I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here
rather than on Commons.
All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village
pump.
Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this
is not.
Fae
On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Jane Darnell wrote:
> >No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
> >"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
> >horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
> >horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
>
> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
>
> >Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree,
> >but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been
> >sorted into any other category.
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the
> number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both
> Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the
> technical issue here?
>
> >The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the
> >process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily
> >available to newbies.
>
> It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category
> description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members),
> but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
>
> >Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with
> >images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an
> >extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly
> >useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
>
> Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're
> talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll
> put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable
> person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many
> reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and
> genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
>
> 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,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
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,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
