>> It turned out Wikipedia categories aren’t strictly hierarchical at all, but are used for so many “related” things as to make them useless for determining what kind of a thing an article represented.
> This feels like a problem worth solving on Wikipedia itself.
Why would that be a problem at all? "Apple" (I assume this refers to the company) makes perfect sense in the "Steve Jobs" category. If you looked up the listing for Category:Steve_Jobs you'd expect to find it there. "Fixing" this problem would just make Wikipedia worse.
The better fix would be to realize that categories aren't strictly hierarchical, and you shouldn't operate as if they are.
> This feels like a problem worth solving on Wikipedia itself.
Why would that be a problem at all? "Apple" (I assume this refers to the company) makes perfect sense in the "Steve Jobs" category. If you looked up the listing for Category:Steve_Jobs you'd expect to find it there. "Fixing" this problem would just make Wikipedia worse.
The better fix would be to realize that categories aren't strictly hierarchical, and you shouldn't operate as if they are.