From: Murray Woodman on Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:42 PM
<snip>
I can just see problems when "category" it is used in a way which it loses its meaning. If you guys want to build type hierarchies and subject containment then "category" might be too simple in these
cases.
I just tried to show this. If it is a hold all for everything then a "lists" page as it currently stands already serves that purpose. You have gained only a little over what the lists pages offer. If you want to provide something which has wider applications then maybe a couple
of
more relationship types (type/subtype, contains) would be very
helpful.
That's a valid criticism; at the same time I think it might actually be reasonably considered a point in its favor that we start with something that's only a little better than what we presently have.
In other words, if we start with trying to improve what we currently have (the hackish list pages), rather than grafting on something completely different and of a new order of complexity, a) we're much less likely to do something we will later regret b) wide-spread adoption will be much more likely c) new contributors to Wikipedia are more likely to understand it
etc.
At the same time, I'd like us to work on making it easier for people to experiment with Wikipedia content, so that people with interesting, complicated (but possibly very good) ideas can try them without running the risk of screwing up the core project.
The classic OS-application divide. Or for another analogy, Google does a very good job of keeping its core utility simple but allowing for experiments on the side or the outside to happen.
It's easier for a search engine than a hyperlinked omnipedia, but the principle should remain the same.