[Wikipedia-l] Categories: An implementation

[Anthere]

--- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at web.de> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> > --- Magnus Manske <magnus.manske at 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