A category exists to enable action: items sharing a category require the same kind of action, even if that action is only being commonly used in training or to learn something (after which, human capacity for exemplars and casuistry takes over).
While eg:itself employs over fifty categories, these fine-grained operational distinctions need not all be comprehended by the casual user right away. There are only six categories that need to be understood by every user in this sequence:
- reactive behaviour becomes institutionalized as
- praxis shared among many similar services who deem it
- defensible either in (scientific) terms of natural science or body impact on humans, or by simple deference to authority, until they closely examine frequency and rhythm of decisions, which will almost always reveal systemic bias, leading to the:
- reflective perspective: new troll point of view, after which they will enable dissent, exploit dissent to try to govern reflectively and tend to avoid confusing operational distinctions such as made by an
- infrastructure, which requires standards, from the more abstract ontological distinctions made by
- ultra-reflexive processes, which require conflicts, limits to which must be expressed as authoritative limits on reflexive (deference)
Note that even very abstract categories can remain operational insofar as they are extremely narrowly founded on the act and timing of categorization, and distinguished by when to make distinctions rather than which are made. This distinction divides TIPA Living Agendas from IPAs.
An honestly reflective process, recognizing the subjectivity of what/how/why, will confine itself to where/when/who distinctions. Accordingly, [all other categories minimally inhibit flow in whatever domain reflexivity is achieved. For sysopping, the sysop vandalism resolution to CVS/troll-sysop struggle limits the infra trades - why large public wikis remain the locus of that struggle. While for provisioning, the question of infrastructure owners trust limits the ultra-reflexive perspective, which cannot be fully expressed under capitalism.
Observed praxis, either reactive or defensible on some theoretical grounds, is documented from a new troll point of view. It isn't necessary to understand all five levels of intranet to understand reactive processes and the authority that limits them.
Reflective understanding of these, however, leads an experienced user to make operational distinctions that actually reflect underlying constraints: A deterministic infra view of the tasks involved results. Meanwhile, ontological distinctions made by other users (whether they consider themselves part of an epistemic community or not) are compiled into ultra models that explain what is going on from a capital asset, activity-based costing, throughput accounting or other conceptual metaphor view.
Well, not so surprising to known trolls.