>This system keeps the categories
more straightforward, and pretty well avoids the
sort of subtle bias Wikipedia >has >been
caught with here. Defining the precise
intersection of interest is up to the user.
But the corresponding weakness is that it depends on
the editors hitting all the right categories to work
properly (as well as the tool itself, which as heavy
toolserver users know is not always the case).
Someone may categorize in two of three but not the
third (guess which one might get forgotten?)
Compare it to the weaknesses of the current category
system. 98% of editors don't know what they are doing.
Categories and subcategories are applied inconsistently all
the time. Nobody has an overview of the entire tree structure,
or even a major branch of it. Something that is a subcategory
of American novelists today may stop being one tomorrow, just
by dint of a single edit, and no one would be the wiser
(unless they keep hundreds of categories on their watchlist).
The category tree (or weave, as categories can have several
parents) changes daily, with categories created, renamed,
recategorised, and deleted. There are incessant arguments
about how to name, categorise and diffuse categories, and
about perceived iniquities. Wiki-gnomes spend days working and
undoing each other's work. It's insane.
Using a defined set of basic tags in combination with
something like CatScan – ported across to the Foundation
server if you like, and given a friendly front-end with
shortcuts to the most common searches – would do away with
that.