Shaking up the category tree

Michael Shiloh michael at
Thu Sep 11 21:56:54 CEST 2008

Minh Ha Duong wrote:
>> Not sure this is a good idea, since the existing category structure may
>>   have been quite a mess at the time of tagging, forcing people to
>> categorize in less than ideal ways. Also we have observed that even
>> well-meaning authors don't always categorize well.
>> Better, I think, is to come up with a category scheme top-down, then
>> visit each page and rationalize relative to our category scheme.
> What I mean is that there is already an implicit category scheme. People's 
> expectations have been shaped up by years of using "Start" menus, Freshmeat, 
> Tucows, Yahoo! So we need to _discover_ , not _invent_, the category scheme.

Oh, yes. Agreed. Accept the industry standard, and not try to redefine 


> I would also think that categorizing is best done by wiki editors who have an 
> idea of the tags. We should not encourage authors to do it, but do it when 
> patrolling new pages.

Excellent idea! A note to that effect. Perhaps even there can be a way 
to automatically populate a page (for us only) of newly created pages 
that have not yet been categorized, that we can visit and deal with.

Might be nice to allow only us to add the categories, but I doubt that 
there is that fine control.

>>> - I see "Community" more as "Social groups" than "Everything that is not
>>> Openmoko Inc.". So I want to move "Openmoko Inc." there too.
>> Not sure I agree with this. What will A visitor to our website expect to
>> see under "Community"? I don't think they're looking only for social
>> groups; primarily, they are looking for community contributions, either
>> to access or to contribute to.
>> I would expect the community category to include local groups and user
>> contributed projects, instructions on how to get involved, etc..
> Yes it's a big change of thinking, from "they vs. us" to a more sociological 
> pov. That's why I want to change the name of this category :)

But isn't this exactly what you mentioned at first, to discover how 
other popular pages use this description, rather than defining our own?

I suspect we're talking about the same thing, but one of us (probably 
me) is misunderstanding the other.

>>> - I want to rename "Technical" to something like "Environment"
>> Hmm. What goes in here? Isn't almost everything technical? I think this
>> category is meaningless.
> Categories presently under Technical are about the environment, in an 
> information ecosystemic way: Emulation, Carriers, Protocol... How we 
> interface with things that are outside us. It needs renaming too.

"Technical" is clearly wrong, but I'm not sure that "Environment" helps.

Emulation I would put under development.

Carriers under basic users

protocol belongs with developers.

Perhaps allow things to be uncategorized until we settle, rather than 
creating awkward categories. Environment can just mean too many 
different things to be useful.

>>> - I want to rename "Hardware" to something like "Functional subsystem"
>> I might go along with this, but I'd like to understand your thinking.
>> What goes in here?
> Subsystems, from an engineering point of view: USB, GSM, GPS, SD MMC, CPU, 
> Glamo, Sound, Wifi, Accels, Power, Vibrator, Casing
>> If people think of this as "hardware" then best to use the common name.
> These tags also should apply to drivers, protocols, applications. 

Ah. I understand. Yes, I agree. Rename "Hardware" to "Subsystems" I 
think, where "Subsystem" would include both the hardware and the 
software aspects.

Much better.


>>> - "Software" can go
>> Agreed. Too big a category. Pretty much everything that isn't explicitly
>>   hardware or social groups becomes software. A category that is
>> "everything else" is not a valid category, IMHO. Was this your thinking?
> Yes. Almost emptied now.

Excellent! You've been busy.


More information about the documentation mailing list