Wikipedia talk:Getting to Philosophy: Difference between revisions
→What is the percentage now?: new section |
|||
Line 573: | Line 573: | ||
I just wanted to make aware the users interested in this kind of project that [[WP:GTP]] is under heavy attack either by IDs and users. I found many page links repetitively deleted or changed so that more loops are created and the link chain won't make it to [[Philosophy]]. I restored something like three links today but I think more effective action should be taken, maybe protecting the pages from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. <span style="font-family:Junicode;background:#F5DEB3;border: 4px ridge #80461B; border-radius:3px;"> [[User:Asþont|ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)]] </span> [[User talk:Asþont|📯]] 23:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
I just wanted to make aware the users interested in this kind of project that [[WP:GTP]] is under heavy attack either by IDs and users. I found many page links repetitively deleted or changed so that more loops are created and the link chain won't make it to [[Philosophy]]. I restored something like three links today but I think more effective action should be taken, maybe protecting the pages from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. <span style="font-family:Junicode;background:#F5DEB3;border: 4px ridge #80461B; border-radius:3px;"> [[User:Asþont|ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)]] </span> [[User talk:Asþont|📯]] 23:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
:Adding or removing links to articles should be based upon [[WP:LINK]]. They should not be based upon whether of not link chains "make it to [[Philosophy]]". [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
:Adding or removing links to articles should be based upon [[WP:LINK]]. They should not be based upon whether of not link chains "make it to [[Philosophy]]". [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
== What is the percentage now? == |
|||
I just made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verificationism&diff=802772397&oldid=801775941] this edit. Lots or articles link to [[knowledge]] which eventually leads to verification. I then tried that and then... it looped back to itself. That means I unintentionally mass broke lots of chains. '''[[User:Knockxx|KNOCKX]][[User talk:Knockxx|<span style="color:lightgrey">X</span>]]''' 11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:39, 28 September 2017
I didn't edit the main page, because I'm not sure how you post original research on 'non article' pages. The article states that "Language leads to a loop." As of 7FEB2012, it leads into philosophy just like the other major branches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.76.46 (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Obsolete discussions: This is now a project article, not a game.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is now an encyclopedia article, not a game.
Because of ongoing vandalism of other pages by those trying to cheat at the game, ths game has been deleted, and this is now a purely informational encyclopedia article, not a game. Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is not an encyclopedia article, it is a "project" page. Or, in Wiki-speak, it is in the Wikipedia namespace, not the main namespace. It definitely would not be an appropriate article. I am not sure it belongs anywhere. If it said something interesting or noteworthy about Wikipedia, it could stay where it is (and maybe be labeled an essay?) I don't think it really does. I would probably support deletion if someone proposed it. In the meantime, I think the title "Get to Philosophy" needs to be changed. It fit when this was a "game" page, as the title sort of "told" people to play the game, and/or it was the name of the game. Now that there's no more game (which is a good thing), maybe "Getting to Philosophy" would be better. Any comments? Neutron (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and done the renaming. I also have tagged this as an essay and have eliminated the last vestiges of the "game" from the page. If anyone still wants to do an XfD on this, I would support it as I don't think it adds anything to the project, but if it remains in its current state, I think that is ok too. Through the succession of edits by others and then by me, the page has been rendered "mostly harmless." Neutron (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I was late commenting on the above. Your renaming is a definite improvement. Good work! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and done the renaming. I also have tagged this as an essay and have eliminated the last vestiges of the "game" from the page. If anyone still wants to do an XfD on this, I would support it as I don't think it adds anything to the project, but if it remains in its current state, I think that is ok too. Through the succession of edits by others and then by me, the page has been rendered "mostly harmless." Neutron (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.144.25 (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting to Old Norse
If one uses these rules:
1. Find the first link (excluding those in brackets) of the first section (other than the 'introduction') of the page and click on it. 2. If such a link does not exist, find the very first link on the page. 3. Repeat.
a lot of articles lead to the article Old Norse (which leads to Old Norwegian and back).
e.g. Philosophy to Metaphysics to Greek language to Balkans to Adriatic Sea to Latin to Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum to Roman Empire to Roman Senate to Roman Kingdom to Roman Republic to Senate of the Roman Republic to Mos maiorum to Pater familias to Social unit to Human to Middle English to Ormulum to... Old Norse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.8.106 (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiLoopr
I found out about a website that tests a similar phenomenon (seeing how many articles before you hit a loop). It's at http://wikiloopr.com/ - the biggest list of articles I could get it to come up with was for The Glitch in Sleep, which also takes 36 links to get to philosophy. Alphius (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Shortest Loop
The shortest loop appears to be Great Britain to Britain (placename) to Great Britain, etc. Though others two article loops may exist. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I got Household and Dwelling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.72.213.141 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I got Economic_sector to create a two article loop with Primary_sector_of_the_economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.134.18 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I got Structure and Building 217.83.214.197 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I got Billy Joel and Piano Man (song) Killorf (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This no longer works
Most pages now go to fact, which then loops from fact->proof (truth)->evidence->truth->fact. 66.240.14.5 (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Or between fact and reason. Alphius (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- It appears perhaps editors are trying to 'break' this phenomenon (game?). I find it curious that in logical terms, a 'fact' isn't supposed to prove itself in a self fulfilling loop. Thus, the article 'fact' is being explained via a logical fallacy. 76.14.240.12 (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Fact now leads to Philosophy, just the loop is a bit longer now: fact -> proof (truth) -> necessity and sufficiency -> logic -> reason -> consciousness -> subjectivity -> subject (philosophy) -> philosophy BlueRoll18 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Logic and Reason now loop between one another. 199.2.205.142 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
And now there is a loop between knowledge, fact, and experience, which cuts off many chains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.140.3 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking for Source of Behavior
I'm just wondering if anyone has researched the source of this phenomenon. It occurs to me that if either the guidelines or an extension suggest which words to link to in Wikipedia, then the same words are getting suggested over and over again and thus, the same articles are getting linked. Is that possible? Is anyone else even curious about codifying this phenomenon? --Tedmasterwebify (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned it's not actually Philosophy but Knowledge
All (or most) of the articles that leads to philosophy actually leads first to Knowledge.
People are just talking about philosophy because it shines better. but just as much, one may go further to get into reality.
itay 79.181.209.14 (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- If this is the case, then at the moment it's broken, and instead there's the loop Linguistics - Science - Knowledge - Fact - Proof (truth) - Necessity and sufficiency - Logic - Reason - Consciousness - Sentience - Feeling - Nominalization - Linguistics. This loop seems likely to capture a lot of articles. 94.194.66.92 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Disputing statement
"As of 9/28/2013, this very article reaches philosophy, following this 27 links path: "Link", "Chain", "Hoist (device)", "Pneumatically", "Pressurized gas", "Fluid", "Physics", "Natural science", "Science", "Knowledge", "Fact", "Proof (truth)", "Necessity and sufficiency", "Logic", and finally: "Philosophy"."
Trying it on 30/09/2013, I get into a loop Physics -> Greek language -> Indo-European Languages -> Language -> Human -> Primate -> Mammal -> Clade -> Ancient Greek -> Greek language
A site that graphs a user-chosen article to Philosophy.
Pretty cool site.
--Kabahaly (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Already there at the first external link Theemathas (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
A mere observation.
I think the people who first saw this had it wrong. As pointed out most articles link first to knowledge then to philosophy. Take for example the philosophy page itself. If you follow the links on philosophy you get a loop back to philosophy. I think the phenomena here is not that all pages link to philosophy but indeed that all pages link to this ring of pages, this loop that you get in which philosophy and knowledge are just two nodes. A path taken from an article outside this ring eventually ends up inside the ring and hence will eventually end up at philosophy.
I could be wrong though, I haven't tested this hypothesis. I imagine that there might be multiple such rings and perhaps philosophy is the common node. At the time of writing this the ring, starting from philosophy was: philosophy > reality > existence > world > human > Hominini > Tribe (biology) > biology > Natural science > science > Knowledge > Fact > Proof (truth) > Necessity and sufficiency > Logic > Mathematics > Quantity > Property > Modern Philosophy > Philosophy. It's clear that if you started at any point in this loop you would just end up back at the same point.
- The current loop (7 May 2014) is Philosophy>>Reality>>Existence>>World>>Human>>Hominini>>Tribe (biology)>>Biology>>Natural Science>>Science>>Knowledge>>Fact>>Proof (truth)>>Necessity and sufficiency>>Logic>>Philosophy
- Any page either is an outlying chain to a loop, part of a loop or a dead end leading to a redlink/non existant page or with no links. This loop is the central loop in that most pages are outliers to this loop (something like 94% at last count. It appeals to the quirky nature of humans that the loop contains Logic, Reality, Existence, Philosophy, World, Human, Fact, Knowledge, Natural science. Many people see these as the centre of things. SPACKlickI (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The Loop has now become Philosophy --> Reality --> Existence --> Awareness --> Consciousness --> Quality (philosophy) --> Philosophy -->....
- The vast majority of outliers to this loop attach at Consciousness and the majority of them come down the following branch
- Set (mathematics) --> Mathematics --> Quantity --> Property (philosophy) --> Logic --> Reason --> Consciousness -->....
- In fact, by firing off random articles, other than 1 or 2 going straight to Maths without Set, I found no other branches on the primary loop. It would be interesting to see the major nodes on this tree. SPACKlick (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Philosopher links directly to philosophy, and is another branch on the main loop. Plato is the only article I found linking to philosopher, but I would guess there exist extensive branches in that direction. Non-user, 22.08.14.
It's broken now
Since this edit, the rule no longer holds for a large number of pages. πr2 (t • c) 04:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) [P.S. I just noticed it is still a loop without that link. I guess it's been broken for a while.]
Contradiction in description of method.
(As the article stands today) the opening sentence describes "Clicking on the first lowercase link...", but the Method Summarized section describes "Clicking on the first non-parenthesized, non-italicized link." Which is it? Since Clicking is capitalized in this case, it is excluded by the first method but included by the second method. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've always known it as clicking on the first non-parenthesised link. I think the introduction should be a summary of the full method. I'll delete “lowercase”. —ajf (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I have tried this on about 8 pages, and they all lead me to knowledge, not philosophy – Nixinova ❰T|C❱ 01:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I even tried it with this one. In order:
- Point and click, User (computing), Computer, Computer programming, Computing, Mathematics, Ancient Greek, Greek language, Modern Green, Collogualism, Word, Linguistics, Science, Knowledge. Knowledge then loops through fact, experience, and then knowledge again. – Nixinova ❰T|C❱ 02:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also on the main page it says that Quantity goes to property but that link has since been removed – Nixinova ❰T|C❱ 02:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- There seems to be an edit war going on removing the link to awareness in the first sentence of the knowledge page, which was a route many pages took to philosophy. I won't name names, don't want to be accused of harassment.173.168.128.136 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Broken description
The "getting to philosophy" example leads to Mathematics -> Quantity -> Counting -> Finite set -> Mathematics -> etc. DmitryKsWikis (Dmitry K.) (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Under attack
I just wanted to make aware the users interested in this kind of project that WP:GTP is under heavy attack either by IDs and users. I found many page links repetitively deleted or changed so that more loops are created and the link chain won't make it to Philosophy. I restored something like three links today but I think more effective action should be taken, maybe protecting the pages from edits by non-autoconfirmed users. ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont) 📯 23:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- Adding or removing links to articles should be based upon WP:LINK. They should not be based upon whether of not link chains "make it to Philosophy". Paul August ☎ 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
What is the percentage now?
I just made [1] this edit. Lots or articles link to knowledge which eventually leads to verification. I then tried that and then... it looped back to itself. That means I unintentionally mass broke lots of chains. KNOCKXX 11:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)