--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Anthere wrote:
--- Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Currently, anyone can add and delete categories.
I
suggest that this will be
restricted to sysops later, as it will prevent a
"category inflation",
I suggest that we also limit article creation to sysops as well to avoid articles inflation :-)
So funny.
:-)
"Category inflation" will be counter-productive. The whole *point* of categories is to group large number of articles into them. If we had 130000 categories for 130000 articles, it would not really do any good, would it?
Not, it would not.
Just as it would not be good to have 10 articles on gmo (say). But the creation of list could work exactly how the creation of articles exist right now. With a quantitative and qualitative community driven control process. Anyone can create a list, and add or remove articles in the list. Quick and easy. And discuss if there is disagreement.
Similarly, anyone could create a new category. And anyone could contest that creation. And perhaps a sysop delete it after common agreement that the category is not necessary.
The current process is that everyone has an equal right of creation and edition of articles.
You just suggest that we give up some of wikipedia openness and very concept, just for the fear of an event that could very well be handled through peer pressure and votes for deletion.
And how should filtering be done if we have categories "adult", "sex", "sexual content", "sexually explicit", etc. all for the same thing? If we want to make it an option to block "sex stuff", it has to be one option (maybe two at max), not a dozen or more.
Depends. If we only provide the tool, and end users (such as a school) decide what is to put on the "censored list", only one category is necessary. If Wikipedia itself set the content of the "sexually explicit" list, I think we will need dozens of lists. Because clearly not everyone here will agree on what has to be on the list, and what has not to be.
And non sysops can quietly go on creating lists as they are currently doing. We don't really need categories anyway. Lists are fine.
Today, someone talked on one of the mailing lists about one of your lists that took five minutes to save and slowed down the whole 'pedia significantly.
Yes. That is a big problem. But just as it is wrong that a non-sysop user has to go begging and waiting for the good will of a sysop to put a link on the main page (*this* is counter productive), I think it wrong that regular users have to go begging a sysop to create a category for them. If I want to have a category about sustainable agriculture articles, and there is no sysop caring about the topic, would I really have to spent hours trying to find one cooperative enough to make it for me ? I don't think so. Again, this is counter productive. I predict lists will go on existing if categories are sysops restricted only.
Categories are my implementation of the filtering issue, something that would be quite difficult with lists. It could also work to tag images as "GFDL", "public domain" or "fair use". It can also replace the lists. So, if we implement a filtering option anyway, why not use the opportunity?
Magnus
I agree tagging images as gfdl, public domain or fair use, or tagging text as copyrighted is very interesting. But a sysop restricted categories to replace open-to-any-editor lists is bad.
And I did not understand the filtering option had been decided really.
Cheers. Ant
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com