Wikipedia categories ≠ ontology
I think I’m probably stating the obvious here. If we take a single trace of an article such as Tom Cruise through the category hierarchy in Wikipedia, we find out that he is merely a theory…
Tom Cruise → 1962 births → 1960s births → 20th century births → Births by year → People → Humans → Apes → Primates → Mammals → Vertebrates → Chordates → Animals → Eukaryotes → Organisms → Life → Core issues in ethics → Ethics → Branches of philosophy → Philosophy → Belief → Spirituality → Human behaviour → Behaviour → Branches of psychology → Psychology → Interdisciplinary fields → Academic disciplines → Academia → Education → Personal development → Personal life → Self → Metaphysics → Reality → Philosophical concepts → Philosophical terminology → Terminology → Vocabulary → Language → Communication → Social psychology → Social philosophy → Philosophical movements → Movements → Ideologies → Epistemology → Philosophy of science → Analytic philosophy → 20th century philosophy → 20th century → 2nd millenium → Millenia → Years → Chronology → Measurement → Scientific observation → Data collection → Data management → Computer data → Computer storage → Computer memory → Digital media → Digital technology → Electronics → Electromagnetism → Special relativity → Relativity → Theoretical physics → Theories → …
And yes, this isn’t completely irrelevant. It relates to my honours research work. It means that the Wikipedia category hierarchy is only useful as a folksonomy, or perhaps only for a very small hierarchical depth beneath each article…