• Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.”

    • itsralC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 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]?”

    • exoplanetary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 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

  • lugal@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    4 months ago

    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”

    • readthemessage@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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”.

      • lugal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

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

    • Shelena@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

          • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.deOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yes, I agree. However, that makes it even more interesting when the categorization doesn’t lead back to philosophy, but instead goes in a loop.

  • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

  • Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    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?

    • TxzK@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 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.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 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.

  • Kilorat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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

  • Programmer Belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

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