this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
634 points (100.0% liked)

196

16087 readers
1788 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 122 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Here's the chain for lemmy

[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (2 children)

cool. what software did you use to make this plot?

[–] [email protected] 67 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 44 points 5 months ago

https://www.xefer.com/Wikipedia it's from the Wikipedia page you linked

[–] [email protected] 74 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Almost certainly because the most common opening sentence for an article follows the "[subject] is a member of [broader group]" structure and the more generalized you get, the more you get into entire areas of study, which are eventually classified as a kind of philosophy, which is just fancy-speak for "high-skill thinking."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

There have been some theories on this phenomenon, with the most prevalent being the tendency for Wikipedia pages to move up a "classification chain". According to this theory, the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines on how to write the lead section of an article recommend that articles begin by defining the topic of the article. A consequence of this style is that the first sentence of an article is almost always a definitional statement, a direct answer to the question "what is [the subject]?"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Wrote a paper on this for a network theory class back in college and came to pretty much the same conclusion. Pages tend to lead to “funnels” of similar general topics, such as Earth, science, etc. and they all make their way upward into philosophy, which is the study of thinking, since thinking is at its core how we perceive the world.

Interestingly there’s two distances from philosophy that pages tend to hover around, the closer one of which is more full of technology and science stuff while the farther one is mostly places. It’s a pretty interesting deep dive

[–] [email protected] 66 points 5 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I like the idea that in order to truly understand Taylor Swift, one must first also know about math, geometry, 3D space, the concept of awareness, existence, and reality itself.

"Do you know about Taylor Swift?"

"Who?"

"Oh boy... Do you know about this thing called reality?"

[–] JasonDJ 25 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Bro WTF does the Wikipedia article on "Existence" say? Just "Yes"?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

A long article with 9 dropdowns... Existence is, in fact, very hard to define.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

It's better than nothing

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Fun fact: Since "Philosophy" is part of a loop itself, you could say the same thing about any of the 11 element of that loop, including "Three-dimensional space"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

And geometry as well as the universe. That was a wild trip, I tried 5 different things.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I thought the first link in philosophy was philosophy itself.

Edit: I brainfarted while writing. What I meant is "I thought it would be even more interesting if the first link in philosophy was philosophy itself".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you mean this part? I don't think that's part of the article. From my understanding, the parentheses isn't counted either.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Actually, no, but I meant something very different from what I wrote hehe I will edit my comment, thanks!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I see. I think wikipedia either forbids links to itself or at least it is against every convention

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

And I think a word is never twice linked but only the first time it appears. So if "clicking" will occur a second time, it won't be clickable

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

FYI: that page also gets to philosophy.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

Honestly, it would be even more fun if it didn't

[–] [email protected] 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What the hell this is cool but kinda creepy.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it is not that creepy. Philosophy underlies science and almost everything is studied in science. I guess the same is the case for other concepts that are just as broad and fundamental. Or maybe it is possible to go from almost any page to almost any other page. I guess that would make sense too.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Yeah but remember you have to click the first link (except links between parentheses, because they are often translations).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it's because, as someone earlier in the thread pointed out. Most article begin by stating what the topic is a subset of. Since everything is a result of humans categorizing and thinking about the world, that inevitably leads back to philosophy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Don't let yourself be LIED to. BIG PHILOSOPHY is behind this, changing Wikipedia's RULES so that they can CONTROL YOU through YOUR THOUGHTS. Don't let big philosophy win, STOP THINKING.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

reject thinking, revert to amphibian

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

It does if you break out of the loop after the third article or so.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Yeah it does

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

okay wait this is actually real what

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nice follow up game after the old “random article to Hitler“

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I thought Jesus was the typical goal?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Something something small world networks

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

something something dense spanning trees

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

For the pages that eventually end up in loops (not to philosophy), is this kinda mathematically analogous to some of the shapes in Conway's Game of Life?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Not sure what any of this means but pretty cool that you used analogous in a sentence like that

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Maybe. I mean, mathematically, both are Iterations. Both can converge towards a final state or get stuck in a loop (a so called attractor). But that's about it.

[–] TxzK 6 points 5 months ago

I don't think so. Game of Life is Turing Complete, and to highly oversimplify what Turing completeness is, it basically means it can theoretically perform any computation your computer can from given instructions. So when a pattern in a Game of Life ends up in a loop, you are actually instructing it to do so, not much different than writing while (true) {} in a computer program for example. While here, it's just two pages ultimately linking to eachother.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

...yes? Well, at least there's valid definitions of "analogous" that make this true: Hypertext links form a directed graph, loops form, well, cycles in that graph, and executions of game of life can be mapped onto a directed graph, and that graph can contain cycles, just as with hyperlinks without any out-edges escaping those cycles. Executions, plural, if you only use one the graph will have only one out-edge per node and either be infinite, or have one back-edge. Rather degenerate, you'd call it a (repeating) sequence instead of a graph to not make things unnecessarily complicated.

Not very meaningful though as wikipedia articles and game of life aren't isomorphic, at least to my knowledge. If they were isomorphic you'd actually have interesting mathematics at hand.

They're both... terminally loopy graphs, that's it (I just made up that term there's probably a proper one). Also the ones "ending" in philosophy also end in a loop, it just happens to include philosophy.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well then, another project to do, DDOS wikipedia using a crawler that checks the average and maximum amount of nodes to get to philosophy

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can also just download the article dataset :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

it looks like you have to skip the part in italics at the top of articles (disambiguation, "other uses", etc..) too for that to be effective

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I did Rumpke Sanitary Landfill.

  1. Landfill
  2. Waste
  3. By-product
  4. Manufacturing
  5. Production
  6. Material
  7. Matter
  8. Classical physics
  9. Physics
  10. Natural science
  11. Branches of science
  12. Science
  13. Scientific method
  14. Empirical evidence
  15. Proposition
  16. Philosophy of language
  17. Analytic philosophy
  18. Philosophy

I'll be damned.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Whelp, it works on cow patties so... Confirmed?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Ironically enough, starting with Philosophy gets you to a loop that includes "logic", "reason", and a few others, but never leads back to philosophy.

load more comments
view more: next ›