Magnus Manske wrote:
"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?
This may not be as much of a problem as it at first appears. Categories
will be subdivided or split off as the need arises. Developing a nice
bell curve in a statistical analysis can depend on choosing the right
group sizes.
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.
Using some kind of codification helps here. A single code could
incorporate all the items listed above. I'd be inclined to have a range
of possible categories for this.
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.
Whether something gets put onto a list is pretty hit and miss, and
completely uncontrolable. If we look at any list on Wikipedia we can
never be certain that it in fact includes avery relevant article.
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?
It can be used to flag a very wide range of "impaired" articles.
Ec