Q10299/Q10,2,99 Wikidata [1] -> a project to describe any and every notable concept using linked data. you can think of it as being similar to Wikipedia articles but terser and filled with statements expressed in terms of RDF triples: subject - has relation to, or has characteristic - object.
Wikidata is rather technical for somebody who has never heard of the basic concepts, but in the end, it's like one big exercise in second-order logic. I made a "second" Wikidata because I didn't really like the way it did second-order logic and wanted a more freeform approach where the second-order statements could be almost anything.
Q10291/Q10,2,91 TV Tropes [2] / AllTheTropes (generic) [3] -> largely about picking out literary motifs and patterns. and of course, having fun describing them and filling pages with way too many links.
Q10295/Q10,2,95 KnowYourMeme [4] -> explains the origins of various internet memes, general 'inscrutable internet ideas', or momentary trends. a bit like TV Tropes but for memes.
I think this site had a big part in shaping the concept of S1 Signifier Items. they're basically like KnowYourMeme pages but taken more seriously.
Q618/Q618 iceberg chart -> I forgot about this one for a while. but I think these were very formative in what I consider the concept of a "motif" to be. on an iceberg chart, there are a number of miscellaneous 'themes people keep talking about' which are all summed up in a relatively short series of words even though they can take many minutes to fully explain. yeah. that's a motif. that's what an S1 Item is. it's just a concept that you keep seeing everywhere within a particular set of conditions, such as a given fandom or a given academic philosophy.
Q10294/Q10,2,94 Infinite Craft [5] -> combination / alchemy game which generates new elements using a Large Language Model (LLaMA). very cool in concept, but tended to have very "dumb" behavior as far as actually generating good combinations... and stopped being able to send web requests on my computer at a certain point.
Q3451/Q34,51 madlib card game / apples to apples [6] / cards against humanity [7] -> this is one part of the appeal of this ontology project that I neglected to properly explain before. like, to some extent, it's supposed to be that Wavebuilder combinations are fun or interesting because they're a lot like a black-card-white-card game where you put down your black card "going to the afterlife" and your white card "Leon Trotsky" and then there will be a new entry based on that "card round" actually explaining the concept of "Trotsky going to the afterlife" — which you can then use as a new "white card". you're intentionally nudged to find really stupid combinations of black cards and white cards, such that they produce either a really funny and weird concept with a bunch of new abstract associations, or an actually good philosophical insight
Q290/Q290 'pataphysics -> imagined "field of science" portrayed in Dr. Faustroll. it took me a while to understand what this really was, because nobody who isn't a philosopher actually explains it right. some people assume it's specifically about the rules, tropes, and norms that make up fiction (SCP Wikis are guilty of this), some people think it describes lateral thinking and creativity.
'pataphysics as a phenomenon is the interactions between Idealist propositions treated as laws of physics, leading to comical violations of what would be expected in a Materialist model of reality. a sieve sheds water because it has the quality of being full of holes, so if you put enough of a hole-filled material on a bed then it floats and becomes a boat.
the most shocking thing about 'pataphysics is that while it's funny at first, you can pull out the most basic principle inside it and actually begin using that to create a Materialist model of reality which is predictive. all you really have to do is test propositions against reality and at a certain point the tested propositions can start substituting for reality and testing the results of other ones. it kind of just turns into science.
Q783/Q783 non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on binary True or False answers and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" answers simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate, but not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.
Q10293/Q10,2,93 Snopes.com [8] -> "myths and urban legends". Snopes is a site where people would send in various rumors — said another way, statements or claims — and a team of fact-checkers would try to figure out whether the statements were accurate or inaccurate as presented. [9] Snopes actually had a number of different truth values far beyond just True and False, including "satire" and "incorrectly attributed".
overall I have always liked the concept. I think there's value in having a bank of statements marked with truthy or falsy categories, and I especially like the concept of many possible axes of truth values allowing for such things as a correct statement that was attributed incorrectly, or an incorrect statement that was satire. I've made the concept of truthy and falsy statements outwardly simple here with only "not false" (S2) versus "falsy" (F2), but the purpose of that is mostly to make the actual inner system of evaluation appear less scary to people, given that it's rather complicated on the inside and there's currently a lot of "discretion" in deciding what statements belong where. I hope to make it more objective as time goes on.
Snopes.com + Marxism = LithoGraphica.
