >but
at the moment everybody is muddling this and that trying to invent <BR>>
>the already invented wheels of documentation (by the way there are
also<BR>> >methods of automatic indexing, clustering and
classification).<BR>> ><BR>> Whatever the mission of categories it is a
subordinate mission motivated <BR>> by a desire to make the information in
the projects more accessible. <BR>> Categories have no meaning in an
information vacuum.. I would answer <BR>> your questions by saying,
"All of the above, and more."<BR>> <BR>> Library science has indeed
invented numerous schemes. Any such scheme <BR>> designed for general
application is as good as its competitors. Each <BR>> developped
independently to address the priorities of the originating <BR>>
library. Any of them may thus be validly criticized for its nationalist
<BR>> tendencies. Nevertheless, choosing one of them to serve as a
starting <BR>> point need not be a nationalist act. That choice is more
likely to be <BR>> driven by the availability of detailed data, and the
willingness of some <BR>> individual(s) to do the work of adapting that
system to serve wiki purposes.<BR>> <BR>> The muddling and the
re-invention of the wheel implicit in most people's <BR>> approach to
categorization was completely forseeable. I say this <BR>> without
finding fault. It was just one of those miseries that had to be <BR>>
gone through; system convergence comes later. Let's just keep away from
<BR>> automated system until we know what we want. A premature
application of <BR>> automation will only support the muddling.<BR>>
<BR>> >And: In classification there is no NPOV because there is no "right"
way <BR>> >to classify the world but it depends on the special needs and
questions <BR>> >I want to answer with a special system of subject
indexing.<BR>> ><BR>> I agree with what you seem to be saying but I
would not put it in terms <BR>> of NPOV. "Wiki is not paper," is a far
more useful principle. A <BR>> traditional librarian may want to
classify a single copy of a book on <BR>> German libraries, and must decide
whether that book should be shelved <BR>> with books about Germany or books
about libraries. We do not have that <BR>> restriction.<BR>>
<BR>> >Given the reasons I strongly recommend to stop using the categories
and<BR>> >to focus on writing and improving good articles. Many categories
can easily<BR>> >be replaced with normal links between articles. Adding
and removing <BR>> >categories do not change an article's content a bit.
If you want to <BR>> >keep track of all articles in some area use
(Wiki)Projects, article <BR>> >series, portals and learn how to use the
"what links here"-function! <BR>> >A good article is an article that can
be found easily without categories.<BR>> ><BR>> I don't arrive at the
same conclusion about stopping the use of <BR>> categories. The
techniques that you mention are all good and effective, <BR>> and they should
obviously continue to be used. Categories are a way of <BR>> providing
a comprehensive overview. It is easy to see at an appropriate <BR>>
place on an article just how that article has been categorized, or <BR>>
indeed '''if''' it has been categorized. A list system has its uses,
<BR>> but needs to be manually maintained. It is not evident on the
face of <BR>> the article that it has been properly listed. A
non-contributing reader <BR>> may not be aware of the list's existence, or of
the purpose of "What <BR>> links here." Even a contributor is not going
to be inclined to check <BR>> every article to see if it has been properly
listed, but without <BR>> checking he has no way of knowing. This
brings me back to my earlier <BR>> point about categorization of articles
being a bottom-up procedure.<BR>> <BR>> >Indeed classifying wikipedia
articles is very interesting and will <BR>> >become more important, but
this should be an independent project - maybe <BR>> >in a "Classifipedia"
or "Categorypedia" that links to wikipedia articles.<BR>> ><BR>>
No. the categories are meaningless in isolation.<BR>> <BR>> >You
know - librarians normally do not write the books they organize and <BR>>
>search engine experts do not write the websites they crawl, so let's
focus<BR>> >on what we can do the best: creating the most detailed, most
understandable<BR>> >and freest encyclopedia in the history of
mankind!<BR>> > <BR>> ><BR>> Your premise here is the most
important thing that you say. No <BR>> professional librarian would
tolerate an author who goes around <BR>> insisting that his books be
classified in a particular way. The <BR>> authors, the editors and the
classifiers all have their own roles on the <BR>> wiki. All are working
toward the goal that you specify, but not in <BR>> complete
isolation.<BR>> <BR>> Ec<BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Wikipedia-l mailing
list<BR>> </FONT><A href="mailto:Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
</FONT><A href="http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l</FONT></A></BODY></HTML>