The comments posted are pretty useful, I think. I refactored my question to better reflect the problem I see with the current logic tag. I like the feature request linked, it could be elaborated as an answer and further discussed in the comments there.
My general observation is that tags fulfill a double role:
- They are categories aiding users - and questioners in particular - to organize the questions.
- They are filters (tag-navigation, RSS feeds, email notification) aiding users to get only the questions in their fields of expertise or interest.
I noticed that there are a lot of postings tagged logic which actually address logic in different senses or actually don't address it really. I don't want to create a "tag zoo", but logic is too ambiguous and sometimes misleading as currently used.
1. Mapping different research interests in logic
The current questions on SE.Philo can be mainly divided in questions about formal logic and philosophy of logic. (A third distinction might be philosophical logic, but I don't think I've seen questions addressing modal logics.).
2. Logic ≠ reasoning/argumentation
A lot of logic-questions are really about reasoning and argumentation, which is an interest only remotely connected to an interest in logic in the contemporary sense. I am thinking particularly of the many posts about fallacies. I urge to file them under a different tag like reasoning, argumentation or even critical-thinking.
@CodyGray Maybe I'm just not pedantic enough (hah!), but I'm not sure I see the problem with the way the logic tag is used now, generically applied to questions concerning logical reasoning, philosophy of logic, formal logic, etc.
The problem arises because the category logic as in use on Philo.SE is not really related to the current use of the term "logic" in research. So prospective professional philosophers working on or interested in "logic", who might be intrigued to furnish high quality answers, cannot really filter the questions with logic, as they get ca 80% questions unrelated to their interests or expertise. The signal-to-noise ratio is too low and this lead to frustration.
My plea is that if we want increase the chance that academic users (such as myself) might contribute on Philo.SE, we should take tags as filters seriously and adapt them to current terminological usage.
On the other side, there is the fact that most Philo.SE users are interested laymen:
@CodyGray you have to consider that the tag system is used by everyone who asks a question. Those people are not going to be experts on our tag system, and since they're asking a question about it, they're the least likely to be experts on the subject matter of their question. They might not realize what the difference is between logic and reasoning, or when to use the formal-logic tag, versus the philosophy-of-logic tag
Now, as I understand it, the desideratum is to find a solution which avoids creating
- "much higher friction experience for users asking questions"
- too much overhead for moderators.
A possible solution
I propose to
- introduce the tags formal-logic philosophy-of-logic reasoning
- use at least these tags to mark future questions (please note that those tags are not mutually exclusive)
- retag past questions with the new tags as appropriate.
(There might be a few candidates for which logic is suitable, as they are not focused enough, but they are exceptions.)
See also this related question.