[ontolog-forum] problems with Wikis as a genre/medium

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you John. That was very kind and helpful. I have lost the thread in the meantime, so I had better stop here or start a new thread, if anyone is interested.

It would be problems with wikis (Wikipedia as I experience them.

1. The most agressive editor will dominate the texts as he removes anything he does not see fit.

2. Only text supported by references to publications are tolerated, so new ideas or aspects will never be.

3. They do not care about providing definitions and using a basic set of vocabuary for such definitiins. For example Twin concepts as a new entry word is marked and redirected to dualism. Dualism is not defined at all. And yet there is mapointless discussion on how they differ and they maintain that dualism ios fine, twin concepts are rubbish

That is the way with authoritarian people who have various wikie medals and .

Cheerio
 

---

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 27 January, 2009 2:16:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

Dear Frank,

When a person writes an email note (or even a book) about topic X,
it is impossible to infer what that person believes about topic Y.

> There is a lot more out there in understanding this world and
> human language processing than trying to describe in terms of
> formal logic.

Of course.  I have said that in many different ways in many different
publications.  For a list of them with pointers to the recent ones, see

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/

For slides of recent talks with pointers to suggested readings, see

    http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/

> Moreover, you do not have to speak a language syntactically correctly
> to get by.

That is obvious.  Saying it makes people think that you don't yet
have a strong grasp of the obvious.

> You do not see that all the words you use are names of concepts,
> and concepts are all abstract, there is no such thing as an
> abstract concept and a concrete concept, etc.

If you would like to get a clearer idea of how those signs are related,
I recommend the writings of C. S. Peirce.  You can start by reading
the following paper:

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf
    Peirce's Contributions to the 21st Century

> Please, read the book entitled the Topos of Music...

It's a good book.  I have a copy of it.

I also recommend the following papers, which discuss some of the
reasons why AI systems based on formal logic have failed to achieve
true intelligence (or even a decent level of artificial intelligence):

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/cogcat.htm
    Categorization in cognitive computer science

    http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/pursuing.pdf
    Pursuing the goal of language understanding

John




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)