Review: Linguistic platforms

Related projects flaws and integrative patches

OVERVIEW

This page analises flaws and introduces the flove integrative patches for linguistic knowledge popular platforms related to Etimologies, Thessauruses, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias and related derivated ontologization of science, law and elses.

 

 

ETIMOLOGIES: ETYMONLINE

Keypairs phylogeny hasn’t been yet rooted…

Etymologists are the historians and archaelogists of words. Their research propose a semantic thread about how the actual meaning of the actual word evolved from previous lexics and meanings.

Etymology have more missing links than other historians and archaeologists, the more as more they get deeper in the pasts of actual words meanings. ProtoIndoEuropean Roots is a name choosen to aggregate disputed issues about the origins of the so called (neolitical) human natural language. Natural language definition itself has its missing links, as also happening along with the classification of types of Life and Information, as the debate about ontogeny & philogeny keeps going on.

Flove challenge here is to apply bipolarities to the etymological trace of words meanings. For example: How were oxymorons and other actual keypairs seen in the past? Which other pairs or considerations were people using for our actual ones? Were there in the past more made up words with only two words or roots? How strong is the bipolar basis & trend at making up new words?

Perhaps these are difficult questions to answer, but nevertheless that doesn’t mean it is not worth trying to approach replies to them..

There should be many traces of oxymorons definitions attempts at past times. Surely, i guess, oxymorons were worthier considered at any past times. Even more interestingly, there should be a somewhat traceable evolution of how a word, i.e. Time, was more related to other words (as more perfect couple of it) than as it is related to Space nowadays. However thrilling this could look like, it needs a broader review and effort i am not capable of.

So, more simply speaking, as a suggested integrative feature with actual etymological platforms, we could think of adding a «History» category in all binomials-keypairs and give that feed to external projects that are more focused on etymologies for them to integrate it somehow in their platforms if they want. Another suggestion: Regardless etymonline don’t do etymologies of binomials, it could have a link to the «SpatialTime History category» at both Time and Space etymonline pages, if not more directly create that content section in their platform for their own moderated editors more comfortably adding information there about binomials.

 

INFORMAL DICTIOPEDIAS: URBANDICTIONARY & UNCYCLOPEDIA

Flove tries to formalize binomias definitions and has a prefered bipolar set of binomials relations (keypairs). But since these standards are (yet and maybe forever…) considered an informal practice through linguistics, all binomials are (perhaps, then) a new type of informal dictionary-encyclopedia.

Urbandictionary or uncyclopedia could be considered informal, but they have their own values-formalities-standards-consensus for not accepting all kind of words definitions on them despite them telling that are more open to newords than the more formal-centralized dictionaries.

It will be lovely if uncyclopedia would import the flove binomials standard to suggest it to their users for when they would create a term with two words, but they might or probably will not be interested in categorize some of their items as «Bipoles», because that move would surely look like too formal to their administrators (lol). Also probably, it would be quite duplicative (and disgusting for them) to propose to flood the informal encyclopedias platforms with binomials dumps loads (lol, lol).

 

 

THESSAURUS (SEMANTICS): WORDNET, ROGET, ETC

See Flove above as a substitute of Bictiopedia as a specific implementation of it

Thessaurus have «antonyms, synonims and related terms» for categorizing the semantic network of any word, but these 3 categories are very poorly proposed and further degreed. Only antonyms are useful, and they are overrated. Synonims are useful for titlings aesthetics, but their relationing is quite limited and meaningless, so we inmediately end up having to imagine how that meaning degreeing has happened without further sources. A flawy ironical resume about this is that the only standard for the difference between a not too close synonim and a very related word is, informally speaking (lol), their order of appearance (lol, lol), which it’s only linear, not even geometric (lol, lol, lol). Also, all antonyms can be easily considered very much opposite, but not all of them have the same oppositeness, specially when you add many of them.

Similarity is messed at thessauruses, let’s patch it. An antonym is a very related word, but the less similar. A synonim is a very related word of another word, a very similar one, but not completely similar either. Related terms category is an extension of the similarity degrees of the synonims category (Check: The last listed synonims will be quite close to the first items listed at Related terms!).

 

Mereonomies

Wordnet has some additional categories for words relations (Mereonimies: hypernonim, hypononim and else), but these categories only explain possible hierarchies within words. There are not further relational properties for words at Wordnets either (further than “first shown” or lists starting per “Other” ).

Patch / Feature requests

New related words can be also added to a Wiktionary word, but as happening with Wordnet, relations degrees and categories would need to be added and be expandable too.

Flove proposes within a more open architecture:

-Wordnet imports and distro

-Suggestion of Relators (wikidata) for wiktionary

-Prototype of a new Wiktionary like platform (bictiopedia in SMW)

See more about how to implement this, here.

 

 

 

DICTIONARIES

Dictionaries explain meaning of words with minimal rethorics, on the top of their etymological and semantical sources. But all actual dictionaries extend the bug of the poor semantical sources produced by thessaurus by interpreting antonyms through the excluded middle orthodoxia, hence their default definitons are “X is the absence of Y (its antonym)”.

Dictionaries are more or less formal depending the quality of their moderation and their popularity, not by their more or less quality of their semantical sources. The higher moderated dictionaries are considered the more official ones, both per their moderation process sources and more specially because the existant law uses them as sources for the rethorics of their proposed enforcements.

Official dictionaries

The more official dictionaries are considered very formal because of their taking a lot of more care about their editing permissions and processes, but its tightness makes them slowly adapting to times and so unpopular for the most of us. These dictionary rethorics are made by what a group of different experts from different fields of knowledge (more or less opaquely selected) consensuate, so some popular words are very difficultly updated and some others not that much popular are quite uselessly consuming most of the human editorial discussions time.Proof of this is that we have interiorized a high respect for dictionaries because they are a common centralized departure point for (stabilising) our more adventure meanings making of, while they are not more used (by native language speakers) for agreeing to some meaning than for having a laugh with what they say. For example: When we imagine their debate at whether to include and how a new slang term in it that is getting big popularity (because they wan’t to be considered more popular too…),which doesn’t look to be the ideal scenario for the more formal representative of linguistics.

Wiktionary

In another side of things, wiktionary has got popularity because of wikipedia being a more open editing platform, but this much openess don’t, can’t, really apply to wiktionary, because their centralized meaning mining architecture (no pages branches or forks) and because the rethorics and their categories at every page have to be minimized.

Wikipedia editing is as tight as the popularity of the page is being, so some not much popular pages could have a low quality, and popular ones be as tight as ohter more official dictionaries. Multiply that per 10, and you will find how tight is wiktionary.

Wordnet

Wordnet adds further categories to the type of rethorics used to define words, a bit buzzwordly called synsets. These categories, as the mereonomic (hierarchy) ones, are interesting scratch for a default that could be even further freely extended, having in mind the more value that more epistemologically concise and prescriptivists fields will have for that (because they complement the theorizing with theories getting more close to deontologies).

Patching / Feature requests

Flove proposes Axioms as a main category (with subcategories) for freely shortly defining binomials through rethorics.

If we don’t care for dictionaries updating protocols, law and science later on will fork on such theoretical flaws and produce further bugs in more practical sides of life.

We need some centralization for a repositorying of Rethorics. We need some rethorics to be more formal than others. We want the more formal rethorics to be the more consensual possible. We need some sort of moderation of humans to maintain such centralized estructure. But it is very useful to have the best possible bottom up model for being able to do so more comfortably, because let’s keep in mind that regardless of doing such formal rethorics repositorying and consensus completely decentralized and statistiscally optimized, we will keep on informally doing our own addons and changes to the meanings (relations and definitions) of actual words and we will create new madeup words.

So this proposal for a new ways to make a dictionary is mainly meant for enjoying the making of meaning regardless of consensus (from the bottom uo) while also hopefully would be facilitating the human discussions about words consensus.

ENCYCLOPEDIAS: WIKIPEDIA

Encyclopedias are very open projects that extend meaning of words and groups of them through longer and more open namings and rethorics than dictionaries. Dictionaries somewhat authoritarian (beyond their implicit needed shortness) about namings and defining through the core of the excluded middle interpretation of thessaurus antonyms, but encyclopedias will find it more and more difficult everyday to do so.

I am not and have never been involved at Wikipedia editing guidelines editions, but as a quite constant reader of Wikipedia during many years, i am seeiing a very interesting trend happening at how pages are presented, which relates very much to flove. Many Wikipedia broad pages are reducing its presentational contents lengths, having their criticisms more concentrated into-as another oppositional term-polarity formalized into another page, less oppositionally introduced.

The need to refer to criticisms in the Wikipedia editorial guidelines still lacks of a more proper estructure at Wikipedia. A better managing of this content will avoid a lot of debates on talk pages (very hard to follow up) and further unfriendly burocratization of the editing guidelines (such effort may neither bring editiorial rigour nor final debating fairness).

Wikipedia has to manage how to offer some structure through rethorics in their editing guidelines for pages having to include their criticisms. Some pages even have a «Criticism» chapter. But (more happening now), since dichotomies are one of the higher types of criticism and normally have their own page where the «other way» is being developed, a simple introductory link and introduction of the opposite trend saves a lot of content (that could innecesarily bloat it) to have to be displayed in page.

Higher burocracies through retorics for the rethorics referring to criticisms could definetely be helping in editing, but as said, further standarizing of sourcier semantics shouldn’t be avoided for that because they are the best patch. Otherwise, rethorical rules would just keep displaying a higher euphemism of not willing to face dichotomies as bipolar constants, and so some very rich knowledge gets lost and patching will get clunchy and increasingly costy to maintain.

Wikipedians have (partly) found out the same (or more) i believe-axiom in: the more you try to justify a dichotomy through deeper and longer rethorics, the more attention you are giving to the other pole you pretend to eliminate (See more at the showhiding middle page), the more it shows a need for a 50-50 presence explanation.

Wikipedia is getting closer and needing more the flove features for improving thessaurus and dictionaries, for them becoming a better base and guide for the editorial guidelines of pages.

Also, in another side of things, further wikidata categories could be added on the top of the actual ones for more concise and expandable definitions.

Wikipedia flove example

Idealism wikipedia page will reference very much (everyday more) to the Materialism one (its more dichotomical – antonymical one). Also, the materialism page will also very mainly refer to the Idealism one. But there is not a very rigourous way there to assure an equilibred cross-referencing from both pages. At editor guidelines sure there is a some sort of rule for linking to an opposite (criticizer) page, and sure that that policy will be more enforced to such of these broad pages that have well known so oppositional trends, but for sure the way to regularly do so could be better clarified because it’s not wished nor possible to tightly force some specific rethorical connotations ammounts about referencing the antagonism or relatedness of any page through rethorics mostly.

So finally Idealism page could be linking-referencing harder to the Materialism one than the way back. This unbalance of not referencing back enough happens at the main dichotomical pages despite both having the criticism section added of the other in both. For less popular pages the same but more unstructured is happening. For example, one, by creating a somewhat new buzzword for defining Materialism (example: theyselvesness), would not need to link to Idealism nor any related page nor to any criticizer of that, and that is somewhat uncomplies the editing rule of «add page criticism in it».

Analitical axis. Case: Known author stand on a knwon dichotomy.

Defining Nietszche (as a whole) stand on Realism as a dot in a line, or as a dot within an orthogonal axis of whatever other paramater (example: Idealism – Materialism) would be an easy stepforward into encyclopedical descriptions, but sure we also want to know which areas in such axis and up to which depth he and others were which sort of Realists (and idealomaterialist) at which age or at what book, and not only with a single dot resuming all their lifes, but with populated regions in axial graded view. Such an axial space may lead to post-describe its more populated through mathematical Functions.

Otherwise, as actually happening in Wikipedia, editors of pages have to struggle a lot more to define authors views on issues through many different related pages. Surely they will relax much more by having a singular page where to refer to for Nietszche’s positioning on dichotomical issues that displays a picture of an axial area with gradients. Guidelines for including criticisms would then be leveraged, there will be less unbalancing within pages (specially the more popular ones) because the hardest part to explain in it (their antagonist polarities) will be better approached from the beginning.

 

 

 

 

ENCYCLOPEDIA LINKS: 6 DEGREES OF WIKIPEDIA

6 wikipedia degrees (public database) is (a bit too buzzy – misnomer) name for a project that displays you the networks of links of Wikipedia pages with each other. This could be integrated in Wikipedia pages at bottom links (along the link to that page in wiktionary), because links are a simple way to proof that referring to criticisms / antagonisms are added in the page. Links network is a good and simple addon, but they are also too simple for assuring equivalence on cross-criticisms references among criticisms / dichotomies.

Let’s see straight away a Proof of Concept of what else could be done further with those networks.

Choose many of our favourite pages from that wikipedia links database and upload them to a program called yEd, and it will display an editable links graph network of such pages. Next, if we move them into a geometrical space manually made, we could achieve something like this:

La imagen tiene un atributo ALT vacío; su nombre de archivo es zzzzz.jpg

 

These nodes and arrows are the actual wikipedia pages and their linking to each other. No link or node title has been changed or omited. Here some human (Kenneth Udut) just selected some nodes and moved the nodes in a custom spatial geometrical position (square with a bicentroid in this case).

What else could we do with this? See:

Do a geometry like this from scratch with our own favourite keywords (or keypairs…) before or after doing it with wikipedia pages, and get a comparision of what we personally have drawn (either with the same words or different related ones, see further idea below) and see how that relates to how wikipedia has organised its contents. If we further automate this mechanics with all the organized data from different peers of a specific or overall network, this could provide recommendations for further specific linking between wikipedia pages (that may not link yet but should as according to what xyz peers consider), example:

Empty set (wikipedia page used in the demo above) is quite (semantically for me) similar to Perfection (through Source-Singularity as intermediate word between them… as wiktionary relates to, andor as a group of peers you like would relate that). Just this will little semantical guess of mine could provide a recommendation for the Empty set page to link to Singularity and or Perfection wikipedia pages, andor even an outer and lighter «see what Bictiopedia(ns) recommends as link to this page» at related pages chapter in the Empty set wikipedia pag

Also, we could try to see a network of more related words (antonyms, dichotomies) to those filtered ones there, either at wikipedia if that is being already developed, andor only at wiktionary, where we could additionally check the differences between the wiktionary, i.e. antonym term (i.e. Full, Perfection) and encyclopedic antagonist namings (Holon, fine tunning, etc).

Furthermore, in this special case, Perfection is very related to Fine tunning, and fine tunning to Lovely, which is one of the flove set of 4 standard teleological perspectives, so key content added to that flove category could serve as a big complement for the Empty set, Perfection andor fine tunning pages either at wiktionary andor wikipedia.

LAW ENCYCLOPEDIA

All languages tend to formalize and centralize some dictionary very hard, which gets to be the more popular one, at least for lawyers, the people that finally represent the dynamic backing value of words.

The same bottlenecks happening at the more open and popular Wikipedia, happen worsely at the most popular and minimized encyclopedia: Law. Law, as minimizers dictionaries it relies in, gets everytime being more bureacratized, openly interpretable and unconsistent so needing more mediation expertise (higher qualified lawyers…) to read more unaccessible discussions and updates on pages which are much harder to follow.

 

 

 

 

WIKIDATA, WIKIMEDIA AND (WIKIPEDIA) SCIENCES CATEGORIZATION

 

Encyclopedias extend rethorics from dictionaries and they have to provide a guide for such extensions. Categories for chapters is the more basic common way to do that. Categories can be shown linearly and limited in a set of them that is common for all, while kept open to be extendable through human debating and manual updating processes. But what if anyone could create a categories and let others choose to add to them and display such new category in their deafult or custom groups of ways of viewing pages? In this possible scenario, the more popularly choosed categories would be a linear default to display where more rigid (and human demanding) updating processes will be avoided.

Standarizing categories for encyclopedic items, but wikipedia only have the common categories for linking to other pages at the bottom of pages and a simple category tree for all its contents

 

Wikipedia has «suggested categories for editing pages» in their guidelines for rethorics, that they have standarized as Wikidata categories, for facilitating transversal analyitics.

Standarized categories as chapters for encyclopedias is what more helps in making the editorial guidelines, because they are what provide more transparency to them. The less categories being standarized, the easier will be to add content to and navigate them linearly, andbut in another paralel side of things, when that limited set would like to be extended (as naturally happening at encyclopedias) the more it will be done more clunchily through only informal tips given with stronger looking-like rethorics.

As for clarifying this flaw, let’s analize more groundily two cases (and see a pacth after those):

1. Wikimedia projects categorization

2. Categorization of wikipedia pages related to sciences.

3. Bictiopedia patch

  1. Wikimedia hasn’t got a projects category tree crossrelated to some of their sciences or linguistics categorization tree(s)…

Wikimedia has different projects (Wikipedia is only one of them) and incubating projects which could describe sides of its own broad epistemological scope, but Wikimedia does this very informally. Wikimedia projects are not aggrupated describing the areas of action within social sciences (or linguistic) categories their projects scopes focus in. This seems an easy task, but hasn’t been done yet. When we will do this, wikimedia would be gain more rigour, and more specially, we will have a better view of what knowledge areas we could want to develop more through which wikimedia projects (actual, possible andor from other platforms) for a better balance overall, so finally we will better integrate with actual social (or just linguistic) sciences fields of knowledge.

Science is a vanguard word for epistemology, which is already a vanguard word for knowledge, which is already a vanguard word for… etc. All of them would hide Truth because truth will hide them all too… . This is an aesthetical debate to be avoided here because it belongs to the field of etimology and semantics (see patches about that at chapters above), and we will keep attached to the word Science for further analising the improvement of categorization at linguistics.

Within sciences, there is the underlying difference between the so called formal and informal (low and high) sciences. Within informal sciences there are all the social sciences, that have an official-popular classification (Dewey, etc) used by universities mostly which, like thessaurus, only have linear subchilds as structure (not degreed relations nor transversalities specifications).

Actual additions to the scientific fields, either as a new branch of them or a methodology within some existant one, are done either by its further categorizing through a proven methodology and by its popularity in propagation. Some degree of rigour at new proposed methodologies is needed, because such rigour would implicitly gain popularity thanks to the researching help it brings. But such rigour increase could be (mis)understood because:

1. It offers a higher learning curve, results could be more precise but they are not that much accesible, so they offer lesser falsiability and potential natural propagation. We should then refer to fuzzy logic, discrete(r) math (ander even curiosity driven research) as testers andor patchers (read more here .. purer ideas rule).

2. It has a higher popularity regardless of the less rigour the new categorization could have. Some researchers feel the moderation of the sciences category tree too slow and too strict and elitized for adding or editing them, so new (informal) knowledge fields constantly pop up willing to be integrated at new classifications and recombinations of branches at scientific trees. Since the more rigid sciences classifiers updating can’t cope with the speed of new discoveries, some people prefer to create their own branchings with some new words with an extra (somewhat complementary) buzz, for more quickly referring to their Subjectivities, regardless if they overlap with actual standarized methodologies or not. Normally, these new additions just develop transversalities (very informaly, flawly) across some of the actual ones, and so get referred by different branches, adding an additional classificatory overload to have to cope with that.

Here in this group there are the cases of either

1. The very pseudosciences, more deliberately spiritual either complementary and or oppositional to the actual ones.

2. Best-sellers andor elitized achademical papers that became a scientific field.

Since Wikipedia is more open to add pages categorized in some of its Science trees than Dewey, etc moderators, it also needs to specify some additional sources for a page to be named or categorized in a Sciences category tree. But this openness just favours elitized acheademics andor bestsellers buzzwords for getting more popularity by having their link there, while it bullies the more spiritual approaches (unless they are a best-seller…). Finally, wikipedia sciences trees are populated with alot of geeky buzzwords, displaying a much messier classification than the more rigid Dewey’s one.

A short set of example about this: Social psychology is a subfield of psychology but not of Sociology?, The Bell Curve for Economy is used as a standard in Economy because of a bestseller book with that name while not further strictly follow the Bell test for physics it is based in?, When someone would propose Applied philosophy would it make it a page or why not?, etc… .

We can expect categorizing sciences at wikipedia as an adventure if looked at it with funny eyes, or as an increasing frustating failure if we look at it with rigourous tight eyes. So what we can do for improving this situation further funnily and tighly?🙂

-Create a comparision table of sciences classifications, including wikipedia as one more there.

 

TO further review

 

BICTIOPEDIA PATCH

3. Bictiopedia offers a rootkit for the uncreasing wikipedia messand or a complementary standard and platform for thessaurus, dictionaries and encyclopedias

Either at single words meanings or at sciences classifications, it is easier to further let to relate fields of knowledge between them in the more open way (this implies anyone being able to clasiify as they want and rather focus in dealing with filtering statistics for consensual purposes) than focusing in increasing a centralized-vanguard promotion to consolidate the consensus. Dictionaries do it with big elitism, wikipedia with lesser but perhaps with too much still. Centralization goes along decentralization, we have to find a balance.

There is nothing wrong with anyone using the more original words they prefer for explaining any science or trying to explain sociology within psychology or else science, and there is neither a flaw in more peers publickly telling that psychology is the keypair of sociology or not at all or less than politics or else neword. If we let that to happen more openly, and go building more viewable clusters of statiscal popularities along, surely new standards for Social Psychology could have more options to look at be minding such opinions. For example, it could then more easily happen that when someone willing to propose new standard for a field, that they got them related from some parent field of Psychology (for example Media), they could be willing to balance it with proposing other related standards parented from Sociology (for example Politics, because they accept a pool of opinions that consider Sociology being a sibling of Psychology), so they could be seen themselves serendipically even proposing new standards for Sociology which was external to them in the first place, but not that much anymore thanks to this such new global pool that they have freely choosen to rely on. Despite it could look too much of a social burocracy and code work to reach so, this was an easy usecase to showcase, because Psicosocial is already quite accepted as a standard overall.

Note that i still said quite accepted and not even completely centralizedly accepted, and for sure their officialization traces are not suffienciently transparent either for many people, but it is always nice to clarify that, specially with easy and very accepted cases as this. The more it is clarified the less burocratic and code work afterwards, and for sure there is also a lot of code and burocratic work to face within this already quite recognized scientific standard.

In this more wildly open trend of classifying, for sure other more difficult cases will appear and a lot of more apparent mess could come if we let a freer classification of sciences, but this mess is already happening implicitly. By doing steps in expliciting it, we can just expect(or bet) a quicker better organizing of them all, as when anyone splash all their pending notes in their working table. Faith comes first for this step. I have my faith in it because expliciting any mess wakes up a shame in the messer to more quickly tidy it better. There is nothing to loose by implementing a prototype to wikipedia data that is extending further a known specification like Linked Data or else.

Bictiopedia aims to clarify natural law but shouldn’t prescribe it

Bictiopedia scope has to be reducted to an improvement of epistemology applied to linguistics. Nevertheless, it is obvious that developing knowledge within linguistics influences and or is related to the epistemological vanguard than science is. However, it is fine to put an end to the scope of bictiopedia at the providing tools for defining bipoles, either dumb or very scientific ones.

As linguistics is related to science, same or more it is related to law, because descriptivism is also equilibratedly poled with prescriptivism. Within law we find many of the same procedural issues that have been raised in this page regarding to linguistics. Mostly about how to balance the convivence of centralization and decentralization, as happening within computation with its top down & bottom up bipole.

I hope you could re read this page and get further ideas to develop an analogy of flaws & patches but for the law and analytical realms themselves. It won’t be my bussiness at least in the short term, but i do really care more about law than linguistics themselves in the end, specially about the so called Natural Law field.

I consider all the features i propose for bictiopedia as apart of further natural lawing, but that is my unoffical opinion only. More specifically, i have already set up some further documentation about improvements on it, but i consider them outside of the bictiopedia scope.

Along the specification of bictiopedia and the regular dumps of my book i am manually doing with them (each chapter of the book is bictiopedia compliant), i am proposing a collection of what i consider ideal sets (of words that keep bumping in my mind as very relationably stable), all of them with very recognizable grounded bipolarities that keep relativity stable despite their higher conmutativeness because of being into more populated sets.

These somewhat pseudostable keypairs and scalable sets of them, for me would represent the natural law centralization we also need along the decentralization of rethorics and categorization we should further develop along. The hardest part for the bictiopedia project is to set the limit of up to which level its items (bipoles) could scale. There are some demonstrations and discuss in this other page, here.

Furthermore than consolidating structures for describing words, i adventure myself to propose the ideal sets of them to be further prescriptive, from simple phrases to more advanced and practical interactions in entangled apps modelling.

This more prescriptivist project (flove.org) is offtopic to the purely descriptivist that bictiopedia should keep on being. For me bictiopedia is the standalone core of flove, my broadest and more personal life-long project.

EASY AND ENTUSIASTHIC CONCLUSIVE MESSAGE

If thessauruses categorizations are as poor as now, expect dictionaries to have more bugs which law would magnify and will further mess encyclopedias, law and sciences.

Encyclopedias are not, yet, meant to be merged with the scientific methodology, but wikipedia example and their openness in their editing guidelines are helping a lot in having that horizon nearer. Bictiopedia points to patch the main bug of all linguistic platforms, which is as easy as to repeat: In this holist relationism, bipoles rule!

Let’s all relate all the more freely and see what our more related peers and the whole has said about that. Semantic MediaWiki is outstanding out there because already offers more flexible editing and cross-categorization of wiki pages, while its capacity is not enough used. There are even forks betting for more of it, and also a very interesting platforms alliance around it. There are also more ambituous standards cooked around the term of Semantic web, and many studies and products that are on topic for this thread that for sure i have missed. Please assist!

For further tunning of this thread, check the standards for implementing bictiopedia page. See all other pages at the menu of this website. Bring your force on board, and or wish us quick success while you keep lurking aside. Whatever the weather, let’s enjoy more the dancing of our words, they are already possesing us much!