[WikiEN-l] Re: What's the deal with categories?

[Ray Saintonge]

K Forstner wrote:

>From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>
>Yesterday I wrote:
>
>A few hours ago I mildly protested against one of those categorizations. See
>[[George Ritzer]], pigeonholed as a "writer".
>  
>
>>>Interestingly, though, you haven't changed it either.
>>>      
>>>
>>It's clear from the article that he has been a writer.  If you want to
>>add further categories, do go ahead.
>>
>>Ec
>>    
>>
>
>This is surprisingly inconsistent. What exactly in the [[George Ritzer]]
>article makes it clear that he has been a "writer"? As I tried to point out
>on the talk page, well of course he has "written" something, but nothing
>even remotely comparable to what the other categorized "writers" have
>written, namely fiction.
>
>Also, why should I change anything? I may be wrong. What's more, I'm not at
>all familiar with those new categorizations, I don't think they have been
>properly discussed, so why should I go ahead and contribute to something I'm
>not convinced of?
>  
>
I have no problem agreein that to say that Ritzer is a writer is a 
remarkably shallow observation.  But for this epistulary fugue I might 
never have heard of Ritzer, so I am ill-equipped to participate in his 
categorization.

The year-long discussion that preceded  was focused on whether there 
should be categories at all, and how such an idea might be technically 
implemented.  The discussion of specific categories was negligible.  
Details of the scheme(s) have yet to mature.

Ec