Wikipedia phenomenon: converging topics to philosophy

[Q-1]

There's a phenomenon over at Wikipedia. Namely, all or most (?) topics converge to "philosophy". Is there a name or some kind of coherent explanation for this phenomenon? Is it just simply the case that most branches of science originated from philosophy, and this is apparent in how Wikipedia works or any encyclopedia for the matter?

Quora provides an answer to this question:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Wiki...in-each-article-not-in-parantheses-or-italics

Thoughts?

 

[Q-1]

Buzzkill, here's an entry over at Wiki specifically in regards to this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy

 

[Klystron]

There's a phenomenon over at Wikipedia. Namely, all or most (?) topics converge to "philosophy". Is there a name or some kind of coherent explanation for this phenomenon? Is it just simply the case that most branches of science originated from philosophy, and this is apparent in how Wikipedia works or any encyclopedia for the matter?

Quora provides an answer to this question:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Wiki...in-each-article-not-in-parantheses-or-italics

Thoughts?

Interesting article but not rigorous. The assumption that linked searches devolve to philosophy makes sense for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Following cross links to arrive at specific information while tedious for the focused searcher, benefits the 'knowledge lover' (philosopher).

For example, yesterday I sampled Wikipedia to obtain the description of a Mersenne prime number. Found rules and formulae to the effect "add 1 to the prime number and determine if the resulting sum is a power of 2." Later followed links to Marin Mersenne's biography and his many contributions to science and math. Appears as if Mersenne and fellow scholars designed the classical curriculum of the college I first attended (Greek and Hebrew had been dropped from undergrad courses just the year before though Latin was still taught.). Irrelevant to original query but broadening.

 

[Rive]

I think it has something to do with the too much information and opinion available simultaneously on the internet. What is real and what is fake: what is valid - things gets blurred and needs some patching up => straight way to philosophy.

Even here it is common to have some 'weekly metaphysics'.

 

[Evo]

In other words, they are saying "philosophy" is the DEAD END, go back to other searches if you want actual information. And no, we're not going to get into a discussion of Philosophy.

 

[Q-1]

I think it has something to do with the too much information and opinion available simultaneously on the internet.

Basically, I wonder if this phenomenon would hold true for any other encyclopedia. I mean, if one were not biased in constructing said encyclopedia as to censor or eliminate all references to "philosophy".

What are your or other thoughts about this?

 

[Q-1]

In other words, they are saying "philosophy" is the DEAD END, go back to other searches if you want actual information. And no, we're not going to get into a discussion of Philosophy.

I agree and think this site maintains a perfect equilibrium between such topics. I know the moderators strive very hard here to eliminate "philosophy" from discussions here. But, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that philosophy can be appreciated for its reservoir of thoughts and content for those who are especially inquisitive. After all, to generalize, most topics originate from such existential questions...

If I recall correctly, we even had a philosophy sub-category on this site, which you moderated; but, most topics were of poor quality. I like to participate in online reading groups of philosophers on other forums, which kind of guides the discussion instead of devolving into opinions and feelings about topics, which is all too common.

I'm still grappling with trying to post topics that don't delve too deeply into these philosophical questions, where an infinite amount of "why's" can pop up and lead to the philosophical questions. I guess the only way to do that is through adherence to some standards of inquiry or "criteria".

 

[Rive]

reservoir of thoughts

You asked about my other thoughts. What makes 'science' is not the amount of raw thoughts available, but the type of the filter (reality and math, as it is: the requirement that it must work... Occam's razor and so on) what thins out that reservoir to be science. However, on the internet everything is available, simultaneously. It really become an uncontrolled reservoir. It became 'philosophy' in its worst, without thinning.

Wikipedia is not a scientific, but a community project.

 

[Q-1]

Wikipedia is not a scientific, but a community project.

Agreed. But, there's no real alternative to it yet. It seems like the best we got and might as well go along with it.

Perhaps you're talking exclusively about stipulative definitions here?

 

[Klystron]

I agree and think this site maintains a perfect equilibrium between such topics. ..[snip!]...
through adherence to some standards of inquiry or "criteria".

The published forum rules for posting apply reasonable standards IMO.

 

[Q-1]

The published forum rules for posting apply reasonable standards IMO.

I don't know if that's entirely correct. It seems to me the people rather than the rules. Goes both ways I suppose. I don't know how to quantify the forum dynamics; but, the rules are certainly important.

 

[Klystron]

I don't know if that's entirely correct. It seems to me the people rather than the rules. Goes both ways I suppose. I don't know how to quantify the forum dynamics; but, the rules are certainly important.

Correct. I should change "apply" to "provide". Thanks.

"Forum rules provide reasonable standards for the community".

 

[Klystron]

...[snip]...
What are your or other thoughts about this?

I tend to follow embedded links in online encyclopedia, often to define terms used in the main article. I also tend to follow historical and biographical links time permitting. Unlike the authors of the posted study, I do not find following links inevitably devolves to "philosophy" though circular linked lists seem common. Depending on initial search criteria and the categories connected to the search terms, could this effect be caused by selection bias at each link?

Just the ambiguity of the meaning of strings used to search coupled with word connotations could allow searcher bias to influence results. My own example of reading Mersenne's bio after looking up how to determine if a prime number is a Mersenne prime, reflects my interests. I could have followed links to minim philosophy mentioned in the biography.