User:J Hill/Wikipediology

This page has been created so I could write of Wikipediology, an important part of Wikipedia.

Principles of Darwikinism

1. Wikipedia is a closed system, independent of all others
   1. Wikipedia is not a single unit; it is as system
      1. This system is complex, and cannot be described by a consistent and complete theory
      2. This system is reductive
         1. The system reduces to atoms, the smallest, non-reductive particles of content that can carry meaning.
         2. These atoms form articles; a group of articles linked through hyperlinks is a sub-system called families. If two articles cannot be reached by way of hyperlinks alone, they are not in the same family.
         3. Atoms have two properties: usage and favorability
         4. atoms can be described by a fundamental theory that is both consistent and complete.
         5. This system is not subject to supervenience. At all levels content carries independent meaning.
            1. If the above is true a change in an atom does not necessarily cause a change in it’s article, and a change in an article does not necessarily cause a change in it’s family.
   2. Changes that occur outside of Wikipedia do not affect the content of Wikipedia
      1. The content of Wikipedia does not change with the change in content of sister projects
   3. Changes that occur within Wikipedia do not affect other communities outside of Wikipedia
2. The content of Wikipedia changes as time passes, according to what is favorable
   1. Favorability is the property that an atom has when it coheres with what is acceptable by users
   2. Not all content has favorability
      1. Favorable content has favorability
      2. Unfavorable content does not have favorability
      3. Content is either favorable or unfavorable
   3. Content supervenes of favorability
      1. As time changes, favorability changes, which causes content to change
      2. Favorable content tends to be propagated throughout Wikipedia
      3. Unfavorable content tends to be eliminated from Wikipedia
      4. Wikipedia is dynamic, favorability is always changing
         1. Content will never be perfect; consisting of only favorable or unfavorable content
3. Content is subject to random changes
   1. Random changes cause inconstancies, which may either be favorable or unfavorable
   2. Random changes are essential to a dynamic Wikipedia
      1. Without random changes content would become static

Darwikinism: Principles of Atoms

Prologue

Let us leave the Pythagoreans for the present; for it is enough to have touched on them as much as we have done. But as for those who posit the Ideas as causes, firstly, in seeking to grasp the causes of the things around us, they introduced others equal in number to these, as if a man who wanted to count things thought he would not be able to do it while they were few, but tried to count them when he had added to their number. For the Forms are practically equal to-or not fewer than-the things, in trying to explain which these thinkers proceeded from them to the Forms. For to each thing there answers an entity which has the same name and exists apart from the substances, and so also in the case of all other groups there is a one over many, whether the many are in this world or are eternal.
Further, of the ways in which we prove that the Forms exist, none is convincing; for from some no inference necessarily follows, and from some arise Forms even of things of which we think there are no Forms. For according to the arguments from the existence of the sciences there will be Forms of all things of which there are sciences and according to the 'one over many' argument there will be Forms even of negations, and according to the argument that there is an object for thought even when the thing has perished, there will be Forms of perishable things; for we have an image of these. Further, of the more accurate arguments, some lead to Ideas of relations, of which we say there is no independent class, and others introduce the 'third man'. — Metaphysics, Book I

Darwikinism is a philosophy predicated on the fundamental interactions and changes within Atoms, which are the most basic unit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a complicated system that involves countless variables, and cannot be described with a single statement that describes its behavior as a whole, and is consistent. It is because of this that subdivisions must be made. There are two methods of dividing Wikipedia into smaller units. The first shall be referred to as Functional Division. With this method, Wikipedia is on the highest level. Beneath it exists Eight portals. Beneath these Categories. Beneath these exist Articles. Beneath the articles, are the atoms. The second method shall be referred to as Relative Division. This method is based on the way articles inter-link. In this method, Wikipedia is again on the highest level. Beneath Wikipedia are families. Families are groups of articles connected by linked articles, in varying degrees of separation. For example, an article that is linked to no other page, is in a family of its own (however, it is uncertain if there is only one family that being Wikipedia itself). Families are divided into genera, which are the direct “relatives” of an article. These are the articles that it links to, and that links to them. Within these, exist the articles, in which exists the atoms. With all this information, we know what atoms are, but what we don’t know is the Gestalt of their properties, or if they actually exist. Through logic, we can procure this information.

Theoretical Atomism

The word atom comes from the Greek word “átomos” which means “indivisible” or “incapable of being divided”. The idea is derived from the principles of Leucippus, who founded the school of atomism. The idea was developed when Leucippus asked the question “If I cut an apple in half, and continue to do so, will there be a point atwhich I will be unable to cut the pieces in half anymore?” This idea is applied to Wikipedia content, as I asked my self “Is there a point where content looses its meaning in context?” Let this be their first property.

(1) An atom must carry meaning in context that is relevent to the article.

In accordance with atomism, an atom must be incapable of being divided into sub units. Or should it? If atoms are sections of content, being indivisible would mean we were referring to the letters that form the words of the content. However, individual letters to not carry meaning in context. For example, if you see the letter “a” you can do no more than speculate what word it belongs to, and therefore can infer nothing about the statement, that that word belongs to. This becomes their second property.

(2) An atom cannot be divided into smaller units that carry meaning in context.

Is this all that is required of an atom? Not necessarily. Take the fact, that an article is comprised of atoms. Let’s say that we have an atom A, and article B. Now, say I change atom A. Is there a change in the Gestalt of B? The above question, asks, “Does B supervene on A?” This is no simple question to ask. Look at it in this method, which shall be referred to as A-A’ B permanence . Say that instead of changing atom A, I create a new atom A’. Now, atom A does not exist. If article B were supervenient on atom A, and we removed A, the article would become nonsensical. It however, does not do so. Therefore, “changing” an atom, causes it to take on a new role. This is the next property.

(3) An article, by means of A-A’ B permanence, does not supervene on its atoms.

There is one final property I wish to explore. As stated in the introduction, Wikipedia is a complicated system. It has to many variables to be described by a single complete and consistent statement. However, these variables come directly from the content. These variables are derived from the atoms. For this reason, we can derive their final property.

(4) The behavior of atoms determine the behavior of Wikipedia, and can be described by a consistent and complete theory.

In summary, Atoms exhibit these properties:

(1) An atom must carry meaning in context that is relevent to the article.

(2) An atom cannot be divided into smaller units that carry meaning in context.

(3) An article, by means of A-A’ B permanence, does not supervene on its atoms.

(4) The behavior of atoms determine the behavior of Wikipedia, and can be described by a consistent and complete theory.

Applied Atomism

To demonstrate the above principles, we will approach a selected content in a Leucippusean manner. Remember properties (1) and (2) of atoms. These are the principles by which atoms can be identified. Consider the following text:

Aristotle defines his philosophy in terms of essence, saying that philosophy is "the science of the universal essence of that which is actual". Plato had defined it as the "science of the idea", meaning by idea what we should call the unconditional basis of phenomena. Both pupil and master regard philosophy as concerned with the universal; Aristotle, however, finds the universal in particular things, and called it the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar. For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal ideas to a contemplation of particular imitations of those ideas. In a certain sense, Aristotle's method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato's is essentially deductive from a priori principles (Jori, 2003).

This content itself is taken from the article on Aristotle, and therefore is not an atom, because the entire text can be divided into smaller units with properties (1) and (2). If you read any sentence within it, that retains meaning through the context provided by the rest of the paragraph. However, if I remove words or groups of words from this, and place them alone, at what level do they retain meaning within the context? “Aristotle” has meaning. Aristotle was an acniet Greek philosopher who wrote Metaphysics. However, this gains no meaning in context, only from former knowledge about Aristotle. From this you could infer nothing (outside of mere speculation) of the rest of the paragraph. “Aristotle defines” has more specific meaning. With this information, we know that Aristotle acting, rather than being acted upon. We also know what his action is, but there is still no context given from this statement. “Aristotle defines his philosophy in terms of essence”. This statement allows us to infer that the content is about Aristotle’s philosophy, and therefore has meaning in the context of the paragraph. In addition, this statement can be divided into smaller units, but they, as we have seen, do not have meaning within the context of the paragraph. This is therefore an atom.

Conclusion

Now that I have written a treatise on Darwikinist atoms, I can now begin to write on other matters within Darwikinism. This young wikiphilosphy can grow into a great one, if enough of the philosophical problems are addressed. Such questions for the future could concern other principles of Darwikinism such as stasis, dynamics, A-A’ B permanence, Wikipedia’s isolation or functional versus relative division.

J Hill