<p>My opinion is that <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;machine-learning&#39;" rel="tag">machine-learning</a> tag is borderline useless because it is too unspecific and too vacuous. It is not the only tag like that. For example we have <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/fitting" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;fitting&#39;" rel="tag">fitting</a>×600 and <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/model" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;model&#39;" rel="tag">model</a>×900, which are also vacuous and could well be burninated &amp; blacklisted as far as I am concerned. But <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;machine-learning&#39;" rel="tag">machine-learning</a> with over 12k threads is the most prominent example of this.</p>
<p>That said, based on <a href="https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/tags/tags/topusers">my experience</a> with trying to improve our tag system, there is nothing we can do about it: our community has <em>never ever</em> requested SE admins to burninate a tag. And manual deletion is not an option. So <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/machine-learning" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;machine-learning&#39;" rel="tag">machine-learning</a> is here to stay. Also, given its popularity, I don't think we can really influence how people use it.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A. What, if anything, needs to be done to improve the description of the machine-learning tag?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You are right, the current excerpt does not make sense and we should change it. My suggestion:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Machine learning algorithms build a model of the training data. The term &quot;machine learning&quot; is vaguely defined; it includes what is also called statistical learning,  reinforcement learning, unsupervised learning, etc. ALWAYS ADD A MORE SPECIFIC TAG.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Update: I went ahead and made the edit to the excerpt. What do you think?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>B. What should be done to improve the usage of the machine-learning tag?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As I argued above, nothing can be done.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>C. How can we best educate reviewers to thoughtfully consider edits which propose adding irrelevant tags?</p>
<p>I've noticed that a specific user has engaged in a campaign to add the tag [machine-learning] to a number of posts that do not mention machine learning, particularly posts about neural-networks. I don't think these edits are useful.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is this the only edit that they are doing? I think if there are multiple edits and [machine-learning] is added alongside, then it is fine. If the sole purpose of an edit is to add the [ML] tag to a Q on neural networks, then I agree this is not useful and actually harmful because it clogs the queue and the front page.</p>
<p>As a first attempt to settle this, can you perhaps get in touch with this user and friendly point them to this discussion?</p>
