# Topic auto tagging

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/topic-auto-tagging/54894>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Created:** [December 28, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/topic-auto-tagging/54894 "2016-12-28T18:10:19Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![krauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/krauss/32/221613_2.png) [@krauss](https://meta.discourse.org/u/krauss)\
**Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 11:43am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/topic-auto-tagging/54894/10 "2017-07-28T11:43:49Z")

</div>

See [how Wikibots are working at Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots), it is a good **reference model** … Other important criteria to policy and implementation:

- to be an **assisted agent** : never (or very rare) an automatic classification with no human confirming it. Must work “by (assisted) lot” not in a continous (by demand) way.

- to be **specialized** : never generic, need a scope and limited (configurable/controlable) range.

- to be **symmetric** over validation: an human can be also use the same tag, the robot ([software agent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_agent)) is not the only autorithy to tagging its scope. So two cenarios: 1. robot tagging and human validating/confirming (or warning to vote). 2. human tagging, and robot valiating (or warning to other human confirm).

Whith this basic polices the robot is viable in any community!

Other suggestion: when the scope is specific, or when the “easy to tag” generates “tag pollution”, the best is to use _different color to the tags of the bot-scope_. EXAMPLE: tagging _languages_ in a multilingual community as [https://discuss.okfn.org](https://discuss.okfn.org).

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/topic-auto-tagging/54894)._