An update to the exciting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 6. In which I noted a pile of folk such as Nir Shaviv moving from category "Climate change skeptics (scientists)" to "Climate change deniers (scientists)".
After that happened, some people pointed out that wasn't quite right; and it was debated, and the result was to "delete" the category. So the net result is that a whole pile of people, e.g., Jan Veizer loses the "[[Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists)]]". Which is probably a fair result.
More like this
Let's talk a bit about functors. Functors are fun!
What's a functor? I already gave the short definition: a structure-preserving mapping between categories. Let's be a bit more formal. What does the structure-preserving property mean?
By now, we've seen the simple algebraic monoid, which is essentially an
A more than unusually obscure headline perhaps. Here's the link. I noticed, because my watchlist contained a pile of changes like:
The thing that I think is most interesting about category theory is that what it's really fundamentally about is structure. The abstractions of category theory let you talk about structures in an elegant way; and category diagrams let you illustrate structures in a simple visual way.
"Which is probably a fair result." Yes, this use of categories is pretty dumb. (Actually I am pretty skeptical that any significant fraction of WP readers uses the category system.)
[Likely you are correct, for wikipedia. For our at-work wiki, it is genuinely useful -W]
I would certainly believe that. Presumably in that context "editors" and "readers" are essentially the same people, right?