Here's the current info blurb for the logic tag on Philosophy SE:

For questions about logic, whether it concerns syllogistic logic, mathematical logic or the nature of logic itself.

This definition of course is adequate, but I wouldn't say it's perfect.

For example... is "syllogistic logic" really one of the major subclasses of logic, enough so as to be mentioned in an overarching definition? I think syllogism is just a synonym for "inferences" or "drawing conclusions from premises". Also, "the nature of logic itself" sounds vague - as if there are questions about logic, but then there are questions about logic itself. We are left with being told that questions about logic could be for example about mathematical logic; however, there is already a tag for mathematical logic.

The usage guidelines should either provide a highly standard definition of logic, if possible, or they should focus on positive and negative tag use cases, even referring the user to other tags for specific cases.

We might ask, what are we really trying to achieve, with a tag wiki? Is it to provide a standard informational description of what the topic is? Or is it aiming to reduce ambiguity and make it clear when the tag should or should not be used? (Also, there are two fields: usage guidelines, vs. a longer informational text body. One might consider what the ideal purpose of each is.)

This is the SE info on tag wikis:

What are Tag Wikis?

The usage guidance, or tag wiki excerpt, is a short blurb that describes when and why a tag should be used on this site specifically.

The full tag wiki is a detailed introduction to the topic, suitable as a destination for those curious about it:

► what questions should have this tag?

► some basic definitions

► brief introduction to the subject

► important links for learning more

► one reasonably sized page

See our advice on writing great tag wikis.

My current take on this is the following.

Usage guidelines can be kind of trivial if there hasn't been a lot of community controversy or discussion about the precise use of a tag. I.e., the usage guidelines for Logic pretty much amount to, "Use for questions about logic".

The general tag wiki is a very useful resource, but one issue is that defining almost any concept - especially a philosophical one - is no small task. To me, it seems like it would be hard to come to a definitive definition of a term like "logic" just based on community consensus; it would be easier and higher quality to just take a definition from a good reference material instead - Wikipedia or any specialized encyclopedia, or good textbook.

Is there anything wrong with this? Any objections, if I were to do it right now, for the Logic tag wiki?

  • It's interesting that both the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy do not even have articles for "Logic", but for more specific topics like "Classical Logic". Jan 20 at 19:29


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .