Anyone who's worked on a database knows that it's a [Bad Thing] to duplicate information in such a way as to require (or permit) updates in different places for the same information.  There's a DB term for this ... normalization?

One reason this is a [Bad Thing] is (as experience has taught us): if there are two places to update something, sometime somewhere someone will update one, and not the other - what began as two identical copies '''will''' diverge over time.

Redundancy (defined as duplication of information in two or more distinct places) can be protective:  one might back up a database, for example, or one might store a checksum somewhere.

The whole point of hypertext is to permit references to be constructed and copied, to permit hyperlinking instead of quoting.  It therefore never makes sense to duplicate information for the purpose of referring to it.

One virtue of Wiki is that it enables full-text searching, a.k.a. "keyword in context" searching.  So a Wiki partakes of some of the virtues of a document (editing) and some of the virtues of a DB (searching.)  This is a [Good Thing].  This is why Wiki is useful as a collaborative space and as a repository.

The recurrent desire to construct encyclopaedic indices of cluelessness, most recently expressed in [Call for suggestions for presentation of Tcl Apps] is a form of duplication: duplication of search results.  Someone constructs a plausible search, captures it to a page, and makes an ''index'' out of it.

Publishing pre-digested searches on this wiki is bad, for several reasons:

   1. the constructed/captured searches are an out of date snapshot.
   2. they occupy space in the title space of pages
   3. they '''compete''' with the primary materials for searches.
   4. they necessarily '''duplicate''' information in different places.
   5. they carry with them a hermeneutics, which they tend to reify, and whose privileged expression tends (for reasons 1-4) to drown out other voices.

So, in summary: merely because one individual has difficulty  using the search facilities, and prefers to view his/her information as a pre-digested index, or even a structured pre-digested index (taxonomic pabulum), and merely because that individual has successfully constructed a search on some occasion is '''no reason''' for that individual to construct a so-called ''index'' page as a monument to their transitory moment of glory.

''[escargo] 6 Mar 2007'' - I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree entirely.  Here's why.
   1. The search facility of this wiki is not as powerful as it could be.
   1. An index that is ''built'' rather than being ''captured'' from a search ''could'' add value to the Wiki rather than adding noise.
   1. I don't agree that a taxonomic set of indices is equivalent to a pre-digested index.
   1. As compilations are recognized as legitimate original works, so a taxonomic structure ''might'' be an original work of some worth.

So, it may be in practice that the indices that you dislike '''are''' of no worth, it would be hasty to say that they are ''always'' of no worth.

[CMcC] point by point:

   1. if the search is weak, fix the search, don't write around it.
   2. if you are arguing that it is possible to build a valuable index, I agree.  Such an index would have to have a lot of original content compared to its merely/purely referential content.  As such, it would resemble a link-rich page.  That is not what we're seeing in these ''-Index'' pages.
   3. any taxonomy represents some pre-selection, some hermeneutics, which by analogy is pre-digestion, in that it processes/selects/strucures information before the reader can critically review it.  Again, it ''could'' be done with style and quality - it's just not.
   4. absolutely - deriving a taxonomy is a useful work ... a lot of work.  What I'm seeing is people banging what's not  much more than screen caps of searches up on the wiki, calling them indices, and leaving it at that.

Human beings have been breaking information down hierarchally for ages - perhaps it's a consequence of literacy, it certainly helps them deal with complexity.  However: repackaging what search gives you does not.  I was actually trying to be generous calling these indices 'taxonomy' - they're hierarchy for its own sake.

I think my DB normalization analogy is apt.  We're suggesting that possibly there's some information here which someone sometime can't easily find.  We're suggesting the search be duplicated, along with some of the page content, because it will be easier for this hypothetical person to find ... that is [premature optimization], sacrificing correctness for convenience.

[jcw] - I agree. ''One fact in one place.''  This does not imply "each fact in a separate place", btw.  As for fixing the search - yep (like so many things), there is always room for improvement.  Or just google with the "site:" tag.

[[HW's rant and mixed metaphors moved to the sock puppet drawer: [http://greenlightwiki.com/travelstories/Abitbology_--_The_History_of_Abitbol_Thought]]]

(HW) CMC, you seem to think that only [Robert Abitbol] can prove you wrongs and only he can be punchy. Well you are wrong. A lot of us are seasoned debaters and can mock your idiosyncrasies. You seem to see Abitbols everywhere! 

(HW) - I disagree. Let's be practical for a minute here. You guys are wrong! The very essence of a wiki is precisely its capacity to put a page title in thousand different places. Totally contrarily to what jcw has written (one fact in one place). I wonder where he went to get this idea.

You guys' ideas are mainly theoretical formulas that are fine and dandy on paper but they don't hold any water when you apply them to reality. Worse! Even on paper they don't really work! So called index pages have grown naturally, intuitively '''out of a need'''. Our [Brian Theado] did a marvelous job with the [Tcl/Tk Games] page for example, and this is something no machine category system could have ever done. RS has done an equally great job in the [Category Arts and Crafts of the Tcl programming language]. A lot of other similar so called index pages have spruced out throughout the years, they are all very useful and the most evolved computer in the world could have never produced them; pages like [Tcl Editors], [Graphics with Tcl/Tk] to name a few. etc. Larry, CMC and JCW  might not like the system but a lot of us love it. 

They claim the information is duplicated in many places? I don't see how naming a page on an index page -it takes two seconds- can be considered duplicating the information? I fail to see how spending two seconds writing a title can be such a complicated venture!

These pages are useful, they fill a need as [Escargo] has said -rightly so- and this is what really counts. I understand Escargo means a mollusk in French but in my book Mister Cargo sure is a fast-thinker! On the other hand, what the category system does is simply list related pages stupidly, coldly without information. We don't have time for this bullshit. We need to have a clue as to what the contents of the page are quickly and as efficiently as possible by reading its description on an index page. I for one don't have two hours to search every page listed after a category search. I see the info on an index page and I know right away if this is what I want to read or not. 

All a category search does is list dumbly pages alphabetically. You wanna see? Click [Category Discussion] and see what happens. You'll have phone-book-like information. Pages classified alphabetically. What does an alphabetical classification say? It says that B comes after A, and that C is before D. '''Wow! Didn't know that''' Who needs that sort of info? Write an index page that makes sense, list more details on each, classify the info chronologically etc. and you'll see the huge difference. How in the world can you compare human intervention with machine intervention? Get real! A machine is dumb; it does dumb searches while humans (even moderately-endowed brainwise humans) can produce excellent index pages! 

An index page classifies apps, give more details on them, introduces them well. The beauty of the index system is that you click on the title of a page and bingo! you have a list of the backlinks; and among them you know what index page the page belongs to. This sure is an excellent system. Contrary to what Mister CMC has said (and that is his main argument), a page can belong to many indexes. Simply name the page in as many indexes as you want! 

As for more work for wikignomes, I disagree. Why create a new page on [New Pages]. Just create it on the Index page and bingo! It's done. By doing so you have created a back-link and a classification right away for this page. By classifying a page and putting it in a sequence, you add meaning to it. 

Don't want to take my word for it? Wanna see for yourself? Well click here and read RS's classification. [Arts and Crafts of Tcl-Tk Programming]. Now click on the page title and look at the pages sorted alphabetically. Now tell us which system gave you the most info and was the most fun? RS's prose and classification or the phone-book results given by the machine? Well the answer is obvious for everyone. 

Besides, you simply cannot replace something that has been implemented '''naturally''' through the years and discard it in the name of a vague and artificial principle that only exists on paper. On the other hand, index pages have existed on all wikis for years and they surely proved to be fit to co-habit with the category system. 

On the positive side, I find the Search on this wiki pretty state-of-the-art, excellent I might add. I personally don't make very refined searches so Search engine does its job very well for me. As for the differences engine (the diffs), it's so pitiful that I don't even bother trying to figure out what changes have been done to a page. No time for that. I simply pass.

And a last thought on the current debate: categories and index pages surely can coexist on this wiki. They each do a different job. We are not suggesting to wipe categories out; so why does Mr CMC suggest to wipe out index pages? Can't he respect people's tastes and feelings even though he disagrees with them thinking he holds the truth in believing that searches that give phone-book results are the nec plus ultra, the top of the tops and God bless those machines that give us humanless, robotic, empty A-Z phone-book results. He has apparently a lot of time reading each page after a machine search. Most of us don't have so much time at our disposal. We have other stuff to do. Since he likes so much what machines do, perhaps his utmost desire is to eventually be turned into a machine himself. Well, this is certainly not our desire. CMC won't turn this wiki into a phone-book. If this is so, many of us will simply go elsewhere and we'll leave him alone in this wiki. He could then enjoy consulting the phone-book all by himself! 

----

 

----