That's true of most project-specific discussions, but in this case, I
don't think the answer to "Commons isn't open to policy discussions"
is "Go start a policy discussion on Commons."
As long as Commons is meant to be a repository for the whole movement,
I think it is fairly topical here.
Austin
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
_______________________________________________
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>
