geni wrote
The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.
Keep in mind, though, that the primary conflict over categorization at Citizendium is that categorization entails editorial authority... being in one category instead of another means an article is the official territory of one discipline rather than another.
On Wikipedia, that's not a category issue (and wouldn't be even if the categorization scheme was more rigid.) I frequently see an analogous situation on Wikipedia when an editor complains about what WikiProject has "claimed" an article and whether that is appropriate. Fortunately, it's a nonissue, since it's the editors of a particular article, rather than a bureaucratic entity, that makes decision about the article; WikiProjects are just convenient collections of editors with similar interests.
-Sage
Sage Ross wrote:
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The problem is that risks going the Citizendium rout and getting major fallings out over which cat things should be in rather than say both.
Yes, I think the WP model has scored here, by allowing a bit of soft pedal when it comes to aspects of the categories that are not quite right. I actually made a public comment about the category system and failure-in-principle (you know, Leibniz, [[universal characteristic]], all that) at the first ever meet-up, in London. Fortunately Jimbo moved swiftly on.
Keep in mind, though, that the primary conflict over categorization at Citizendium is that categorization entails editorial authority... being in one category instead of another means an article is the official territory of one discipline rather than another.
WP had well over 100,000 articles before it instituted categories, and even then only after considerable debate. I'm amazed that Citizendium should have such an argument about categories before it has any significant population of articles. :-)
Ec