[WikiEN-l] Category destruction

[K P]

On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/05/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Categorise on the most granular scale that is useful and practical. If
> > > you can't usefully divide a category below a thousand members, then
> > > leave it with a thousand members - but most categories can, and
> > > should, be broken down well before you reach that point.
>
> > Unfortunately, you're a librarian and you see and think through the
> obvious
> > this way, but try telling that sometimes to the folks at Commons, where,
> if
> > it doesn't fit on a single article page, it CANNOT be a category.
>
> Categorisation on Commons is an *entirely* different kettle of fish,
> one which as far as I am aware is in flux right now, and one I don't
> even begin to try to pretend to understand. Perhaps this might be
> better asked to commons-l?
>
> > The other issue, though, is, do the Wikipedia users use categories to
> find
> > information?  IF this is the case, then they might be built differently
> from
> > how they would be if they were only internally used by editors.  As the
> > categories are listed on the article page, I suspect this is the
> intention,
> > but I get argued down on this, no one should ever categorize something
> for
> > the use of the reader, again, especially in Commons, but also in
> Wikipedia,
> > categories don't exist for users.  Then why display them in article
> space?
>
> On Wikipedia, they exist for readers. I see readers using them. As a
> reader, I use them (occasionally).
>
> On Commons, the entire concept of what a user is, what a user is
> looking for, is different. I wouldn't like to try to insist both work
> in the same way.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk



(I can't convince anyone in Commons of that, that they use categories
differently from how they're used at Wikipedia, and there is no point of
Commons-l, because no one at Commons knows what is going on.  However, that
is a whole 'nother kettly of fish.)

So, back to Wikipedia.  If they exist for readers, how they are used and
created is different from how they are used and created if they are only for
meta data.

>And all I'm asking is that if we're wanting to create a system, we
>create a system, we don't try to make the existing one sort-of-useful
>for everyone at the price of making it not-really-useful to anyone :-)

I agree with this.  Still, I don't think Marc can conceive of just how big
this is.  I've worked on data bases, writing them, small ones, tiny
ones, miniscule one topic ones, and this is a huge thing to ask of a group
of volunteers, in my opinion.

However, I do believe that if you created a system, whatever it was, it
would be much more useful to everyone than the exising non-system, simply
because it was structured and had systematic design.  Nothing we use on
Wikipedia right now fits this.

KP