Related projects flaws and integrative patches


This page analises flaws and Bictiopedia integrative patches for linguistic knowledge popular platforms related to Etimologies, Thessauruses, Dictionaries and Encyclopedias overall and their achademies-scientific classificatory methodologies more in particular.


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.

Parts of the lexic of the actual word could carry a literal part of its meaning from a previous one, but such part of meaning could also be not a literal import from the past lexic and or meaning to the actual one, hence the importance of researching in the semantic linking between what was meaning (a part, the full word or a related bit of it) and what is meaning now.

Etymologist 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 natural language. Natural language definition itself has missing links with (biological) etiologies (whys) of other more ancestral symbolisms, as the debate about ontogeny & philogeny keeps going on.

We could consider words etymologies (i.e. Etymonline project) a quite accessory part of the Bictiopedia project scope in a practical side. But there is a very interesting theoretical point to research that bictiopedia points to that etymologists may be also missing to further look at: evolutive bipolarity within (at least and or at most) natural languages, in other words: the semantic bipolarizations we can identify within etymological stands during evolution. For example: How were oxymorons and other actual keypairs seen in the past? Which other words or considerations were people using for those? 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 looks like it is 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, but this should need a broader review i am not capable of. 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.

So, as a bictiopedia integrative feature with etimological platforms, we could think of adding a History category in any bictiopedia items 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. As a more concrete landing suggestion: Regardless etymonline don’t do etymologies of bipoles, it could have a link to the Spatial Time History category (Bictiopedia item) at both Time and Space pages in its platform, and or more directly create that content section in their platform for their own potential and or moderated editors more comfortably adding information there by importing the bictiopedia standard for doing that.

The funnier and more important thing that the Bictiopedia project is adding to the Etimologies knowledge field is that many keypairs will be born (will be initially formalized) thanks to bictiopedia, so it will be providing a root for the further evolution of many keypairs… (lol & wow).


Bictiopedia tries to formalize bipoles definitions and has a prefered bipolar set of bipoles relations. Thessaurus relate words with the same categories and bictiopedia focuses further (formalizations-categorizations) on the words relations by:

1. Sintactically merging the related words

2. Adding further main (centralized) & customizable (decentralized) degrees (other categories) to the relations.

Since these standards are (yet and maybe forever…) considered an informal practice through linguistics, all bictiopedia items 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 than so called more formal dictionaries. For example, any composed terms with two words will perfectly fit in bictiopedia scope of keypairs research, but maybe not in urbandictionary contributing guidelines.

It will be lovely if them would import the bictiopedia standard and suggest to use 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 those platforms with all bictiopedia items (lol, lol).


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 all these categories are very poorly further degreed. 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).

More groundly speaking, we should consider that these further degrees would become more and more subjectively interpreted, and we should see that as an unwished scenario for a thessaurus. Custom dynamism for the semantic networks of words is already happening in our lifes, we should adapt to that, and not ask ourselves to adapt to the semantic networks (surfaces, lol) of thessaurus that because they deprecate categorization, they can be considered just a tiny semantic surface very poorly categorized.

Formally speaking, thessauruses don’t use those Very synonim or Qualifiers for their related words listings. But they mean them with their order of appearance (lol), that it is only linear, not even geometric (lol, lol). But informally speaking, the more antonyms or synonims of a word appear listed first and lesser ones appear listed later. This more obviously and enrichngly happens to the «Related terms» category, but you shouldn’t formally rely in that, because all related terms are formally considered as having the same relational status.

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. 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 catgeory is an extension of the degrees of the synonim category. The last listed synonims will be quite close to the first items listed at Related terms (!). But apart of those 1+2 categories of relations, there are the rest of words, which are formally considered as not related nor similar at all, but more informally, there are some projects that offer you such path from one word to another through their semantic network (tiny surface poorly groundly categorized…) (see wordnet and 6 degrees of wikipedia below)

There aren’t degrees nor parameters of relatedness nor similarities (high relatedness) at any thessaurus that i know of. I don’t even know if there is an official(ly centralized) Thessaurus for any or some language, as there are dictionaries for any of them (!). Neither any open thessuarus projects i know of are configured to have their relational degrees or parameters to be crowdsourced. Wikimedia doesn’t have a thessaurus. Wiktionary has thessaurus categories that are the more open to be edited in the thessaurus platforms scene, but they are just an accesory bit to the wiktionary project (they are not cared as the root of them), and more specially, they follow the same oversimplistic and overcentralized structure that other more formal-popular thessaurus have.

These flaws of thessaurus are the core bug of linguistics and law. Beyond little and messy referring to etymologies, law relies in dictionaries as source justifications for implementing its recommended force. Dictionaries rely more in the poor categorization of thessaurus as sources of their words.

A word in a dictionary is defaultly defined as an absence of its antonym, and when they want to propose a more artistic or deep definition than that, they use the lesser related terms of that word (!), because a (very close…) synonim (or a too much related word) is just redundant to the word being defined (do not add anything to the properties of the word)… .

So, in short, in heavier-sarcastic flawing mode: Antonyms are semigods, synonims are useless, but lastly listed synonims and related words (specially the last appearing ones) are the more useful Thessaurus sources for Dictionaries rethorics (!) loved by lawyers, trolled by poets and disliked by all (!!).

Finally, a suggested integrative patch from bictiopedia would be:

Dump Wordnet (and or Roget) thessaurus data into the bictiopedia platform and:

  1. Let users freely relate words (actual related terms as default relations)
  2. Specify types and degrees of relations between words
  3. Create bipolar items with the antonyms and related words* (ignore synonimical relations) and apply to them the bictiopedia epistemological fields for defining them.

*Since actual relations (those thessaurus defaults) are poorly degreed there, those resulting bipolar items would not be very interesting to further define in bictiopedia (i.e. hot warmth, branchy section, etc), but the merge of antonyms will produce oxymoronic items which are highly valued at the bictiopedia project.

See more details about how to implement this patch, here.


Wiktionary is probably a more useful referral dictionary for the most of us due to its more openness at adding new bits, but it stills relies, as more official dictionaries, in interpreting antonyms through the excluded middle orthodoxia.

Wiktionary is very nicely linked from wikipedia pages as sources for them, and it is also a bit of an etymothesasurus itself as well, but because it is only just a bit of a etymothessaurus, this is its biggest flaw too. I mean, you big wikipedia can openly link to a rich source of that, your wiktionary. But if for the sources of wiktionary itself you only offer tiny surface, your root has a big bug.

Wikimedia doesn’t have an specific etimologic or semantic thessaurus project beyond tiny wiktionary categories. Wiktionary may have the advantatge of more opened source for editing it compared to more official dictionaries (and other featurings), but it is very far from offering a more quality of contents than if you download a popular Dictionary and combine it with and link it to other downloadable Etymological and Thessaurus projects.

Math, Etimologies and Thessaurus can rely only in links&nodes representation for their declared thruths, but dictionaries value is the formalizing of a minimal rethoric (poetry is the informal side of that and enclyclopedias the more extended formal one).

Definitions from dictionaries tend to be considered formal, but we buggily affirm so by their forced popularity, ignoring the oversimplistic (so unconsistent) «antonyms as absence» core policy (explained above). Dictionaries consider themselves formal minimal rethorics representatives not because of their semantic sourcing, but because of the human editors selection and moderation. Wikipedia is also considered a formal extended rethorics representative because of the same reasons, but their strategy is different. Wikipedia editing is as tight as the popularity of the page is being so some not much popular pages could have a low quality, while for dictionaries there is a similarly tight editorial policy for all items so some popular ones are very difficultly updated and some others not that much popular are quite uselessly consuming most of the human editorial discussions time.

Dictionary rethorics are made by what a group of different experts from different fields of knowledge (more or less opaquely selected) consider as the «not too much related or enough unrelated terms of a word from a semantic source than is less official than their rethorics themselves (!)».

I tried to be formal at describing the actual situation and operating standards of the crew that is maintaining and updating the more official and centralized dictionaries, but you probably need to re-read that phrase. Etymological repositories are archaeorethorics that are less official than thessauruses but thessauruses rely on them. Thessauruses are microrethoric less official than dictionaries but dictionaries rely on them. Encyclopedias are macrorethorics less formal than dictionaries, but they rely on more formal dictionaries. Basically, as an informal ironic flawy poet, i want to say: Dictionaries are the most formal repositories for languages probably because they want to say that MiniRethorics is more important than semantics microrethorics or other archaic sources they use, while macrorethorics from encyclopedias are just playgrounds for the teenageers and kids having their entertainment toy, for not bothering the merit of the editorial elitized crew assessment task they do for lawyers and scientists.

After the flawing comes the patching:

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. Bictiopedia proposes Axioms as a main category (with related and nested ones) for shortly defining bipoles.

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.

We should also very much 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 or changes to the meanings of actual words and or we will create new madeup words.

This is actually one of the struggles and permanent debates of actual dictionaries: Whether to include new slang term in it that is getting big popularity. A much deeper and impossible to be tighly maintained by any elitized crew or machine learning technology is when a related word deserves to be in a thessaurus.

Dictionary editors hardly do that, they do it quite bad because they are not connected to such low-level language forms, while it is more increasingly being their main tasks, so finally they people tend to use and respect dictionaries less. Factually, dictionaries are used mostly by new language learners or lawyers for eductaional purposes and for jokers to have a laugh with, but not by the average citizen at all, which doesn’t look to be the ideal scenario for the more formal representative of linguistics.

As happening also at any decentralizing procedures, there is still the bottleneck of needing to standarize (formalize, centralize) the human based updating of protocols of the system itself. Nevertheless, there is a lot of decentralized structure we could develop to leverage the bottleneck of human centralized protocols updating. Pitty is that if we don’t do this 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.


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 see a very interesting trend happening at Wikipedia which relates very much to what this Bictiopedia project proposes as its editing principle. Wikipedia is getting closer and needing more of what Bictiopedia proposes as a fundamental, is probably the more thrilling part (obvious benefit) of the Bictiopedia project for the world of linguistics and knowledge overall.

Many Wikipedia very broad pages are reducing its presentational contents lengths, while the ones that are highly dichotomic with another one (broad pages tend to have a more empashized criticizing dichotomy), are more getting introduced similarly to as what bictiopedia proposes as a defining basic methodology. Shortly speaking, dictionaries could be lazy and somewhat authoritarian about defining through antonyms, but encyclopedias will find it more and more difficult everyday to do so, because 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).

Regardless of this last axiomatic stand being more truth or less, wikipedia has to manage how to offer some structure through their editing guidelines for including the criticisms of the presented pages. In this sense, dichotomies (antithesis, etc) belong to the strongest possible criticism.

For 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. I mean, 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 called dichotomies, but for sure the way to regularly do so could be better clarified and also surely it is not wished nor possible to tightly force some specific rethorical connotations ammounts about referencing the antagonism or relatedness of any page, through rethorics mostly and maybe a very broad categorization (i.e. «Criticisms» Section).

So finally Idealism page could be linking-referencing harder to Materialism one than the way back, which somehow, would be from a bit unfair to too unfair for the less linked one. This unbalance of not referencing back enough happens at the main dichotomical pages despite both having the criticism section added in both, andalso more surely will be happening at many other less broadly conceptual or popular ones with lesser potentially dichotomies. For example, one, by creating a somewhat new buzzword for defining Materialism (example: myselfness), would not need to link to any Idealism related page (nor to any criticizer), and that could give that page an unfair overpromotional advantatge on their contents that its unconfessed parent (more known Materialism in this case) itself doesn’t have (because Materialism is linking back to Idealism).

Further forcing the referring to criticisms in the editorial guidelines still lacks of a more proper base to do in Wikipedia. A better managing of this issue will avoid a lot of debates on talk pages very hard to follow up and burocratization of the guidelines which may not bring editiorial rigour nor final fairness. Bictiopedia proposes to manage this better, from the root of it, it’s its fundamental addon.

Wikipedia may not need to implement an orthogonal (alter)space for analising an specific author stand on a dichotomy in one single page, but bictiopedia definetely should have that as a consultable base. It may look too simplistic for someone to define 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), but sure we want to know which areas in such axis and up to which depth he, Wittgenstein and others were which sort of Realist (and idealomaterialist) at which age, and not only with a dot, but with a graded view of it.

This could look too hard to feature at first sight, but these proposed features are just orthogonalities displays and areas populated within an axis, that could even be further synthesized with «custom functions». This type of contents displays are already tried to be implemented, but only through rethorics, which is an area much harder to be acurate (than with more structured tools as bictiopedia proposes).

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 orthogonal area with gradients. Guidelines for including criticisms would then be leveraged, there will be less unbalancing within pages with more quality because the hardest part to explain in it will be solved from the root-beginning.

This same issue is probably happening with law, 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 much harder to follow.

Higher burocracies for the rethorics referring to criticisms could definetely be helping in editing with a more bipolar eye overall, but as said, they are not rigourous grantors of such if Wikipedia focuses in coping with that by policying rethorics but ignores the further standarizing of sourcier semantics for their pages. More importantly, such higher burocratization of rethorics regarding criticisms while ignoring degreeing sourcier semantics is just displaying a higher euphemism of not willing to face dichotomies as bipolar constants, and some very rich knowledge is still being too damned by attaching to that way of developing or clunchy patching that will be increasingly costy to maintain.

Bictiopedia could be the rigorous thessaurus Wikimedia doesn’t have, an special wiktionary of bipolar items andso a more and specific encyclopedia which serves as a sourcier analiser tool for Wikipedia pages at the same time.


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. It is a step forward into what Bictiopedia proposes as an operating principle because links are a way to proof referring. Although links are not enough data for assuring equivalence on cross-criticisms references among dichotomies, they are a type of data of big quality. Let’s see straight away a Proof of Concept of what Bictiopedia could do further with that.

If we get to choose many of our favourite pages from that wikipedia links database and upload it to a program called yEd, we could display a links graph network of such pages. If we further fine that graph just selecting the more interesting pages & links (for us) from all the initial bigger set of pages & links we choosed, and manually move them into a geometrical space, we could achieve something like this:

These nodes and arrows are wikipedia pages and their links 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:

  1. We could 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 peers xyz consider), example:
    Empty set (wikipedia page used in the demo above) is quite (semantically) similar to Perfection (through source-singularity as intermediate word between them… as consulted by you onthefly in actual wiktionary or other thessaurus integrated widget, in «your abc friends group» from a bictiopedia compliant platform, etc). Just this will provide a recommendation for the Empty set page to link to:
  2. Singularity and or Perfection wikipedia pages. It could added just a «See what Bictiopedia(ns) recommends as link», at related pages chapter in the Empty set wikipedia page, if wikipedia itself adds bictiopedia standards in and even additionally some peers from an implementation of it (ns).
  3. To some other orthogonalities and or geometries that the page is in: antonyms section in the wiktionary, in the criticisms chapter or else place there at the wikipedia page.
  4. Furthermore, in this special case, Perfection is very related to Fine, one of the Bictiopedia set of 4 teleological perspectives (some of its standard fields), so key content added to that Bictiopedia category (aggregated in a public global data pool friendly to Wikipedia management in the case of hard linking between wikipedia & bictiopedia), to serve as a big complement of the Perfection page, and or other related pages of it.


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are bundles of knowledge about titles of things, either extensions of singled titled and formal ones from dictionaries and other more populated formal and informal titles than the dictionary ones.

All languages tend to formalize and centralize very hard some dictionary, which gets to be the more popular one, at least for lawyers, the people that finally represent the dynamic backing value of words. Linguists don’t do this formalization & centralization effort for thessaurus, etimologies and encyclopedias. Some of them could be considered more formal than others, primarily based on their use popularity and robustness of their editorial standards. This robustness doesn’t mean centralization. Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia because it is quite open to be edited despite their centralized rethorics and software platform. Roget & Wordnet thessaurus are more open tha Merriam-Webster, but perhaps not better or more used than that. They could be offering flexibility to download and play with it, but not enough further networking of those compred to the selectively centralized board of editors from Merriam Webster. Bictiopedia may not be useable nor popular at all (yet), but in chapters above i explained what further standards for more rigour could bictiopedia be giving to these mentioned linguistic platforms.

Thessaurus are very rigourous in the sense that they are very simply structured: they only have three categories that can be aggrupated as (++)2+1(- antonyms) & (related words)1+2(+&-), but beyond that, they lack of the rigour of further categorizing within those categories (they are oversimplistic) and they also lack of a recognized social consensus about the many of them they are. Official dictionaries have rigour because they have such consensus, altough they lack of rigour because they rely in poorly rigourous categories from thessauruses. Encyclopedias such as wikipedia have popularity without being so centralized platforms as dictionaries while have a more open and quite rigourous editorial guidelines, and it is being more useful and popular so having more natural social consensus than dictionaries and thessaurus, but it still lacks of rigour because of not enough decentralization of rethorics and platform and more specially because of the reliance of a poor thessaurus and dictionary (wiktionary) source referring.

Further categories of Dictionary & Encyclopedias are ok but not key as that will be for thessaurus

Dictionaries scope is to have items which are lone words with only one sentence each and may have further rigourous categories. Encyclopedias scope are either single words, multiple words, even phrases as items which to be defined with multiple phrases that may have further categories, which could have some rigour through a common set of them, while they could still be more open for more decentralized set of them than dictionaries. One easier way to explain it is: Dictionaries are lone word titler and single sentence centric with perhaps further rigourous categories, while encyclopedias are (multi)word titlers and paragraph centric with perhaps more and less rigourous categories.

Further categories they may create on them for their items don’t make much more difference between them as platforms, they are just a continuation of their own properties. Dictionaries can have categories for adding multiple phrases, but they are only used for (formal) polysemy (when any word «formally» means completely different things), for audio hearing, lexic or etc sort-of-bundling a thessaurus in it, as wiktionary tries doing… . Encyclopedic items may have have duplicated entries if they are polisemic (disambiguation pages at wikipedia), and they also could have their own more rigourous categories (related pages, see also, etc) or less (custom chapters for a page) for describing deeper (more informal) properties of their items.

More rigour at editorial guidelines while lesser at categorization within and of pages is working at wikipedia, but its unsustainability is going to increase

The quality of the wikipedia editorial guidelines is what makes their difference when compared with dictionaries (which editorial guidelines are very selective and elitized) and other encycopedias (that have them less open and detailed than wikipedia).

More formalization through common categories for all encyclopedic items will help a lot to the editorial guidelines, but wikipedia only have the common categories for linking to other pages at the bottom of pages and a quite messy category tree for all its contents .

I don’t know whether Wikipedia has «suggested categories for editing pages» in their guidelines for rethorics. The less they will have so, the more their pretended formalization will become only informal tips given with stronger looking-like rethorics, that could increase the pages administrators authoritarism and or bottlenecks and so would for sure complexizate discuss pages, as happening when lawing terms try to further categorize by getting rethorically wordier instead of clarifying containers: their rootier categories keep being and are still more messed up.

As for clarifying this failure, let’s analize more groundily two cases:

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 its own broad epistemology, but it does very informally because, as far as i know, the wikimedia projects are not aggrupated under a diagram that describes the areas of action within social sciences categories their scopes overlaps with. This little developments on categorizing wikimedia projects along wikipedia categories could be somewhat easily to be done, and it will be an important step forward for wikimedia gaining more rigour, have a better view of where they are and what could have more in being developed within them for a better balance overall, so finally better integrate within what we (and they) call (linguistic) sciences.

2. From the perhaps too many sciences pages there are at wikipedia, which are tried to be terribly displayed in a singular tree branch, sure there will be very weird links to other categorie of pages and a lot of pages related to more strict new sciences would have been banned while other less strict new sciences buzzword would have been categorized as science within the wikipedia categories trees.

Science is a vanguard word for epistemology, which is already a vanguard word for knowledge, which is already a vanguard word for… and all of them hide Truth because it will hide them all too…

Science is, beyond what dictionaries say about it, very centralizedly defined by the Standard model of Physics as: Experiment able to be validated (repeated coincidence of the*) by the meassure** of an apparatus***.

*not defined as such, but meant…

**meassure that doesn’t account bias in it, or doesn’t ask for much justification of the context of it…

***technology not needed to be open source…

In and before that knowledge edge that i won’t bug it further in although you could read more about it below in the natural law referring, there is also the underlying difference between the so called formal and informal sciences (within informal sciences there are all the social sciences) that have an official-popular classification (Dewey, etc) that (like thessaurus) only have linear subchilds as structure (not degreed relations or dependances).

Some researchers feel the moderation too slow and too strict and elitized for adding or editing their standard (informal) fields, so new (informal) scientific fields constantly pop up at new (normally messier) classifications of them all.

A methodlogy for knowing to be classified as «science» would bring many benefits to the suggestors of that proposal. It is a very wanted candy for anyone, but could decrease the richness of the candy that the word science is, if too many or poorly rigourous methodologies get qualified as such.

Sciences categories tree maintaners are not very strict by elitist purposes only, they are like that mostly because new fields suggestors don’t care enough whether their new suggested field overlap with existant ones.

Wikipedia could specify some necessary sources or scientific trees in their editing guideliness for a page to be named or categorized in a sciences category tree, but it rather has to rely in its own moderating arts for the classification of sciences, which gives us one very good example of such much messier classifying than Dewey’s. I can and i don’t really want to imagine how much polemics should this raise at the allowing of creating, description and classificating of wikipedia pages declaring to be a new scientific field themselves there despite not being considered as such as some more formal tree.

I don’t know which are the detailed standards for qualifying as formal science either (i just guess they should have a much more slow procedure than the informal or social ones), i am just going to give attention (and introductions to possible patches) now to the possible opacity, elitism and or overdependance and messy way to add new branches or standards within recognised informal sciences, and how it could be easily patched, taking wikipedia as an example of it.

If relying in the actual trend of classifying science(s) at wikipedia for example, we can only expect increasingly higher mess, due to the opportunistic new words constantly appearing (many…) to hijack areas of study of other fields in their speciality (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 phyics it is based in?, When someone would propose Applied philosophy would it make it a page or why not?, etc…).

Without adding bictiopedia standards in it, wikipedia is going to be more of a messy container of pages that don’t refer strictly enough to the contents from other fields they overlap with. Most we can expect is some enthusiast editor(s) to create a comparision table of sciences classifications, including wikipedia as one more there.

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? 🙂


3. Bictiopedia offers a rootkit for the uncreasing wikipedia mess, and 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 ( 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.


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!