I think it could be interesting.

However, while I think Mudcat is a good site for a sort of "field study" of people's debates/discourse, I don't think it provides much coherent to base a program on.

The program would IMO have to be based in some broader debate about, e.g.:

-Genre labels and all the different things that determine them, in general. (These include who the people are that perform, what they wear, where they're from, where the music is distributed, what political beliefs are associated with it, what instruments, what social class consumes it, etc etc etc -- i.e. more than musical formal features)

-Stratification of musical types into "folk", "classical", and "popular". What do these serve? Why has such a stratification come about in some places and not others? Can any of these be defined in themselves, or are they only defined in contrast to others?

-Historical development of concepts of "folk." What were the motivations for constructing such a category, and what is the interest in keeping it? Is it all about the "music," or much more? Does "folk" really tie into a larger category of stuff? What values are embedded in the idea of "folk"? - and *what's at stake* if something is / is not called folk?

-What are the cultural / geographical / linguistic limits of the "folk" under discussion? Does most of what is being said go out the window as soon as one considers other cultural areas outside of whichever one is being assumed? If so, is "folk" then a culturally-specific concept? And if one says that it is not, and that there are some scientific constants to the concept, then please by all means let's see them applied to a reasonably diverse array of musics.