Warning: Undefined array key "sidebar" in /homepages/4/d708720806/htdocs/clickandbuilds/Bictiopedia/wp-includes/blocks/template-part.php on line 238

Warning: Undefined array key "sidebar" in /homepages/4/d708720806/htdocs/clickandbuilds/Bictiopedia/wp-includes/blocks/template-part.php on line 238

Edge the Merge

Two Sides do a Keypair

Our Favorite

Truth is biased and dynamic andbut reduceable to a bipole. Favorites get more robust by lighting their shady sides.

Keypairs Deserve

Let’s square definitions, let’s get bipolar processes as minimal units and let’s digg in the more edged pairs the better

Better Networks

A freer thessaurus for a more open encyclopedia for better dictionaries? Ratings to be more accesible and evolvable?

how to balance when…

All expands two sides

Exclusivizing (one side) while minimizing (the other)

We can get same or deeper browsing only two items than with a triad, rethoric andor pretending eliminating (excluding…) one of the sides – poles.

Extremes attract each other because the size that expands is bipolar, while a centroid pushes us back to the roots throgh an approach to that middle for what we call equilibirium. Dichotomies do increase, but for expanding their own merging value.

Merging sides serves for enjoying the depths we come from and expand. Let’s stay and go more to centroids, the bigger the better.

Brave and benevolent

Enjoy values from their inner. Closer sides always get deeper and longer.

Light so varied

Bictiopedia scope is narrow but its capacity and appliances are very broad. With FUZZY we make this management the more minimal

Recicle and create

There are a lot of sides to edge and merge in your writings, in the web and more new to create .

What makes BICTIOPEDIA special?

Wikipedia is very cool but not enough decentralized nor sharp. Ratings could be crowdsourced too.

Wiktionary sources are poorly evolvable and not used at Wikipedia. Antonyms could be rather used as contents raters, so less «discussions guidelines» bottleneck.


(FUZZY) Relate, Rate and Redefine some data, add some opposite side of it and create a new item to define with that merge, that you can easily convert it into a rater for other content

Titlings dogma

Every relation has a conjunction. A key conjunctions is. a Keypair, all antonyms are keypairs, that we should develop as binomials

Pending so needed

More balance between sides. The broader antonyms ,the better they merge. Let’s art them further with AntiComms.

Continuous research

Deepening, in presciptivity too, is incentivized with epistemic labels bundles, playful apps and learning.

Simpler deeper…

Same for remind than for suggest

Existant inner structure allows recurrence, it starts at bipoles and the better it is continued as such, the worthier it gets.

We consider some issues to be broad because they are more easily related to many others. In broad issues it’s easier to accept an underlying 50-50 balance of a bipolarity presence there. When we merge Antonyms, we directly get into a deep and long space, when we merge them less, they conflict but for reminding us that we can rather always broaden those issues further.

Broader oppositions are easier to merge than conflicts

When there is conflict in the surface, there is a reminder for diving further into its fundamentals, for solving it more at its roots. When we get deeper into the Fundamentals of any issue, we may find dilemmas or dichotomies. We’ll then get deeper by merging them, precisely.

.An antonyms conjunction – keypair – (was «oxymoron») is a very clear total of possible rational length

AndOr Bring any Rate straight to infinite

Redefine opposites merged

We are all the time rating. Our ratings tend to be simple type-of-like clicks and our more open ratings tend to be more positive. In the other side, criticisms (open negative ratings) is what makes more robust our positive values.

We want to deepen in ratings definitions by incentivizing aggregating opposite ratings to the main positive ones. From there, specially if rethorics are given with the ratings, we could already remix both into a single rant, so makes sense to more formally extend both opposite concepts merged as a binomial item to be further defined itself.

You could define it freely with FUZZY labels and use default bundles of them that makes the deepening more sharp and customized.

Dare to redefine merged opposites with dances?


Digg in your own favourite dichotomies and contradictions and share that gold with near ones and or the whole world.


Let further creativity coming into your project by integrating critical ideas from members better in.

Your project

A more clear way to get into the little details from people’s more cared qualifications


Looking for a big exciting project where to give some of your art in?