Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Lane Rasberry]

Hello,

Here is another perspective on this same issue and an actionable remedy for
a lot of the problems we are discussing here.


That email describes a game in which people use a game on Wikidata to tag
biographies with a gender.

MzMcbride identified the major problem in the old system -
"The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and
not in the levels above those." Because of this, we had infrastructure
which precluded the development of finding all kinds of intersections. It
did not have to be that way, but that is how we used categories.

Read the above email in the link to see an example of how this new system
will prevent problems, make things simpler, and be more fair to people by
not defining them so discreetly.

Also, play the Wikidata game.

yours,



On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Nikolas Everett wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jan Ainali 
> wrote:
>
> > 2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe :
> >
> > > The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection.
> > So
> > > actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
> > >
> > >
> > Our definitiions of "very easy" are not intersecting :)
> >
> > It is possible yes, but to qualify for very easy I would suggest a GUI
> for
> > modifying a search and a hotcat like functionality for selecting
> > interescting categories. Such addition to Special:Search would be
> awesome.
> >
>
> I think of most the syntax that Special:Search supports as for
> experts/power users.  Pretty much everything beyond quoting phrases is
> non-intuitive.  I'd describe it as useful but not discoverable.
>
> I remember seeing on a draft backlog a mention of writing some kind of more
> discoverable interface for complex category queries.  I don't remember
> which backlog (so no link, sorry) but I recall it being scheduled
> reasonably high on the list.  I don't know what that means for when work
> starts, much less when a first copy is released.  I don't even know how
> well it'd work with categories being "leaves" rather than tags or
> declarations of facts like I imagine you'd get with an ontology based
> solution.  And I don't know how you'd get from the categories we have now
> to something more like tags or facts.  I don't know lots of things
>
> It might be worth it to jump over category queries and implement it
> directly against wikidata.  I'll be sure to talk about this with the
> wikidata team when I see them later this week
>
> One advantage that categories do have is that they are built in so whatever
> more intuitive intersection mechanism we make would be useful to all
> mediawiki installs willing to install the search backend.  If it is hitched
> directly to wikidata the installation burden goes up considerably.  Not to
> mention it'd be easier for me to test locally with categories then with
> wikidata.  On the other hand having some mechanism where facts in wikidata
> are reflected into the local wiki sounds a bit jangly and breakable.  On
> the other other hand reflecting the facts into the local wiki would
> translate them into that wiki's language which would delay the need for
> some kind of translation integration (probably with wikidata as well).  On
> the other other other hand that doesn't help commons be multilingual.  Or
> do anything about toothbrush.
>
> I'm going to stop rambling now and go work on something else and let my
> subconscious filter through this.
>
> Nik
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Nikolas Everett]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Jan Ainali  wrote:

> 2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe :
>
> > The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection.
> So
> > actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
> >
> >
> Our definitiions of "very easy" are not intersecting :)
>
> It is possible yes, but to qualify for very easy I would suggest a GUI for
> modifying a search and a hotcat like functionality for selecting
> interescting categories. Such addition to Special:Search would be awesome.
>

I think of most the syntax that Special:Search supports as for
experts/power users.  Pretty much everything beyond quoting phrases is
non-intuitive.  I'd describe it as useful but not discoverable.

I remember seeing on a draft backlog a mention of writing some kind of more
discoverable interface for complex category queries.  I don't remember
which backlog (so no link, sorry) but I recall it being scheduled
reasonably high on the list.  I don't know what that means for when work
starts, much less when a first copy is released.  I don't even know how
well it'd work with categories being "leaves" rather than tags or
declarations of facts like I imagine you'd get with an ontology based
solution.  And I don't know how you'd get from the categories we have now
to something more like tags or facts.  I don't know lots of things

It might be worth it to jump over category queries and implement it
directly against wikidata.  I'll be sure to talk about this with the
wikidata team when I see them later this week

One advantage that categories do have is that they are built in so whatever
more intuitive intersection mechanism we make would be useful to all
mediawiki installs willing to install the search backend.  If it is hitched
directly to wikidata the installation burden goes up considerably.  Not to
mention it'd be easier for me to test locally with categories then with
wikidata.  On the other hand having some mechanism where facts in wikidata
are reflected into the local wiki sounds a bit jangly and breakable.  On
the other other hand reflecting the facts into the local wiki would
translate them into that wiki's language which would delay the need for
some kind of translation integration (probably with wikidata as well).  On
the other other other hand that doesn't help commons be multilingual.  Or
do anything about toothbrush.

I'm going to stop rambling now and go work on something else and let my
subconscious filter through this.

Nik
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
OmegaWiki did a proof of concept for tagging images with multilingual tags
years ago..

Categories are broken by design. It is not only that they are unilingual,
it is also that they are always in the plural. Why look for horses when you
look for a picture of a horse?
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 20 May 2014 09:34, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 20 May 2014 02:16, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > David Gerard wrote:
>
> >>I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
> >>ridiculously specific subcategories.
>
> > Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
> > distinction you're making? :-)
>
>
> We've been talking about this for years ... picking the precise
> subsubsubcategory is a pain in the backside. Most or all would also
> fall out as Boolean queries on tags.
>
> I've been here since 2004 and I still go to Commons and have trouble
> finding the subsubsubcategory I'm actually looking for in the search.
>
> Expecting users to know our category tree is user-obnoxious. Tags are
> common.
>
> As Gerard notes, they would also solve the problem that everything is
> categorised in English.
>
> I vaguely recall a proof-of-concept was coded and working in Postgres
> several years ago, but the same thing had unusable performance in
> MySQL so the idea was shelved.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[David Gerard]

On 20 May 2014 02:44, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm
> aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended
> feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be
> hierarchal (i.e., you can have subcategories), but you can concurrently
> use categories with a flat structure. Right?


Yeah, the software-culture divide around Wikimedia has always been fluid.

I may be complaining about culture rather than software. But either
way, the current way Commons categorisation works is a source of
endless frustration for me as a user. If it turns out what I'm asking
for literally already exists, then it's the interface that's failed
me. And, perhaps I'm just weird or perhaps the present system is
failing others. USER TEST TIME!!


- d.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[David Gerard]

On 20 May 2014 02:16, MZMcBride  wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

>>I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
>>ridiculously specific subcategories.

> Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
> distinction you're making? :-)


We've been talking about this for years ... picking the precise
subsubsubcategory is a pain in the backside. Most or all would also
fall out as Boolean queries on tags.

I've been here since 2004 and I still go to Commons and have trouble
finding the subsubsubcategory I'm actually looking for in the search.

Expecting users to know our category tree is user-obnoxious. Tags are common.

As Gerard notes, they would also solve the problem that everything is
categorised in English.

I vaguely recall a proof-of-concept was coded and working in Postgres
several years ago, but the same thing had unusable performance in
MySQL so the idea was shelved.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Jan Ainali]

2014-05-20 8:41 GMT+02:00 Chad Horohoe :

> The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection. So
> actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.
>
>
Our definitiions of "very easy" are not intersecting :)

It is possible yes, but to qualify for very easy I would suggest a GUI for
modifying a search and a hotcat like functionality for selecting
interescting categories. Such addition to Special:Search would be awesome.

/Jan Ainali
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Chad Horohoe]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Lane Rasberry wrote:

> The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to
> search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th
> century French painters, it would be ideal to just have tags for "people in
> the 18th century" "French people" and "painters" and let the users remix
> those tags instead of being forced to look in only that branch.
>
>
The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection. So
actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy.

Don't believe me? Here's a totally random category intersection from
Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&search=incategory%3A%22People+in+1992%22+incategory%3A%22Black+and+white+photographs%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&profile=advanced

Finding new ways to expose this data *outside* of the search results
page and api.php would be cool/interesting/nice.

-Chad
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Rand McRanderson]

The difference between categories and tags is semantic but those semantics
determine how the feature is used.

I suppose from an abstract technical perspective what is needed is
different classes of category-like objects based on the purpose it should
serve and displayed separately and possibly differently
On May 19, 2014 9:28 PM, "John Mark Vandenberg"  wrote:

> I think intersection is the most significant cause of the current
> categorisation system.
>
> My understanding of the current reasoning behind categorisation as seen on
> Commons and elsewhere is that:
>
> 1) the lack of category intersection causes the very specific categories,
> which are essentially saved category intersections.
>
> and
>
> 2) the category list at the bottom of the page being very literally the
> category names as listed in the page wikitext is why pages are only
> included in non-overlapping leaf node categories.
>
> On en.wp there are many useful specific categories which are deleted
> because they would only 'clutter' the category section of the page content
> footer. E.g. Spanish Paralympic competitors at the 2012 Summer Games. Most
> other multisport cohorts/intersections can have a category, but 'by
> country; by games' cohort is currently not permitted.
>
> Fair enough. I've seen stubs on en.wp where the category section of the
> page is larger than the page prose.
>
> IMO the 'future' of categories in wikimedia projects would be to replace
> the very specific 'intersection categories' with  saved queries in
> wikidata, with the category list at the bottom of the page dynamically
> including the list of saved wikidata search query results that the page is
> a member of, if the local project has more than  pages that are members
> of the query.
>
> --
> John
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[John Mark Vandenberg]

I think intersection is the most significant cause of the current
categorisation system.

My understanding of the current reasoning behind categorisation as seen on
Commons and elsewhere is that:

1) the lack of category intersection causes the very specific categories,
which are essentially saved category intersections.

and

2) the category list at the bottom of the page being very literally the
category names as listed in the page wikitext is why pages are only
included in non-overlapping leaf node categories.

On en.wp there are many useful specific categories which are deleted
because they would only 'clutter' the category section of the page content
footer. E.g. Spanish Paralympic competitors at the 2012 Summer Games. Most
other multisport cohorts/intersections can have a category, but 'by
country; by games' cohort is currently not permitted.

Fair enough. I've seen stubs on en.wp where the category section of the
page is larger than the page prose.

IMO the 'future' of categories in wikimedia projects would be to replace
the very specific 'intersection categories' with  saved queries in
wikidata, with the category list at the bottom of the page dynamically
including the list of saved wikidata search query results that the page is
a member of, if the local project has more than  pages that are members
of the query.

--
John
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[MZMcBride]

Lane Rasberry wrote:
>MZMcBride - Categories are hierarchical and people worry about them
>overlapping. Tags have no hierarchy.

Categories _can be_ hierarchical, but categories can simultaneously be
flat. People worry about a lot of things, but that doesn't mean there are
substantive issues to be addressed. Sometimes there are just worries. :-)

>The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to
>search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th
>century French painters, it would be ideal to just have tags for "people
>in the 18th century" "French people" and "painters" and let the users
>remix those tags instead of being forced to look in only that branch.

So why not put the image in "Category:Painters" and "Category:French
people" and "Category:People in the 18th century"? I don't think there's
any technical reason not to. It would certainly be nice to have built-in
category intersections (previously mentioned in this mailing list thread),
but for now Commons has external tools, I believe? Why not use categories
as tags today?

>A proposal is at
>
>
>The problem has two parts - WMF cannot coordinate this kind of search with
>existing categories, and there is no need to reform categories unless
>there
>is a commitment to make this search capacity.
>
>I see this as a serious problem.

Thanks for the link!

It lists "Over- and under-categorization" and links to
 which states (in
part):

---
The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories,
and not in the levels above those.
---

The rest of "Commons:Categories" is somewhat illuminating... this really
does seem to be a social issue with Commons, not a problem in MediaWiki.
It's possible there's ongoing miscommunication here: people on Commons are
waiting around for tags to magically appear one day, while MediaWiki
developers are looking at the current categories system and wondering why
Commoners have developed such an oddly rigid categorization scheme.

I'm not sure what you see as a serious problem. Is it just the lack of
built-in intersections? We already have the ability to add categories/tags
to media. Are intersections the missing piece before it's acceptable to
have "Category:Red" to tag every image that contains the color red? Or put
"Category:Man" on every picture that contains a picture of a man? Why
can't we do this right now?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Nathan]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:44 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> >Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical
> >nature of categories.
>
> For ease of use (adding and removing), I think most wikis have HotCat
> (). Is that insufficient?
>
> Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm
> aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended
> feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be
> hierarchal (i.e., you can have subcategories), but you can concurrently
> use categories with a flat structure. Right?
>
> >Tagging is also common web technology that a large proportion of users
> >should be familiar with.
>
> It's a common term, sure. It's been suggested that this may simply be a
> user interface labeling problem, though. If we renamed "Categories" at the
> bottom of the page to "Tags", what else needs doing?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
I know I'm accustomed to the type of interaction that modern keyword
tagging provides. Simple "Add a tag" or just "tag", predictable and easy to
understand results when you click on the tag, etc. Right now Hotcat isn't
(I don't think?) enabled by default, and even the Hotcat interface is sort
of clunky and weird. Then when you click on a category you get lists of
subcategories, thumbnails of media, and then a mess of links to pages with
no organization whatsoever beyond alphabetization.

So perhaps the technical difference between cats and tags are not that
great, but the larger point that tagging is better rests on the substantial
implementation and interface differences between typical tagging and
MediaWiki cats.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Lane Rasberry]

MZMcBride - Categories are hierarchical and people worry about them
overlapping. Tags have no hierarchy.

The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to
search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th
century French painters, it would be ideal to just have tags for "people in
the 18th century" "French people" and "painters" and let the users remix
those tags instead of being forced to look in only that branch.

A proposal is at


The problem has two parts - WMF cannot coordinate this kind of search with
existing categories, and there is no need to reform categories unless there
is a commitment to make this search capacity.

I see this as a serious problem.


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Easy and obvious when you look at it with eyes that do not expect English.
> A tag will be linked to Wikidata. Consequently it will show differently
> depending on the language you have selected for yourself.
>
> It is just these other people who will be serviced. Another reason is that
> there are artificial constraints with categories that are no longer valid..
> Who cares that we have more than one million items in a category for
> instance? Having tags with over one million items is for instance "human".
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
>
> On 20 May 2014 03:16, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > David Gerard wrote:
> > >I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
> > >ridiculously specific subcategories.
> >
> > Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
> > distinction you're making? :-)
> >
> > Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side,
> > but when he asked what would be different, I had difficulty articulating
> a
> > great response. It seems to really come down to a social problem on
> > Commons. Some Commoners seem to have very specific views of what
> > categories should be for and how they should be constructed and named.
> But
> > this isn't a technical problem, per se. Poor labeling or other interface
> > design problems (or outright limitations) in MediaWiki may contribute to
> > this problem, but is there a larger technical issue here? It seems to
> > primarily be a social issue, from what I've seen, not a technical issue.
> > I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
> >
> > There are specific features we'd like to have (such as built-in
> > intersections), but is there a fundamental difference between categories
> > and tags? Or perhaps put another way: what are we waiting for, exactly?
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
l...@bluerasberry.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Easy and obvious when you look at it with eyes that do not expect English.
A tag will be linked to Wikidata. Consequently it will show differently
depending on the language you have selected for yourself.

It is just these other people who will be serviced. Another reason is that
there are artificial constraints with categories that are no longer valid..
Who cares that we have more than one million items in a category for
instance? Having tags with over one million items is for instance "human".
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 20 May 2014 03:16, MZMcBride  wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
> >ridiculously specific subcategories.
>
> Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
> distinction you're making? :-)
>
> Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side,
> but when he asked what would be different, I had difficulty articulating a
> great response. It seems to really come down to a social problem on
> Commons. Some Commoners seem to have very specific views of what
> categories should be for and how they should be constructed and named. But
> this isn't a technical problem, per se. Poor labeling or other interface
> design problems (or outright limitations) in MediaWiki may contribute to
> this problem, but is there a larger technical issue here? It seems to
> primarily be a social issue, from what I've seen, not a technical issue.
> I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
>
> There are specific features we'd like to have (such as built-in
> intersections), but is there a fundamental difference between categories
> and tags? Or perhaps put another way: what are we waiting for, exactly?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[MZMcBride]

Nathan wrote:
>Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical
>nature of categories.

For ease of use (adding and removing), I think most wikis have HotCat
(). Is that insufficient?

Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm
aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended
feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be
hierarchal (i.e., you can have subcategories), but you can concurrently
use categories with a flat structure. Right?

>Tagging is also common web technology that a large proportion of users
>should be familiar with.

It's a common term, sure. It's been suggested that this may simply be a
user interface labeling problem, though. If we renamed "Categories" at the
bottom of the page to "Tags", what else needs doing?

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

[Nathan]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:16 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> >I'll be leaving Commons categorisation until it's tags rather than
> >ridiculously specific subcategories.
>
> Commons has tags right now: they're called categories. Or is there a
> distinction you're making? :-)
>
> Tim and I discussed this a few weeks ago and I was mostly on your side,
> but when he asked what would be different, I had difficulty articulating a
> great response. It seems to really come down to a social problem on
> Commons. Some Commoners seem to have very specific views of what
> categories should be for and how they should be constructed and named. But
> this isn't a technical problem, per se. Poor labeling or other interface
> design problems (or outright limitations) in MediaWiki may contribute to
> this problem, but is there a larger technical issue here? It seems to
> primarily be a social issue, from what I've seen, not a technical issue.
> I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
>
> There are specific features we'd like to have (such as built-in
> intersections), but is there a fundamental difference between categories
> and tags? Or perhaps put another way: what are we waiting for, exactly?
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
Sure - ease of use for tagging and the sometimes complex hierarchical
nature of categories. Tagging is also common web technology that a large
proportion of users should be familiar with. At the moment, I suspect
almost all new users to Wikimedia projects find categories difficult to
navigate and to apply. There are many other differences off the top of my
head, which I'm sure you grasp better than I do, so is there a deeper
meaning to your question that I'm missing?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,