- Upgraded version of HotCat in test at enWikisource.
Version 2.2 as per the help pages at Commons:Help:Gadget-HotCat. Configuration details also at that page. Please identify any issues with this version here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose introduction, old version should be removed. This make a potentially thoughtless contribution almost effortless, a change in subjective arrangement that is neither verifiable, nor documented for guidance. There is no consensus on how to provide subjective access to documents, if that in fact our problem, and some have already considered getting it wrong a blockable offence. Or someone makes an equally arbitrary decision to remove some categories. I suppose the guidance would be to warn competing hot-cat jockeys to give each other a series of warnings then bring it to AN, saying anything else would be just as arbitrary.
Others consider this more 'fun' than that boring and tedious process of focusing on the primary focus of the site, cooly creating content, that cold grey text can now be more rapidly made 'hot'. The indexing of the site is under development, the response will eventually be that a particular notion of categorisation is can be widely deployed. Contributors will get the idea they can wander round deciding on the purpose and relevance of texts, or repurpose something redundant to, or excluded from, the category system at wikipedia. Do I ask for citations if I disagree with someone categorising transcripts I contribute, or do I get to make that judgement based on being there first? If it is implemented I suppose I will have to use it for undoing stupidity, I foresee lots of unproductive discussion and accusations. Fun? Cygnis insignis (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)