This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Classification article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Classification (general theory) page were merged into Classification. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (07:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) |
This page reads like it has been written from one, very particular academic viewpoint, presumably the school concerned with "classification theory", the page that was merged into here. It almost completely fails to address, and when it does mention drastically downplays, the very substantial treatment of classification in subjects such as law, mathematics, statistics, economics, machine learning, cognition, taxonomy, anthropology, philosophy and sociology. This is I think the explanation for why the page is at the same time quite extensive and considered vitally important by Wikipedia, but at the same time rated low in quality.
I therefore propose to introduce brief, referenced sections on all these treatments of classification, to relegate the existing page to a single section at the same level, and to introduce a much more general and approachable introduction.
Classifications, is the act of sorting objects/items, etc. according to one or more characteristics of the latter into groups or sets. It was highly desireable that the members of the resulting class shall be selected by using normally one criterion and consistently all the way through, otherwise your class will not be homogenous or fully sorted(another desireable feature). It is also often required that on classifying a given set the criteria to be used for clasifying things should allow for a full allocation of the input set to appropriate classes. The list of classified objects arranged accordingly will comprise a classification or nomenclature that play an important role in distributing/sharing knowledge about products, trade marks, and thousands of other whatnots in the world. apogr
the introduction of a subject is done by introducing sometimes two or three different and usually unknown, or two wide subjects to garsp as a result of which one cannot focus, but must progress on a wide mental horizon. Then by partially giving account of the uses/senses of the word or by quasi disambiguation, again a similar reasult/depth is likely. What I miss here is connecting the unknown to the known and exposig the point why the article may be of interest to the general reader. If you vet the current article against my comments above, I hope you will see the point I am trying to make.
Many wikipedia articles are just the names of boxes without specifying knowledge/content, except for the labels of smaller or bigger boxes inside, nested just one or two levels. IMHO such a beautiful venture to become a hit for the reader too, should have a feature like highlighting the current problems/prospects/controversies of the subject covered in the article so that the reader can have something to nible on.
You will have remembered that information is specific and not general and you shuld visibly and aptly move along the specific-generic continuum to become educative/informative.
Apogr 06:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think that Medical classifications can be both - scientific and statistical. The examples given in Medical classification are to a large . So medical classifications like ICD are definitely examples for statistical classifications - and this is what I wanted to express. Nosology on the other hand is an example for a scientific medical classification.
Might be that there is an additional meaning of "statistical classification" and ICD doesn't fit within the list of examples. The examples given are examples for algorithms building up a statistical classification. The ICD is a statistical classification (that was not build using algorithms but manpower). It is used for making statistics and such is a statistical one. If you look at Ontology (computer science) and compare the definition "an ontology is the attempt to formulate an exhaustive and rigorous conceptual schema within a given domain" then for example ICD would be a bad example.
I propose to make two sub-section of statistical classification. The first contains the current definition and the second has the definition "A statistical classification is a classification made for statistical purposes. It categorizes real world things (objects, events, ...) into classes of things with common properties."
I think that security classification is a special kind of taxonomic classification and shut be put as an additinal examle there: "Taxonomy may refer to either a hierarchical classification of things ...". In daily life we have a lot of classifications of such kind: hotel (see above), credit rating ... -- Udo Altmann 08:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, why is it that we classify classification like that? The method, process, and result of a statistical classification, as defined in the article, is an instance of taxonomical classification, or is it not? If not, why not? :-) -- Glimz , 04:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Definitions to Classification = To classify something or something to get classified , classifying something , or too use a classifier.
classification of mushroom is should be ask to amol sir - 9321712857 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.161.209 ( talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed ( talk) 16:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)