Category talk:Content by topic: Difference between revisions

With fear and trembling I added the top-level category Education. In my view no AT effort will ever be successful if it is not linked with a change of view and growth in understanding beyond the local community, and this is achieved by a pulling-yourself-by-your-bootstraps process of learning.

Even though being part of making high quality education to those who otherwise cannot afford it is my Life Project, I know I am very small to do it alone. I find the wiki concept a God-sent way to cooperate with like minded people. I will be happy to give this a push, and maybe later on specialize in my areas of maximum experitise, such as knowledge management, risk management and leadership training.

IHN, Yamaplos 20:19, 8 May 2006 (PDT)

Education

I think that education is an excellent top level addition. Especially as this too is my life work. It is very interesting that one of the main intents behind this wiki, i.e. education, failed to make it onto the initial list of topics. Thank you for putting it there. Lonny 00:03, 9 May 2006 (PDT)

cd3wd

dear all

as the originator and master of cd3wd, please feel free to take advantage of the great quantity and quality of material already in cd3wd (850 mega zipped, 1.2 giga unzipped). and note

that in order to be of some use to the 3rd world, cd3wd is very much designed for OFFLINE useage as well as online useage...

http://www.cd3wd.com/CD3WD/

best regards

alex weir harare zimbabwe africa

cd3wd

Hello Alex,

Thank you so much for you excellent offer. Cd3wd is a fantastic resource and so important, expecially for those areas with limited internet access, but with a cd drive. I think appropedia would love to take you up on your offer, especially for those resources most useful and adaptable to the online wiki community. We will work on developing some type of byline or box, to be included on ported pages, that states:

This information is from cd3wd, the offline wiki for the 3^rd world, please visit cd3wd for more information.

What do you think?

--Lonny 10:46, 14 August 2006 (PDT)

Topic & Fundamental categories

Category:Topic and Category:Fundamental are actually very similar - can we merge them? Perhaps Topic (or Topics, as it's plural) is the more understandable name, while fundamental is the more accurate name (after all, subcats are also topics - the point of this category is to show the most fundamental topics). --Singkong2005 · talk 08:46, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

Here is my proposal, please comment:

1. Categories in the Category:Topic area are topics, such as Category:Water, Category:Adobe and Category:Greywater
   • These topic categories are about subject.
   • These topic categories hold pages from the other areas, and categorize them based on topic.
2. We add Category:Area for the different areas, e.g. Category:How to, Category:Project and Category:Thesis.
   • These area categories are about form.
   • These area categories hold pages from different topics, and categorize them base on type of page.
3. We use Category:Fundamental for all area categories and first level topic categories.
   • This would mean removing from the fundamental category those topic pages that are subcategories of other topic pages. For instance should Category:Open source be removed from Category:Fundamental since it is a subcategory of Category:Information and communication technology?

--Lonny 12:22, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

Responses:

1. Check my understanding of this:
   • In this scheme, categories not about subject areas, such as Category:Appropedia maintenance and Category:Templates, belong in Fundamental, but not in Topic. I see the value in this - it makes it much clearer and tidier when browsing by topic.
   • So, it seems logical that we plan to move all non-meta, non-maintenance content etc into the Topic category (i.e. all projects and info, but not "Template:", "Appropedia:" and "Help:" pages).
2. I'm not convinced, yet, of the need for Category:Area. I think it's simpler for Category:How to, Category:Project and Category:Thesis to stay in Fundamental. Fundamental will also be less cluttered if we follow the policy of moving all topic categories to Topic. We can always try it, and change back if necessary), but I'm inclined to finish the topic issue and related editing first.
3. Re: "should Category:Open source be removed from Category:Fundamental since it is a subcategory of Category:Information and communication technology?" Absolutely - and done.

Singkong2005 · talk 16:58, 15 October 2006 (PDT)

Adding the Expert link to the topic header causes a funny looking TOC. Other ideas for inserting the expert? --CurtB 16:06, 18 October 2006 (PDT)