Oh thank you — I’m more show than go alas — I hardly know what I’m even doing most of the time – but I’m honored to be thought of like that! — these are all things that intrigue me — I know they all link together – and I’m the link because they’re from me but they must have things in common themselves without me… and on a crowdsourced place like Wikipedia it _should_ show some of those connections (is my assumption).
It’s like looking for that thing that isn’t there but it is. What’s in that negative space that I’m not seeing?
Holism and Emergence at the bottom was a surprise to see together and I’m glad because it’s probably what is at the root and ties it in.
Oh these I’m typing in by hand one at a time, drawing connections by hand.
I have some of the data I extracted from saved bookmarks and saved history — I was able to get 4000 wikipedia visits over a period of time and I used a thing I found in Google Sheets that could pull the categories from Wikidata (but I had to transpose it as it was coming in vertically instead of horizontally) – and then get rid of excess things until I could winnow it down enough to then start going through the category hierarchies on wikipedia and seeing how I feel about each one I’m at.
Does it represent me? Am I interested in this topic or no?
Finding out everything DOES eventually connect to the “Main Topics” means that there’s always a path to the finish line and that’s what spurs on this go-around at a similar thing I’ve done a few times before but from different angles
I’m going through gauging my visceral reactions to each of the categories as I add them. For example, I was adding categories for theoretical computer science as it linked to something I had on there – and I noticed I was getting a ‘yuck’ feeling as I was looking through the subcategories and pages and I realized, “I don’t like this area. I need to find another path” and I deleted those and tried a different path.