for - definition - deadlock - Wikipedia

for - Book - Society of the Spectacle - 1967 - Guy Debord - Advertising - critique

Summary - This is a youtube that presents the work of French Marxist theorist Guy Debord and his important book "The society of the spectacle" that critically examines the power of mass media to shape our reality and transform us - from an active participant to - a passive spectator (hence the "spectacle" and consumer - When mass media fabricates images that become the aspirations for large swaths or the population,<br /> - it can implant market ideology that channels their future consumerist behaviour to conform with elitist hidden agenda - The idea emerged from a group of leftist scholars and activists called the Situationist International that dissolved in 1972 but - the idea is quite relevant to describing global capitalism and information systems in modernity

to - Wikipedia - Situationist International - https://hyp.is/L4ObqISEEe-gJpNANP04Mw/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International

for - who is - Guy Debord - to - Wikipedia - Situationist International

who is - Guy Debord - Guy Debord was - French - born in 1931 in Paris - Marxist theorist, - philosopher - filmmaker - founding member of the Situationist International

to - Wikipedia - Situationist International - https://hyp.is/muSjgIR4Ee-IdBeTNYoyrg/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International

for - stats - digital stats - 54% of Wikipedia pages contain at least one link in their “References” section that points to a page that no longer exists.

for - OODA loop - Observe Orient Decide Act (OODA) - to wikipedia - OODA

to - Wikipedia - OODA - https://hyp.is/skEuQHc1Ee-FhbdBKRAoOQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

https://storm.genie.stanford.edu/

STORM Get a Wikipedia-like report on your topic<br /> STORM is a research prototype for automating the knowledge curation process.

@Andy

Perhaps Wikipedia's underlying zettelkasten nature is hiding in the more narrative nature of the ultimate pages, but it's definitely there. The "standard" web user interface view of Wikipedia pages makes it less obvious that the added pieces are atomic in nature, and that Wikipedia in fact is a group zettelkasten being built in the public/commons. However, if you've customized your own specific view of Wikipedia; are using an Atom Subscription (and yes, it's actually called this!); watching recent changes; or are using the history functionality (example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zettelkasten&action=history), then you're getting closer to the sorts of views of atomic additions I was speaking of. Some of this is also the reason that there is a checkbox for "minor edits" to take account of typos and minutiae which are sub-atomic and filters out or cleans up the stream of the updates one could receive.

Viewed from this perspective, Wikipedia is a distributed zettelkasten of the highest order. Intellectually all this traces back to the original zettelkasten of Konrad Gessner, who uncoincidentally is one of the most famous and prolific encyclopedists in history.

One could easily take small notes made in their own zettelkasten and add them on a 1-1 corresponding basis (including the note, the references, and even a unique identifier chosen and applied by Wikipedia; here's an example with the identifier 1118181304 as a demonstration) to a variety of Wikipedia articles. For certain topics I'm interested in watching, this can be a great boon to my own zettelkasten as I can reverse this process and subscribe to/watch additions at the smallest level and not only excerpt them directly into my zettelkasten, but I can usually locate the original source and excerpt directly from it as a means of verification/fact checking. As a result this zettelkasten being built in the commons on a daily basis can be imminently more useful to me. (Sadly, I don't think that many others are using it the same way or if they are, they're not doing so at the rate/speed/facility that I am.)

A similar example can be seen in the topically arranged group zettelkasten created for The Great Books of the Western World which was lightly edited into the book form of The Syntopicon (volumes 2 and 3 of the 54 book series). One could certainly try to argue that The Syntopicon isn't a zettelkasten because it is in edited book form, but in fact, it's just an easier published and more portable form for me to have a copy of Adler and Company's physical zettelkasten as the end product is a 1-1 version of their card index with some introductory material added for readability and direction. The sad part here is that Adler's zettelkasten has ceased updating in 1952 while Wikipedia continues apace.

For the "fans", one might say Wikipedia is even more closely related to Luhmann's variation of a zettelkasten as the user adding a particular idea doesn't need to add explicit links to other external ideas (though they certainly could), but by placing it on a particular page in a particular paragraph, they're juxtaposing it to a specific location that closely relates it to nearby ideas which already exist in that particular page (train of though/folgezettel).

Certainly Wikipedia has a hypertextual nature as well as a text and document editing capabilities and dozens of other interesting and useful affordances, but at it's core, it's true soul is that of a (digital) zettelkasten.

Reply to @andy at https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/20462/#Comment_20462

We know they whitelist electrion sites. Would they do this with climate science

Wikipedia cite-checking as transformative CDL purpose

History on the Gordian knot “The cutting of the Gordian Knot is an Ancient Greek legend associated with Alexander the Great in Gordium in Phrygia, regarding a complex knot that tied an oxcart. Reputedly, whoever could untie it would be destined to rule all of Asia. In 333 BC Alexander was challenged to untie the knot. Instead of untangling it laboriously as expected, he dramatically cut through it with his sword, thus exercising another form of mental genius. It is thus used as a metaphor for a seemingly intractable problem which is solved by exercising brute force“

Résumé de la vidéo [00:20:57][^1^][1] - [00:41:12][^2^][2]:

Cette partie de la vidéo discute de l'engagement citoyen et de la collaboration dans la contribution à Wikipédia, soulignant l'importance des sources fiables et de la neutralité dans la rédaction des articles.

Points forts: + [00:20:57][^3^][3] Le rôle des bots * Automatisation et filtres + [00:22:12][^4^][4] Les élections européennes * Impact potentiel sur Wikipédia + [00:22:34][^5^][5] La collaboration sur Wikipédia * Processus horizontal et sans chef + [00:23:00][^6^][6] Devenir contributeur * Facilité d'intégration et d'impact + [00:26:40][^7^][7] L'influence de Wikipédia * Enquête sur les coulisses + [00:27:12][^8^][8] Les principes de Wikipédia * Rédaction neutre et vérifiable Résumé de la vidéo [00:41:14][^1^][1] - [01:02:03][^2^][2]:

Cette vidéo explore le processus de vérification des faits sur YouTube, en se concentrant sur l'évaluation de la véracité des déclarations et l'utilisation d'extensions pour afficher les résultats du fact-checking. Elle discute également des défis liés à la neutralité de Wikipédia face à des acteurs puissants et des efforts pour maintenir l'intégrité de l'encyclopédie.

Points saillants: + [00:41:14][^3^][3] Vérification des faits sur YouTube * Utilisation d'extensions pour le fact-checking * Évaluation de la véracité des déclarations + [00:43:08][^4^][4] Manipulation de Wikipédia * Tentatives de modification par des entreprises * Projet antipub pour contrer le contenu promotionnel + [00:53:50][^5^][5] Le rôle des patrouilleurs * Nettoyage des pages vandalisées ou modifiées * Maintien des règles et de la vérifiabilité + [01:00:38][^6^][6] Défis de neutralité pour Wikipédia * Garantir la neutralité face à des acteurs influents * Projet antipub et patrouilleurs comme solution Résumé de la vidéo [01:02:04][^1^][1] - [01:20:47][^2^][2]:

La partie 4 de la vidéo aborde la lutte contre le vandalisme sur les plateformes collaboratives, la perception de la fiabilité de Wikipédia par les jeunes, et l'importance de la contribution collective à la vérification de l'information.

Points forts: + [01:02:04][^3^][3] Lutte contre le vandalisme * Importance de la collaboration * Ne pas nourrir les trolls + [01:03:07][^4^][4] Perception de la fiabilité * Les jeunes doutent de la fiabilité * Impact des contributions initiales + [01:04:01][^5^][5] Importance de l'éducation * Sensibilisation des collégiens * Encouragement à la contribution + [01:05:01][^6^][6] Rôle des enseignants * Valorisation de la recherche approfondie * Promotion de la curiosité + [01:06:02][^7^][7] Wikipédia comme source * Importance de la vérification * Wikipédia parmi d'autres sources + [01:07:12][^8^][8] Qualité et admissibilité * Amélioration continue de la qualité * Critères d'admissibilité sur Wikipédia Résumé de la vidéo [01:20:49][^1^][1] - [01:41:23][^2^][2]:

Cette partie de la vidéo discute des processus de prise de décision au sein de la communauté Wikipédia, en particulier sur les débats relatifs à l'écriture inclusive et les tentatives de manipulation de l'encyclopédie pour des fins politiques.

Points forts: + [01:20:49][^3^][3] Choix des photos sur Wikipédia * Débats sur la pertinence des photos + [01:21:51][^4^][4] Écriture inclusive sur Wikipédia * Sondage et prise de décision communautaire * Résistance à l'écriture inclusive + [01:29:01][^5^][5] Intégrité de Wikipédia * Surveillance des modifications suspectes * Exemples de pages "ripolinées" + [01:31:03][^6^][6] Modifications politiques sur Wikipédia * Utilisation de bots pour détecter les changements * Cas d'un wikipédien influent trahissant la communauté Résumé de la vidéo [01:41:25][^1^][1] - [02:01:12][^2^][2]:

La vidéo discute de l'utilisation de Wikipédia pour la réputation politique, la manipulation de l'information, et les défis de la patrouille de contenu. Elle souligne l'importance de la vérification des sources et la responsabilité éditoriale sur Wikipédia.

Points forts: + [01:41:25][^3^][3] Wikipédia et la vie privée * Création de comptes pour protéger la vie privée + [01:42:00][^4^][4] L'impact politique de Wikipédia * Utilisé pour vérifier les politiciens * Modifications par des comptes anonymes + [01:43:05][^5^][5] La vérification avant les élections * Les électeurs consultent Wikipédia pour s'informer sur les candidats + [01:44:00][^6^][6] La guerre d'information avant les législatives * Modifications intensives sur les pages des députés + [01:45:02][^7^][7] Le rôle des patrouilleurs et des bots * Surveillance des modifications suspectes + [01:46:01][^8^][8] Les défis de la détection des manipulations subtiles * Nécessité d'améliorer les outils de détection + [01:49:01][^9^][9] Les modifications depuis les lieux de pouvoir * Surveillance des modifications provenant des institutions gouvernementales + [01:57:01][^10^][10] Le cas d'Ecosia sur Wikipédia * Exemple de détournement de sources et de contenu promotionnel Résumé de la vidéo [02:01:14][^1^][1] - [02:23:56][^2^][2] :

Cette vidéo explore les complexités et les risques associés à la contribution à Wikipédia, en particulier dans les régimes autoritaires. Elle met en lumière les cas de contributeurs persécutés pour leurs activités sur l'encyclopédie en ligne et discute de la censure et de la manipulation de l'information.

Points forts : + [02:01:14][^3^][3] Risques pour les contributeurs * Dangers de l'édition de Wikipédia sous des régimes autoritaires + [02:03:00][^4^][4] Censure et résistance * Blocage de Wikipédia dans certains pays et amendes imposées pour désinformation + [02:07:03][^5^][5] Sécurité des contributeurs * Manque de protection pour les éditeurs face aux menaces et pressions politiques + [02:10:26][^6^][6] Contributions malgré les risques * Cas de Mark Bernstein, éditeur emprisonné mais toujours actif sur Wikipédia + [02:17:23][^7^][7] Manipulation de l'information * Tentatives de modification de contenu sensible sur Wikipédia par des entités politiques + [02:20:55][^8^][8] L'impact du football * Modifications fréquentes liées au football par des fans et des fonctionnaires européens Résumé de la vidéo 02:23:58 - 02:43:55 :

La vidéo discute de l'utilisation de Wikipédia et de l'intelligence artificielle (IA) dans le contexte de l'éducation et de la vérification de l'information. Elle aborde les défis et les opportunités liés à l'IA, notamment dans la rédaction et la contribution à Wikipédia.

Points forts : + [02:24:00][^1^][1] Utilisation de Wikipédia * Curiosité sur l'utilisation éducative * Complexité et jargon présents + [02:26:07][^2^][2] Intelligence artificielle * Discussion sur le machine learning et ChatGPT * Impact sur la rédaction et la synthèse d'informations + [02:29:00][^3^][3] IA générative * Préoccupations sur les illustrations générées par IA * Importance de la vérification de l'information + [02:31:10][^4^][4] Enquête et patrouille * Utilisation de l'IA dans la patrouille de Wikipédia * Importance de la source et de la véracité du contenu Résumé de la vidéo 02:43:57 - 02:51:43 :

La partie 9 de la vidéo aborde la création collaborative d'une page Wikipédia fictive, les défis de l'admissibilité et les implications juridiques de la suppression de contenu.

Points forts : + [02:44:19][^1^][1] Contribution satirique * Texte par intelligence artificielle + [02:45:02][^2^][2] Vandalisme sur Wikipédia * Suppression rapide + [02:46:03][^3^][3] Notoriété et admissibilité * Mention dans plusieurs articles + [02:47:37][^4^][4] Cas juridiques récents * Suppression de pages controversées + [02:49:00][^5^][5] Processus de rédaction * Utilisation de brouillons + [02:50:27][^6^][6] Prochain sujet de stream * Résurrection d'espèces disparues

Résumé de la vidéo de [00:00:00][^1^][1] à [00:34:00][^2^][2]:

Cette vidéo est la quatrième partie d'une série documentaire sur Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie collaborative en ligne. La journaliste Julie Morel enquête sur les coulisses de Wikipédia, ses règles, ses contributeurs, ses failles et ses enjeux. Elle est accompagnée par plus d'un millier de citoyens européens qui participent à la rédaction collaborative et au fact-checking des articles. Ensemble, ils vont découvrir comment Wikipédia fait face aux tentatives de manipulation, de censure et de publicité de la part de personnalités, d'entreprises ou d'États.

Points forts: + [00:00:00][^3^][3] Wikipédia, nouvelle cible des conspirationnistes * Julie Morel présente le sujet de l'enquête et les principes de Wikipédia * Elle propose une interview à Idriss Aberkan, un polémiste qui accuse Wikipédia de ne pas être neutre * Elle fait appel à Capucine, une bénévole de Wikipédia, pour apprendre à contribuer à l'encyclopédie + [00:08:08][^4^][4] Les coulisses de Wikipédia * Julie Morel rencontre des patrouilleurs, des bénévoles qui traquent les vandalismes et les contenus promotionnels sur Wikipédia * Elle découvre le projet anti-pub, qui vise à dépublier les articles trop vendeurs ou publicitaires * Elle révèle le scandale d'Avisa Partners, une agence de communication qui a manipulé Wikipédia pour le compte de grandes entreprises + [00:20:10][^5^][5] La guerre d'influence sur Wikipédia * Julie Morel s'intéresse aux pages de personnalités politiques, souvent modifiées pour supprimer des informations dérangeantes * Elle suit le travail de Tom Scott, un wikipédien anglais qui a créé un robot pour rendre publiques les modifications Wikipédia émanant des bureaux du Parlement * Elle teste le bot Parliament edits, qui permet de faire la même chose pour le Parlement français + [00:33:17][^6^][6] Conclusion * Julie Morel fait le bilan de son enquête et remercie les citoyens qui ont participé à la rédaction collaborative * Elle n'obtient pas de réponse d'Idriss Aberkan, dont les affirmations ont été en grande partie réfutées ou invérifiables * Elle souligne l'importance de Wikipédia comme source d'information et de partage de connaissance

Silence (2016 film) Dir. Martin Scorsese

Powinien być: Henryk Sięga.

Emancipator's Safe In the Steep Cliffs (album) {Wikipedia}

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_In_the_Steep_Cliffs accessed:: 2023-12-17

Marshall Sahlins [Wikipedia, English]

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Sahlins accessed:: 2023-12-15

Samanta Schweblin (1978) - Wikipedia, Español

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanta_Schweblin accessed:: 2023-12-11 12:00

Wikipedia, Plain text, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text?useskin=vector (2023-12-10).

Wikipedia, Text file, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_file?useskin=vector

Bárbara Dian Jacobs Barquet (1947-) - Wikipedia, Español

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A1rbara_Jacobs accessed:: 2023-12-09 19:30

London Grammar (2009-) - Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Grammar accessed:: 2023-12-09 12:05

Heilung (2014-) - Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heilung accessed:: 2023-12-08 11:55

House of Leaves – Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Leaves accessed:: 2023-12-08 01:35

Pedro Eustache (1959-) - Wikipedia, Español

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_Eustache accessed:: 2023-12-08 01:25

Teresa M Bejan - Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Bejan accessed:: 2023-12-02 19:20

Richard Bourke (1965-) - Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bourke_(academic) accessed:: 2023-12-02 19:00

Handel (1685-1759) - Wikipedia, English

site:: [[Wikipedia]] url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Frideric_Handel accessed:: 2023-12-02 18:05

Brunetto Latini (1220-1294 o 1295) (Wikipedia, Español)

site:: [[Wikipedia]]

url:: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunetto_Latini

accessed:: 2023-12-02 17:10

Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) (Wikipedia, English)

site:: [[Wikipedia]]

url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico

accessed:: 2023-12-02 17:00

BERT

cf

Rius (Eduardo del Río) (1934-2017) (Wikipedia - es)

site:: [[Wikipedia]]

url:: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduardo_del_R%C3%ADo

accessed:: 2023-11-27 16:55

Neotropical realm (Wikipedia - en)

site:: Wikipedia

url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotropical_realm

accessed:: 2023-27-11 16:50

Biogeographic realm (Wikipedia - en)

site:: Wikipedia

url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeographic_realm

accessed:: 2023-11-27 16:45

Biogeography (Wikipedia - en)

site:: [[Wikipedia]]

url:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogeography

accessed:: 2023-11-27 16:45

John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940)

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._A._Hobson

accessed:: 2023-11-25 20:00

Sergio Beltrán López

Wikipedia (es)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Beltr%C3%A1n_L%C3%B3pez

accessed:: 2023-11-25 14:00

Gabriel Le Bras

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Le_Bras

accessed:: 2023-11-25 11:45

Georges Friedmann

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Friedmann

accessed:: 2023-11-25 02:50

David Hilbert

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hilbert

accessed:: 2023-11-24 23:40

Kojin Karatani (1941- )

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kojin_Karatani

accessed:: 2023-11-22 16:!0

Jun Tosaka (1900-1945)

Wikipedia (en)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jun_Tosaka

accessed:: 2023-11-22 16:00

reply to u/marco89lcdm at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/17m7ggz/comment/k839k22/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The way you're currently thinking is a top down approach in which you already know everything and you're attempting to organize it to make it easier for others who know nothing about the ideas to find them. The Luhmann model supposes you know nothing about anything to begin with and you're attempting to create order from the bottom up, solely by putting related ideas you're building on close to each other and giving them numbers so that you might find them again when you need them.

If your only use is for those two topics and closely related subtopics and nothing else, then consider not using a Luhmann-artig model? Leave off the numbers and create two tabbed cards with those headings (and possibly related subheadings) and then sort your related cards behind them. (This is closer to the commonplace book tradition maintained on index cards and used by those like Mortimer J. Adler et al., Robert Greene, Ryan Holiday and Billy Oppenheimer. Example: https://billyoppenheimer.com/notecard-system/)

Otherwise the mistake you may be making is mentally associating the top level numbers with the topics. Break this habit! The numbers are only there so you can index ideas against them to be able to find them again! These numbers aren't like the Dewey Decimal system where 510.### will always mean something to do with math. You'll specifically want to intermingle disparate topics, so the only purpose the numbers provide is the ability to find what you're looking for by using the index which will give you a neighborhood in which you'll find the ideas you know are going to be hiding there or very near by.

Cards that are near to each other (using the numbers as an idea of ordering and re-finding) create a neighborhood of related ideas, even if they're disparate in topics. This might allow you to intermingle two related ideas, one which is in anthropology and another from mathematics for example, but which would otherwise potentially be thousands of cards away from each other if done in a Dewey-like system.

Or to take your example, what do you do with an idea that relates to both management AND personal growth? If it's closer to an idea on management you might place it near a related idea on that branch rather than in the personal growth section where it may be potentially less useful in the future. (You can always cross index them if need be, but place it where it creates the closest link and thus likely the greatest value for building on top of your previous ideas.)

For more on this, try: https://boffosocko.com/2022/10/27/thoughts-on-zettelkasten-numbering-systems/

I suspect that Scheper suggests using the Academic Outline of Disciplines as a numbering structure because it's an early choice he made for himself and it provides a perch to give people a concrete place to start. Sadly this does a disservice because it's closer to the older commonplace topical method rather than to the spirit of the ordering that Luhmann was doing. It's especially difficult for beginners who have a natural tendency to want to do this sort of top-down approach.

Example: Hypothesis Plug In.

True, but it should never be taken as the authoritative voice and there are ways to annotate on the internet :)

```sparql PREFIX wd: http://www.wikidata.org/entity/ PREFIX wdt: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/ PREFIX wikibase: http://wikiba.se/ontology# PREFIX p: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/ PREFIX ps: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/statement/ PREFIX pq: http://www.wikidata.org/prop/qualifier/ PREFIX bd: http://www.bigdata.com/rdf# PREFIX owl: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl# PREFIX rdfs: http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# PREFIX foaf: http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/ PREFIX dct: http://purl.org/dc/terms/SELECT DISTINCT ?dbpediaID AS ?href xsd:string(?label) AS ?name ?description ?subjectText ?item AS ?wikidataID ?dbpediaID ?image ?picture WHERE { SERVICE http://query.wikidata.org/sparql { SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?numero ( SAMPLE(?pic) AS ?picture ) WHERE { ?item p:P528 ?catalogStatement . ?catalogStatement ps:P528 ?numero . ?catalogStatement pq:P972 wd:Q14530 . OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P18 ?pic } . SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } } GROUP BY ?item ?itemLabel ?numero ORDER BY ?numero }

SERVICE <http://dbpedia.org/sparql>
  { 
    SELECT ?item
           ?dbpediaID
           ?label
           ?image
           ?description
           ?subjectText
    FROM  <http://dbpedia.org> 
    WHERE
      {
        ?dbpediaID  owl:sameAs      ?item ; 
                    rdfs:label      ?label ; 
                    foaf:depiction  ?image ;
                    rdfs:comment    ?description ;
                    dct:subject
                      [ rdfs:label  ?subjectText ] .
        FILTER ( LANG(?label) = "en" ) 
        FILTER ( LANG(?description) = "en" ) 
      }
  }

} ```

This information definitely changed my opinions and views of Wikipedia. I feel like all throughout high school I was taught that Wikipedia was not a scholarly source so I always avoided looking on there because I didn't think it was accurate but reading the results of this study and the article attached about this study has changed my views of Wikipedia.

This reminds me of the article "Wikipedia and the Death of an Expert" how there are also so many volunteers running the wikipedia page. I inserted an article that mentions how many active editors there are on wikipedia so we can really compare the similarities in contributors.

reply to u/drogers8 at https://www.reddit.com/r/antinet/comments/13eyg8p/extended_numbering_and_why_use_outline_of/

Based on my research, Scott Scheper was the one of the original source for people adopting the Academic Outline of Disciplines. I've heard him say before that he recommends it only as a potential starting place for people who are new to the space and need it as a crutch to get going. It's an odd suggestion as almost all of the rest of his system is so Luhmann-based. I suspect it's a quirk of how he personally started and once moving it was easier than starting over. He also used his own ZK for showing others, and it's hard to say one thing in a teaching video when showing people something else. Ultimately it's hard to mess up on numbering choices unless you're insistent on using only whole numbers or natural numbers. I generally wouldn't suggest complex numbers either, but you might find some interesting things within your system if you did. More detail: https://boffosocko.com/2022/10/27/thoughts-on-zettelkasten-numbering-systems/ The only reason to have any standardized base or standardized numbers would be if you were attempting to have a large shared ZK with others. If this is your intent, then perhaps look at the Universal Decimal Classification, though a variety of things might also work including Dewey Decimal.

It's not just me who's noticed this.

Interesting that for someone propounding Luhmann's zettelkasten system that Scheper has done this. Was it because he did it himself and then didn't want to change (likely) or because he spent time seeing others' problems with Luhmann's numbering system and designed a better way (less likely)?

=Wikipedia

An independent initiative made by Owen Cornec who has also made many other beautiful data visualizations. Wikiverse vividly captures the fact that Wikipedia is a an awe-inspiring universe to explore.

Wiki table of contents of the Icarus paradox

I clicked the link for reFill and thought it looked interesting. Would like to look into this further.

Sparkes, M. (2021, November 19). Wikipedia tests AI for spotting contradictory claims in articles. New Scientist. https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2298169-wikipedia-tests-ai-for-spotting-contradictory-claims-in-articles/?utm_campaign=echobox&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_term=Autofeed

Just as eusocial creatures like termites create pheromone infused mudballs which evolve into pillars, arches, chambers, etc., a single individual can maintain a collection of notes (a commonplace book, a zettelkasten) which contains memetic seeds of ideas (highly interesting to at least themselves). Working with this collection over time and continuing to add to it, modify it, link to it, and expand it will create a complex living community of thoughts and ideas.

Over time this complexity involves to create new ideas, new structures, new insights.

Allowing this pattern to move from a single person and note collection to multiple people and multiple collections will tend to compound this effect and accelerate it, particularly with digital tools and modern high speed communication methods.

(Naturally the key is to prevent outside selfish interests from co-opting this behavior, eg. corporate social media.)

These are the key parameters.

prop=revisions&rvprop=content&rvsection=0

rvsection = 0 specifies to only return the lead section.

Academic research used in Wikipedia articles drives more citations

Siehe Böhmermanns investigative Recherche zur Missbrauchsanfälligkeit von Wikipedia - also nur für ein Beispiel der Abweichung vom Idealfall

Wikipedia als Paradigma für die Erkenntnistheorie des Internets

(6) ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “@MichaelPaulEdw1 @islaut1 @ToddHorowitz3 @richarddmorey @MaartenvSmeden and not just misguided (as too simplistic) but part of the problem....” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1356528429211021319

Böhmermann zu Wikipedia, Versionsgeschichte und Wahlkampf Wikipedia Telelupe Böhmermann

Even though Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia worldwide, I still should not believe everything I read on the Internet.