Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
On 29/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Tags for the win!
- d.
On 4/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and
ultimate
destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a
wonderful
research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in
pieces.
Tags for the win!
I still maintain that categories are the best way to organise our content, provided that we have unions and intersections. Tags simply don't provide the necessary hierarchy and structure to make organising content simple and easy; they're excellent for random browsing, but not so much for hunting down specific articles.
Johnleemk
on 4/29/07 10:38 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I still maintain that categories are the best way to organise our content, provided that we have unions and intersections. Tags simply don't provide the necessary hierarchy and structure to make organising content simple and easy; they're excellent for random browsing, but not so much for hunting down specific articles.
I agree with you completely, John. It's just that the present state of the Category system is completely out of control. The existing Policies on Categorization have become more complicated than the U.S. Tax Code; and, those that can be deciphered are being completely ignored. I, for one, am not sure how much more cerebral RAM and emotional energy I want to spend on this.
Marc Riddell
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 10:38 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I still maintain that categories are the best way to organise our
content,
provided that we have unions and intersections. Tags simply don't
provide
the necessary hierarchy and structure to make organising content simple
and
easy; they're excellent for random browsing, but not so much for hunting down specific articles.
I agree with you completely, John. It's just that the present state of the Category system is completely out of control. The existing Policies on Categorization have become more complicated than the U.S. Tax Code; and, those that can be deciphered are being completely ignored. I, for one, am not sure how much more cerebral RAM and emotional energy I want to spend on this.
The status quo is patently unacceptable. The question now is, where can we get the expertise necessary to write the requisite code for intersections and unions, and further, how can we stem these increasingly complex and arcane policies? The latter is simple; as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right. The former is a more difficult problem to solve.
Johnleemk
On 29/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The status quo is patently unacceptable. The question now is, where can we get the expertise necessary to write the requisite code for intersections and unions,
People are actively working on this. (The problem is that MySQL sucks.)
- d.
on 4/29/07 11:14 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right.
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
Marc
On 29/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 11:14 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right.
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
I find this a most seductive prospect.
- d.
On 29/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 11:14 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right.
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
And here we come to the fundamental problem. It's all very well to say we need to redevelop the category system, to say that the system is broken and failing and so on, but in order to do this we need to *decide what categories are*.
We have yet to manage this. Everyone brings their own conceptions to the table; we regularly get complaints about the stupidity and wastefulness of the system, which are fundamentally just "my preferred concept of what this system is is not being used".
We need to sort this out before we go any further - and the problem is that both sides are entirely convinced that theirs is the self-evident only way to work.
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
And here we come to the fundamental problem. It's all very well to say we need to redevelop the category system, to say that the system is broken and failing and so on, but in order to do this we need to *decide what categories are*.
We have yet to manage this. Everyone brings their own conceptions to the table; we regularly get complaints about the stupidity and wastefulness of the system, which are fundamentally just "my preferred concept of what this system is is not being used".
We need to sort this out before we go any further - and the problem is that both sides are entirely convinced that theirs is the self-evident only way to work.
FWIW, I'm unconvinced we do that badly at this. (And I'm actually a recent convert - playing around with Catfishing has made me suspect that the categories are better organized than I'd previously assumed)
Let's look at [[Peter Pan]] (Randomly chosen). 8 categories.
Children's Novels, J.M. Barrie Plays, Peter Pan, British children's literature, fantasy novels - all obvious choices.
Literature protagonists is the only ridiculously broad one, being a category that should contain one article for every piece of narrative literature ever published. It's not useless as such, but it needs a refocus.
Literature featuring anthropomorphic characters, fictional characters who can fly, Kingdom Hearts characters - all three fall into a border zone - they're interesting to some people, could be used well by some people, but are probably a bit esoteric. Their flaw is not that they don't belong, but rather that they're on a threshhold of usefulness that if we took everything from that level of usefulness we'd flood the article.
There are a few categories I'd still love to kill - the birth/death years are the biggest. But most of them serve some purpose.
The problem, as I see it, is primarily implementation - the fact that categories are attributes of articles, and so every category must appear on the article. To my mind, categories are most preferable as replacements for the old "list of X" articles - navigational tools that work well on their own. But instead they're enormously difficult to change, requiring editing of hundreds of articles for a large category.
If categories could be moved to their own, independent existence and if a decent interface for the article side of things could be devised we'd have something that is very close to a useful system.
-Phil
on 4/29/07 4:58 PM, Phil Sandifer at Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I'm unconvinced we do that badly at this. (And I'm actually a recent convert - playing around with Catfishing has made me suspect that the categories are better organized than I'd previously assumed)
(.........)
The problem, as I see it, is primarily implementation - the fact that categories are attributes of articles, and so every category must appear on the article. To my mind, categories are most preferable as replacements for the old "list of X" articles - navigational tools that work well on their own. But instead they're enormously difficult to change, requiring editing of hundreds of articles for a large category.
If categories could be moved to their own, independent existence and if a decent interface for the article side of things could be devised we'd have something that is very close to a useful system.
Your chief complaint with the system appears to be the type and number of Categories that exist. Small wonder! Anyone who can edit can create a new Category!
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
In any case, as I have said many times before, the problems with the Category system in WP cannot be addressed with a goal of fixing it until their is a general agreement that it is, indeed, broken.
Please, I'm trying to swear off this stuff :-)
Marc
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please, I'm trying to swear off this stuff :-)
Marc
Getting involved in categories is not the way.
KP
on 4/29/07 5:33 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Please, I'm trying to swear off this stuff :-)
Marc
Getting involved in categories is not the way.
I'm learning - I'm learning! However, the speed at which I'm learning seems dependent upon my willingness to know :-).
Ain't denial grand?
Marc
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
Much better would be a recursive category view - I'm sure the devs will get there eventually, we just need to give them time. Placing articles in every level of the hierarchy means the top levels are too big to be useful.
on 4/29/07 6:34 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
Much better would be a recursive category view - I'm sure the devs will get there eventually, we just need to give them time. Placing articles in every level of the hierarchy means the top levels are too big to be useful.
Thomas,
I do understand that there is work being done in this area, and I am encouraged - really.
I still believe, however, that the entire Category system in WP has lost focus, direction, purpose - something. And that a serious overall look at it needs to happen soon.
Marc
I still believe, however, that the entire Category system in WP has lost focus, direction, purpose - something. And that a serious overall look at it needs to happen soon.
I'm not convinced there is a non-technical solution, though. What we have at the moment doesn't work, certainly, but is there anything better?
on 4/29/07 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I still believe, however, that the entire Category system in WP has lost focus, direction, purpose - something. And that a serious overall look at it needs to happen soon.
I'm not convinced there is a non-technical solution, though. What we have at the moment doesn't work, certainly, but is there anything better?
To find out, starts with enough people - with loud enough voices - agreeing that the status quo doesn't work.
However, actually taking action here, presents to the post I made a little while ago today about WP process.
In a typical physical environment such as a workplace, an organization or some other similar setting, when a problem is recognized to exist, a process is usually in place to deal with such situations. A group, or team, of persons get together, thrash it out, and come away with suggested alternatives and solutions.
How can such a process be handled in the context of Wikipedia?
Marc
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I still believe, however, that the entire Category system in WP has
lost
focus, direction, purpose - something. And that a serious overall look
at it
needs to happen soon.
I'm not convinced there is a non-technical solution, though. What we have at the moment doesn't work, certainly, but is there anything better?
To find out, starts with enough people - with loud enough voices - agreeing that the status quo doesn't work.
However, actually taking action here, presents to the post I made a little while ago today about WP process.
In a typical physical environment such as a workplace, an organization or some other similar setting, when a problem is recognized to exist, a process is usually in place to deal with such situations. A group, or team, of persons get together, thrash it out, and come away with suggested alternatives and solutions.
How can such a process be handled in the context of Wikipedia?
Marc
One of the problems in this instance, imo, is the complexity of the issue. Just look at this response to my comments:
"Nobody" is a somewhat harsh judgement. Those that do see the problem just give up fighting with those obsessed with their own little corner of categories. The set theory analogy is interesting. *One needs to make the distinction between a set of elements, and a set of subsets which each have one element.
*
Ec
How many people nodded sagely and said, of course, no need to state the obvious to this comment of Ec's? Probably nobody is a little harsh, but having struggled to figure out what they think they're doing versus what they're actually doing with categories on En.Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons, it's very obvious that nobody is not all that harsh, and a few comments about "oh, we're working with sets of subsets, not .of elements," would have gone a long way.
Set theory is deceptively simple and powerful, and the type of organization that people like librarians, and one would hope data base designers (implementation, not coding), do is simply not something that lends itself to inexperienced group think. Not everything Wikipedia is attempting to do, be, and provide, can be had for the efforts of a bunch of volunteers. Having seen it in action, I'm in awe of the type of insight into organization and categorization done by people who organize data for a living.
IMO, as long as we have the mentality that the problem with categories can be solved just like everything else has been solved on Wikipedia categorization will be a failure. This needs a dedicated professional for something this huge, and probably more than one. I don't see anything but wasting time in CfD, categories, and etc., all over Wiki space, until something is put in order with categories.
KP
on 4/29/07 9:00 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Set theory is deceptively simple and powerful, and the type of organization that people like librarians, and one would hope data base designers (implementation, not coding), do is simply not something that lends itself to inexperienced group think. Not everything Wikipedia is attempting to do, be, and provide, can be had for the efforts of a bunch of volunteers. Having seen it in action, I'm in awe of the type of insight into organization and categorization done by people who organize data for a living.
IMO, as long as we have the mentality that the problem with categories can be solved just like everything else has been solved on Wikipedia categorization will be a failure. This needs a dedicated professional for something this huge, and probably more than one. I don't see anything but wasting time in CfD, categories, and etc., all over Wiki space, until something is put in order with categories.
KP,
I love where you seem to be going with this.
A thought, an idea, an hallucination ;-) - call it what you want, but listen up, I am serious about this: What would you say to the possibility of recruiting a number of professional librarians to volunteer to take an objective look at the WP Category system, formulate some ideas and feed back thoughts on how best to change and/or improve it?
I have no idea how many librarians are already presently editing the encyclopedia as registered Users, but perhaps a notice could be placed at the top of the Main Page (or wherever) asking for such volunteers.
Thoughts on this?
Marc
On Apr 29, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
I have no idea how many librarians are already presently editing the encyclopedia as registered Users, but perhaps a notice could be placed at the top of the Main Page (or wherever) asking for such volunteers.
VoilĆ :
[[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians
-- Jossi
on 4/29/07 9:58 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
I have no idea how many librarians are already presently editing the encyclopedia as registered Users, but perhaps a notice could be placed at the top of the Main Page (or wherever) asking for such volunteers.
VoilĆ :
[[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]
Jossi,
Thank you for this, and for your previous posts on this subject. I really have a lot to learn about navigating this Project.
Now all we have to do is knock on their door and see if anyone answers. :-)
Thanks,
Marc
On Apr 29, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
Thank you for this, and for your previous posts on this subject. I really have a lot to learn about navigating this Project.
Now all we have to do is knock on their door and see if anyone answers. :-)
You can also check who links to this userbox:
{{user degree/MLIS}}
MLIS This user has a Master of Library and Information Science degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/ Template:User_degree/MLIS tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/yqrq6m
-- Jossi
On 4/29/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 2007, at 6:54 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
I have no idea how many librarians are already presently editing the encyclopedia as registered Users, but perhaps a notice could be placed at the top of the Main Page (or wherever) asking for such volunteers.
VoilĆ :
[[Category:Wikipedian librarians]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedian_librarians
-- Jossi
Well, that figures. It never ceases to amaze me who I find dwiddling away time on Wikipedia. I have none. What am I doing here?
KP
On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:43 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
How can such a process be handled in the context of Wikipedia?
That is $64,000 question. Just check what happened to a group of well meaning editors that worked for months on [[WP:ATT]].
There is no such process in place, and as we grow, it will become more and more difficult to change the status quo.
-- Jossi
I was not sure the usefulness of categories either, but on the WikipediaWeekly podcast this week (episode not quite yet released) we talk about categories at some length. It was Catgraph that finally brought home the usefulness of categories. Or at the very least, helped me finally visualize what was going on:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/catgraph/
I do encourage you to listen to WikipediaWeekly.com when the episode comes out later this week.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 4/30/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
Much better would be a recursive category view - I'm sure the devs will get there eventually, we just need to give them time. Placing articles in every level of the hierarchy means the top levels are too big to be useful.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/30/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I was not sure the usefulness of categories either, but on the WikipediaWeekly podcast this week (episode not quite yet released) we talk about categories at some length. It was Catgraph that finally brought home the usefulness of categories. Or at the very least, helped me finally visualize what was going on:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/catgraph/
I do encourage you to listen to WikipediaWeekly.com when the episode comes out later this week.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Dude, that things was awesome. It does definitely show the intricate levels of nesting there are in every damn category. I never had any idea that "International Academies" was a super-category of "Sweden" (by five steps, but still!)
--Oskar
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
There are very sensible reasons for this - we can't let the main category grow too crowded to the point that it loses all usefulness, for instance. What we really need are ways to display the unions and intersections of categories, which would allow you to create the same effect on an individual-by-individual basis without disturbing the hierarchical order. David says work is being done on this, and says mySQL is at fault for the slowness of the work; I can't say I find the latter surprising. Hopefully something can be done about this on the software side, because your particular problem can probably be solved without having to go as far as to change the culture of categories.
Having said that, it's clear that there are other problems with the status quo that will require some changes in how our processes work - how we categorise things. But the simplest place to start is on the software side, since it's pretty difficult to navigate categories when you can't have unions and intersections.
Johnleemk
on 4/29/07 11:46 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing Main and Sub Categories in the same article.
There are very sensible reasons for this - we can't let the main category grow too crowded to the point that it loses all usefulness, for instance. What we really need are ways to display the unions and intersections of categories, which would allow you to create the same effect on an individual-by-individual basis without disturbing the hierarchical order. David says work is being done on this, and says mySQL is at fault for the slowness of the work; I can't say I find the latter surprising. Hopefully something can be done about this on the software side, because your particular problem can probably be solved without having to go as far as to change the culture of categories.
Having said that, it's clear that there are other problems with the status quo that will require some changes in how our processes work - how we categorise things. But the simplest place to start is on the software side, since it's pretty difficult to navigate categories when you can't have unions and intersections.
John,
In my work I have access to a database of thousands of case studies of persons who have been formally treated for various psychosocial disorders. The information does not include personal identification materials, just age, gender and other demographics, plus their diagnosis, course of treatment and outcome.
In each record there is a list of identifying codes. If the person's primary diagnosis was chemical dependency, the (main) code for this is entered; if that person's primary chemical of use was cocaine, the (sub) code for this is also entered, etc.
Now, if I want to call up all cases of chemical dependency, I enter its code and I have a list of these cases to study. If I want only those cases where the primary chemical of use was cocaine, I would enter that code. For this to work, BOTH the main and sub codes must be entered in each case.
This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub categories need to be entered into each Article.
As for the countless number of ridiculous Categories that now exist in WP, I believe this needs to be controlled by making it more difficult to create Categories. There is a whole "Categories for Deletion" process that must take place to get rid of a Category, but absolutely none to create one. Huh!?!
I believe there needs to be a major overhaul of the Category System in WP, and who better to do it than professional librarians who work with this stuff all of the time (and actually know what they are doing and why). To this end, I hope some of the WP Users who are professional librarians will come forward to take on this daunting challenge.
Marc
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 11:46 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
My complaint is a little different: Those who would prohibit placing
Main
and Sub Categories in the same article.
There are very sensible reasons for this - we can't let the main
category
grow too crowded to the point that it loses all usefulness, for
instance.
What we really need are ways to display the unions and intersections of categories, which would allow you to create the same effect on an individual-by-individual basis without disturbing the hierarchical
order.
David says work is being done on this, and says mySQL is at fault for
the
slowness of the work; I can't say I find the latter surprising.
Hopefully
something can be done about this on the software side, because your particular problem can probably be solved without having to go as far as
to
change the culture of categories.
Having said that, it's clear that there are other problems with the
status
quo that will require some changes in how our processes work - how we categorise things. But the simplest place to start is on the software
side,
since it's pretty difficult to navigate categories when you can't have unions and intersections.
John,
In my work I have access to a database of thousands of case studies of persons who have been formally treated for various psychosocial disorders. The information does not include personal identification materials, just age, gender and other demographics, plus their diagnosis, course of treatment and outcome.
In each record there is a list of identifying codes. If the person's primary diagnosis was chemical dependency, the (main) code for this is entered; if that person's primary chemical of use was cocaine, the (sub) code for this is also entered, etc.
Now, if I want to call up all cases of chemical dependency, I enter its code and I have a list of these cases to study. If I want only those cases where the primary chemical of use was cocaine, I would enter that code. For this to work, BOTH the main and sub codes must be entered in each case.
This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub categories need to be entered into each Article.
Forgive me, but I don't see how this could not be accomplished with viewing the union of the parent category and relevant subcategory.
Johnleemk
on 4/30/07 9:22 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive me, but I don't see how this could not be accomplished with viewing the union of the parent category and relevant subcategory.
I agree with you John, that part is, most likely, a software problem. Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily repetitive here, but I'm just trying to drive home a point. I'm with you.
At this moment, I'm drafting a message (actually a plea) to the members of the "WikiProject Librarians" to solicit their help. We'll seeĀ
Marc
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In my work I have access to a database of thousands of case studies of persons who have been formally treated for various psychosocial disorders. The information does not include personal identification materials, just age, gender and other demographics, plus their diagnosis, course of treatment and outcome.
In each record there is a list of identifying codes. If the person's primary diagnosis was chemical dependency, the (main) code for this is entered; if that person's primary chemical of use was cocaine, the (sub) code for this is also entered, etc.
Now, if I want to call up all cases of chemical dependency, I enter its code and I have a list of these cases to study. If I want only those cases where the primary chemical of use was cocaine, I would enter that code. For this to work, BOTH the main and sub codes must be entered in each case.
This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub categories need to be entered into each Article.
But this may not be the best way to do things. Consider the following two categories:
Continents> Continents>Europe>England>People from England>Musicians from England>Heavy metal guitarists from the England
If we did as you say, this would place Jimmy Page, the guitarist from Led Zeppelin, in the same category as Africa. Is that useful?
Imagine if I wanted to find all of the musical groups except for folk music groups. In order to do this, I would need some way of performing unions on the subcategories of "Musical groups by genre" (or whatever it is called). If I could do this, there would be no need to place the articles in subcategories and parent categories. So, the only purpose that would really be served by doing this is finding all articles anywhere below a given category in the tree. However, this would be served equally by a union function, which would be useful for other applications as well. Doing as you say would make it impossible to distinguish Jimmy Page from Europe without having the extra union/intersection functionality as well.
The best solution, in my opinion, would be to implement unions and intersections, using which we could do pretty much whatever we wanted. Placing articles in both subcategories and parent categories, though, would be less than useful.
Tracy Poff
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In my work I have access to a database of thousands of case studies of persons who have been formally treated for various psychosocial disorders. The information does not include personal identification materials, just age, gender and other demographics, plus their diagnosis, course of treatment and outcome.
In each record there is a list of identifying codes. If the person's primary diagnosis was chemical dependency, the (main) code for this is entered; if that person's primary chemical of use was cocaine, the (sub) code for this is also entered, etc.
Now, if I want to call up all cases of chemical dependency, I enter its code and I have a list of these cases to study. If I want only those cases where the primary chemical of use was cocaine, I would enter that code. For this to work, BOTH the main and sub codes must be entered in each case.
This is what I am asking for in WP. That is why both the main and sub categories need to be entered into each Article.
on 4/30/07 10:44 AM, Tracy Poff at tracy.poff@gmail.com wrote:
But this may not be the best way to do things. Consider the following two categories:
Continents> Continents>Europe>England>People from England>Musicians from England>Heavy metal guitarists from the England
If we did as you say, this would place Jimmy Page, the guitarist from Led Zeppelin, in the same category as Africa. Is that useful?
Imagine if I wanted to find all of the musical groups except for folk music groups. In order to do this, I would need some way of performing unions on the subcategories of "Musical groups by genre" (or whatever it is called). If I could do this, there would be no need to place the articles in subcategories and parent categories. So, the only purpose that would really be served by doing this is finding all articles anywhere below a given category in the tree. However, this would be served equally by a union function, which would be useful for other applications as well. Doing as you say would make it impossible to distinguish Jimmy Page from Europe without having the extra union/intersection functionality as well.
The best solution, in my opinion, would be to implement unions and intersections, using which we could do pretty much whatever we wanted. Placing articles in both subcategories and parent categories, though, would be less than useful.
Tracy,
Your point is very well made. The difference I see in our searches is that you want to exclude a certain set of data, and mine is geared toward including a certain set of data.
This may very well be a matter of software, which is an area I know absolutely nothing about. My solution of including both main & sub categories in the same Article is based on what I understand about the process - which is about as elementary as it gets. In fact, I am open to any solution that meets the needs I cited above.
Marc
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Tracy,
Your point is very well made. The difference I see in our searches is that you want to exclude a certain set of data, and mine is geared toward including a certain set of data.
From a point of view of sets, inclusion and exclusion are essentially
similar (including all of the continents except Africa is the same as excluding Africa from the set of continents, after all).
This may very well be a matter of software, which is an area I know absolutely nothing about. My solution of including both main & sub categories in the same Article is based on what I understand about the process - which is about as elementary as it gets. In fact, I am open to any solution that meets the needs I cited above.
I think that it would be best served by a change of software. Your solution would serve your purpose at the cost of mine, while a change in software to support unions/intersections would serve both of us. However, I don't know PHP (which I believe is what the mediawiki is written in), so I am unfortunately unable to do anything about it.
Of course, I am open to other solutions as well--I'm just hesitant to implement any solutions which reduce existing functionality, as yours would do. 'First, do no harm' is also important here, I think.
Tracy Poff
on 4/30/07 12:19 PM, Tracy Poff at tracy.poff@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Tracy,
Your point is very well made. The difference I see in our searches is that you want to exclude a certain set of data, and mine is geared toward including a certain set of data.
From a point of view of sets, inclusion and exclusion are essentially similar (including all of the continents except Africa is the same as excluding Africa from the set of continents, after all).
This may very well be a matter of software, which is an area I know absolutely nothing about. My solution of including both main & sub categories in the same Article is based on what I understand about the process - which is about as elementary as it gets. In fact, I am open to any solution that meets the needs I cited above.
I think that it would be best served by a change of software. Your solution would serve your purpose at the cost of mine, while a change in software to support unions/intersections would serve both of us. However, I don't know PHP (which I believe is what the mediawiki is written in), so I am unfortunately unable to do anything about it.
Of course, I am open to other solutions as well--I'm just hesitant to implement any solutions which reduce existing functionality, as yours would do. 'First, do no harm' is also important here, I think.
Tracy,
Thanks for all of this. I am encouraged by some mutterings from others that some software changes are being considered. How high a priority they are being given is another issue. I've learned a lot here.
Marc
On 30/04/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
What we really need are ways to display the unions and intersections of categories, which would allow you to create the same effect on an individual-by-individual basis without disturbing the hierarchical order. David says work is being done on this, and says mySQL is at fault for the slowness of the work; I can't say I find the latter surprising. Hopefully something can be done about this on the software side, because your particular problem can probably be solved without having to go as far as to change the culture of categories.
I should note: I know this only from reading wikitech-l. I don't do coding at all myself.
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
And here we come to the fundamental problem. It's all very well to say we need to redevelop the category system, to say that the system is broken and failing and so on, but in order to do this we need to *decide what categories are*.
We have yet to manage this. Everyone brings their own conceptions to the table; we regularly get complaints about the stupidity and wastefulness of the system, which are fundamentally just "my preferred concept of what this system is is not being used".
We need to sort this out before we go any further - and the problem is that both sides are entirely convinced that theirs is the self-evident only way to work.
That's well said.
Another way to tackle this might to ask a different question. "What are categories," seems better suited for a philosophy seminar. We might get more useful answers if we ask, "What can people use categories to do?"
With a list like that, we can figure out which uses we'd like to support, and from there I'd expect the argument over which system to use would be much easier.
William
on 4/29/07 11:14 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right.
On 29/04/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
on 4/29/07 4:35 PM, Andrew Gray at shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
And here we come to the fundamental problem. It's all very well to say we need to redevelop the category system, to say that the system is broken and failing and so on, but in order to do this we need to *decide what categories are*.
Absolutely!
We have yet to manage this. Everyone brings their own conceptions to the table; we regularly get complaints about the stupidity and wastefulness of the system, which are fundamentally just "my preferred concept of what this system is is not being used".
We need to sort this out before we go any further - and the problem is that both sides are entirely convinced that theirs is the self-evident only way to work.
I agree completely. My question is this: How is this sort of thing done in Wikipedia? What is the process? When something (a major, fundamental system of doing something, e.g.) that already exists in the encyclopedia is found to be problematic, or just plain isn't working well; what process do you go through to correct it, or to devise an alternative system?
I'm learning,
Marc Riddell
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 11:14 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right.
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
Marc
Why do people always suggest the most drastic solutions first? If the problem is the policy being too complex than altering it should be a start. Write an alternative and campaign to have the existing one replaced. Policies are going to be complex, English Wikipedia is just too large to be simple. I want to know what specifically is wrong with the current policies.
Mgm
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank
the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
Marc
on 4/30/07 5:34 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why do people always suggest the most drastic solutions first?
C'mon, I've been flailing about this for months now (It's already driven me into rehab once :-). The history of these threads should show that the above drastic measure is the last not the first.
If the problem is the policy being too complex than altering it should be a start.
OK.
Write an alternative and campaign to have the existing one replaced.
I'm asking some people who know more about this kind of thing than I do - to do just that.
Policies are going to be complex, English Wikipedia is just too large to be simple.
I don't agree that something large cannot have the beauty of simplicity.
I want to know what specifically is wrong with the current policies.
So do I, that's why I'm asking for some help
Marc
I think most people would agree that the category system is cumbersome, but it replaced to earlier systems of classification that were even worse. I'm a librarian, and Im going to answer on the page mentioned. In my opinion, summarizing, no commonly used existing universal classification scheme is suitable for WP, and developing a new one is an inordinate amount of work. Rewriting the database to adapt to one will be even harder. Perhaps the best approach is simply a better search engine. ~~~~
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Perhaps the only solution here is to go back to the drawing board - blank
the entire Policy Page, and start all over again.
Marc
on 4/30/07 5:34 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Why do people always suggest the most drastic solutions first?
C'mon, I've been flailing about this for months now (It's already driven me into rehab once :-). The history of these threads should show that the above drastic measure is the last not the first.
If the problem is the policy being too complex than altering it should be a start.
OK.
Write an alternative and campaign to have the existing one replaced.
I'm asking some people who know more about this kind of thing than I do - to do just that.
Policies are going to be complex, English Wikipedia is just too large to be simple.
I don't agree that something large cannot have the beauty of simplicity.
I want to know what specifically is wrong with the current policies.
So do I, that's why I'm asking for some help
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 4/30/07 7:08 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I think most people would agree that the category system is cumbersome, but it replaced to earlier systems of classification that were even worse. I'm a librarian, and Im going to answer on the page mentioned. In my opinion, summarizing, no commonly used existing universal classification scheme is suitable for WP, and developing a new one is an inordinate amount of work. Rewriting the database to adapt to one will be even harder. Perhaps the best approach is simply a better search engine.
David,
Thank you for the time and thought you put into this issue - both here and on the Talk Pages. It is clear to me from your conclusions that solving the problems I believe exist with the present Wikipedia Category System involves more than simply rewriting policy. The System has the potential of being a powerful research tool. And, since Wikipedia itself is a groundbreaking creation, a truly workable Categorization System within it could be precedent setting. I hope someone, someday takes the challenge of creating one.
Thank you again,
Marc Riddell
On 5/1/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for the time and thought you put into this issue - both here and on the Talk Pages. It is clear to me from your conclusions that solving the problems I believe exist with the present Wikipedia Category System involves more than simply rewriting policy. The System has the potential of being a powerful research tool. And, since Wikipedia itself is a groundbreaking creation, a truly workable Categorization System within it could be precedent setting. I hope someone, someday takes the challenge of creating one.
You might look at dbpedia.org for research etc. I don't think what you want will really be possible without a little bit of structured data. It's not super usable yet unless you know SPARQL (like SQL sorta) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARQL but it works. The data is always going to be a little messy of course, but that's just the way it goes. :)
They are pulling data based on categories and infoboxes now.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 5/1/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Thank you for the time and thought you put into this issue - both here and on the Talk Pages. It is clear to me from your conclusions that solving the problems I believe exist with the present Wikipedia Category System involves more than simply rewriting policy. The System has the potential of being a powerful research tool. And, since Wikipedia itself is a groundbreaking creation, a truly workable Categorization System within it could be precedent setting. I hope someone, someday takes the challenge of creating one.
on 5/1/07 11:10 AM, cohesion at cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
You might look at dbpedia.org for research etc. I don't think what you want will really be possible without a little bit of structured data. It's not super usable yet unless you know SPARQL (like SQL sorta) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARQL but it works. The data is always going to be a little messy of course, but that's just the way it goes. :)
They are pulling data based on categories and infoboxes now.
Judson,
Thanks for this. You've given me whole new territories to explore. I hope I don't get too lost :-). I have been a pen & paper person for much of my career. When I was first confronted with using a computer, it was like encountering a new patient - the secrets were locked inside, and I had to find the right key combination to retrieve the information.
Thanks again,
Marc
David Goodman wrote:
I think most people would agree that the category system is cumbersome, but it replaced to earlier systems of classification that were even worse. I'm a librarian, and Im going to answer on the page mentioned. In my opinion, summarizing, no commonly used existing universal classification scheme is suitable for WP, and developing a new one is an inordinate amount of work. Rewriting the database to adapt to one will be even harder. Perhaps the best approach is simply a better search engine. ~~~~
I think that I raised both the better search engine, and an organized category scheme back before categories were implemented. Neither happened, and the results have been predictable.
I don't think that such a thing as a perfect classification scheme exists, but we _can_ do better than we have now.
Ec
On 4/29/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/29/07 10:38 AM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I still maintain that categories are the best way to organise our
content,
provided that we have unions and intersections. Tags simply don't
provide
the necessary hierarchy and structure to make organising content
simple
and
easy; they're excellent for random browsing, but not so much for
hunting
down specific articles.
I agree with you completely, John. It's just that the present state of
the
Category system is completely out of control. The existing Policies on Categorization have become more complicated than the U.S. Tax Code; and, those that can be deciphered are being completely ignored. I, for one,
am
not sure how much more cerebral RAM and emotional energy I want to spend on this.
The status quo is patently unacceptable. The question now is, where can we get the expertise necessary to write the requisite code for intersections and unions, and further, how can we stem these increasingly complex and arcane policies? The latter is simple; as policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, use common sense when categorising, unless you feel the situation is too complex for your common sense to be right. The former is a more difficult problem to solve.
Johnleemk
You need a librarian for this. We're trying to do everything for free and voluntary at Wikipedia, but categorizing things requires an overarching scheme and Wikipedia is implemented and run to prevent just this.
I had a number of group programming assingments in school (long ago), and one woman in the class was a reject for all groups, as she was a lousy programmer. I let her be in our group, figuring she couldn't harm my programs. Turns out she was a librarian, and when it came to writing databases we kicked everyone else's butts. It always seemed so easy after she organized everything, but there is no way I have the skills to do what she did, because she understood how categories work--and she knew that you had to start at the top (all the programmers here are thinking, of couse, that in those days that was what programmers were supposed to do, too), and she knew where to place the top.
Nobody on Wikipedia or Wikimedia even knows what categories are, much less how they work, as far as I can tell. Set theory? Probably no one understands that either.
KP
K P wrote:
You need a librarian for this. We're trying to do everything for free and voluntary at Wikipedia, but categorizing things requires an overarching scheme and Wikipedia is implemented and run to prevent just this.
True enough. I sometimes think that some of our categorizers get so caught up in the process that they forget why we categorize in the first place. When categories are either too broad or too narrow their usefulness becomes limited.
I had a number of group programming assingments in school (long ago), and one woman in the class was a reject for all groups, as she was a lousy programmer. I let her be in our group, figuring she couldn't harm my programs. Turns out she was a librarian, and when it came to writing databases we kicked everyone else's butts. It always seemed so easy after she organized everything, but there is no way I have the skills to do what she did, because she understood how categories work--and she knew that you had to start at the top (all the programmers here are thinking, of couse, that in those days that was what programmers were supposed to do, too), and she knew where to place the top.
An enlightening parable! Perhaps today's programmers attach too much importance to their own code bits. As with many ventures it requires taking a step back so that one can see the big picture.
Nobody on Wikipedia or Wikimedia even knows what categories are, much less how they work, as far as I can tell. Set theory? Probably no one understands that either.
"Nobody" is a somewhat harsh judgement. Those that do see the problem just give up fighting with those obsessed with their own little corner of categories. The set theory analogy is interesting. One needs to make the distinction between a set of elements, and a set of subsets which each have one element.
Ec
On Apr 29, 2007, at 8:14 AM, John Lee wrote:
The status quo is patently unacceptable.
Categories have becoming the latest fad by POV pushers. No need to provide sources, no need to abide by NPOV, just create a Category with your POV and add articles to it. Then claim that it is a "navigational aid", and that it benefits Wikipedia readers. Some lists are going the same direction as well.
It seems that as are policies become tighter (or better adopted and understood) POV pushers will find the path of least resistance, and now Lists and Categories are these.
-- Jossi
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
Anything to back this up?
on 4/30/07 5:30 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
Anything to back this up?
Purely an observation of its history.
Marc
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 4/30/07 5:30 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
Anything to back this up?
Purely an observation of its history.
Marc
To solve a problem you need to find the cause first. #1 If anything is wrong with categories is that it's nearly impossible to trace when something is added or removed from a cat. #2 Anyone can make one, even the clueless.
On 4/29/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Folks,
I am watching (rather smugly I admit ;-)) the slow dismantling and ultimate destruction of the Category concept in Wikipedia. What could be a wonderful research tool, has deteriorated into a useless game. May it rest in pieces.
Marc Riddell
on 4/30/07 5:30 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Anything to back this up?
On 4/30/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Purely an observation of its history.
Marc
on 4/30/07 5:41 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm at macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
To solve a problem you need to find the cause first.
I absolutely agree. To help us with this I have requested some professional help. I left a message on the Wikipedia Librarians Project Talk Page today. If anyone knows about categorizing its a librarian. I'm still waiting for a response.
#1 If anything is wrong with categories is that it's nearly impossible to trace when something is added or removed from a cat. #2 Anyone can make one, even the clueless.
Good points. We have to jump through the "Categories for Deletion" hoops to get rid of one, but no such thing for creating one. Sounds a little nuts to me :-)
Marc