How One Small Change Broke Wikipedia's First Link Rule

they still lead to philosophy, there is no compelling reason to stop there, it has become completely arbitrary, it is just another of the 97% of nodes that now lead to consciousness, the game of consciousness, all things considered, this attack , if you will, was not so bad, this is because consciousness was also a member of the great cycle, meaning that although consciousness was no longer pointing to philosophy there was still a way back to it, so 97% of Wikipedia pages still led to something. I'll let the philosophers among us debate whether that should be consciousness or philosophy, although I suspect they might be a little biased, but regardless of the overall shape of the network being largely unaffected, it could have been much worse, although if If someone had decided to redirect analytic philosophy somewhere else, not only could they have cut off 50% of philosophy's web, but analytic philosophy was not part of it. the big loop would have actually split the network into two completely separate halves with no path from one half of the network to the other, the structure of the network would

change

completely and there would arguably be no star of the show.

Analytical philosophy was actually redirected since I originally recorded that section, but the reason it didn't break the philosophy game is because it wasn't redirected back to its own lobe as if consciousness was sent to one of the

small

er ones and this idea of ​​attacking a network's weak points to ruin my YouTube video is probably one of the most important and applicable parts of network research. Using essentially the approaches we took in this very video, we can identify the weak points of a network to attack or defend it. To be clear, I'm using the word attack loosely.

An attack targeting a city's power grid is obviously a really bad thing, but an attack targeting a cancer cell's metabolic network is a really good thing. Attacks also don't have to be aimed at a tree, knocking down a power line is a random thing. attack such as an attack of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's on brain networks, although it is obviously a little more complicated, directed or not, by knowing the structure of the network we can predict and prepare for how these attacks will affect a city or a patient and help advocate against it before it even happens, which begs the question: Was the attack on the awareness article random or well-targeted?

If we go into the article history of the awareness page, we will find a juicy drama on April 5, 2024, someone made a

change

and recorded the following. I changed the order of psychology and philosophy so as not to break the

rule

that every

first

link

brings philosophy with it. I now know that consciousness was

first

link

ed to philosophy when I started collecting data in early 2024, so presumably someone had changed it at some point and this person. I changed it again. I think it's worth noting that a day earlier I posted a short preview of this same video for my Patreon subscribers, obviously that can't have been a coincidence, so thanks to my amazing and patient subscribers anyway on May 22nd 2024.

Someone undid that change and wrote see talk page for why psychology comes first. Now I'm not very familiar with this backend part of Wikipedia, so I couldn't find what they were referring to on that talk page, regardless of all of this having convinced me that in fact, this was a targeted attack intended to ruin my video and make me look like a fool, but the jokes about them, I'm already able to do it myself anyway, let's go back to the awareness page for a second notice that, although Philosophy is not the first, it is the second, which gave me an idea and is something I haven't really seen anyone talk about.

What happens to the philosophy game if we don't use the first link? Well, we've done it before. let's do it again, go to a random

wikipedia

page, click on the second link, this time repeat until we hit a loop, then start again, watch all of Neon Genesis Evangelion again while the code runs correctly, that's it , generate the second link. The network realizes that there is a bug in the code. that also affected the first link network and go back and regenerate that network, reanalyze and ask why you are doing this to yourself, repeat the above steps and finally here is the second link network but why stop there, why not the third link network, why not the Fifth link Network why not the number 100 Well, maybe not that one and here are the second, third and fifth links, as you can see, unlike the original first link, these are much more fragmented, the importance of philosophy also decreases considerably, the probability of even reaching it is 2% for the second Red link 1% for the third and my program didn't even find Philosophy for the fifth Red link, what's more Interesting is how the network is changing shape, part of this is because it is becoming more and more likely that this will happen.

I came across a page that doesn't have enough links to continue the walk, so I stopped at 5, that explains the fragmentation, but not why the connected components of the network are changing shape and becoming a little stringy. What we're looking at is I think our Collective Agreement on how we discuss concepts. Early links attempted to contextualize a topic within a broader concept, while later links reflect individual properties of that topic. Neon Genesis including Gallian and Gorden Legon are animations produced by Studio gyx about giant robots and making friends. Given their similarities, it is not a surprise that the first pair of links are also very similar, while the later links are more reflective of their individualities;

In other words, for larger link numbers, the chance of two articles pointing to the same thing decreases, instead they simply continue as a chain. You can really see this effect if we choose links completely at random, the network seems to dissolve into a soup. Hopefully you can see how the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th link networks are trending towards that, the main difference being that every time you land on a page. with less than five links the fifth link traversal stops while a random walk can continue with a single link and it is this trend that I find interesting, if the second link network structure was already very fibrous I would suggest that There is no collective agreement on how we describe articles beyond the first link, but that is not what happens, while the greatly diminished second and third link networks still show some residual agreement and from there, gradually, the trend towards random network we are essentially seeing the functional deterioration of our Collective Agreement on how to write definitions for things, wasn't this supposed to be a math video or something, although I actually think that's what's really surprising about this?

We're using math and we're analyzing the structure of an abstract network to learn something about how we communicate and connect the world around us in our minds Wikipedia is this uncoordinated mess that tries to summarize everything we know about our universe and, in doing so, to Sometimes it reflects a little of who we are. If you know where to look, searching Wikipedia is like searching. Staring up at the night sky for too long makes me start to think about my place in all of this and that's when I realized that maybe I don't need a Wikipedia page about myself, maybe the connections I was looking for were already around. around me.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a huge and amazing universe, but it's you that makes it mean something, especially if you're registered in my Pattern.