Brett Robertson wrote:
The important thing is to define intelligence the way
Well, that's the point. Just define intelligence the way you like, add a
couple of non-established acronyms and your theory seems to be fine.
Intelligence is hard to define but there is enough you can choose from -
especially there is enough distinction between kinds of intelligence so
you don't have to mix everything unless "intelligence" means nothing.
1. Ordinary intelligence. If you find a way to make Wikipedia solve
intelligence tests or let Wikipedia reason, plan, solve problems
independentely we can talk about this.
3. [[Collective Intelligence]] and swarm intelligence. I'm sure this
applies to Wikipedia but in this term "intelligence" is used in a more
2. Organizational intelligence and [[Business Intelligence]]. Wikis are
good at knowledge management so there is a strong connection to
Organizational intelligence. This is worth to be investigated in more
detail. Philosophy of science and psychology can provide good theories
you can compare Wikipedia with.
3. Existing [[Articificial Intelligence]]. It is mainly pattern
recognition and robotics so please don't mix with strong AI that does
only exist in theory! Wikipedia does not have to do anything with AI.
4. [[Emotional intelligence]]. Well, at least Wikipedia also makes
people act emotionally ;-)
I doubt that using the term consciousness is of any use in researching
the intelligence of Wikipedia. It's easy to argue in a way that suddenly
every book contains intelligence. You better focus on *knowledge* (see
second point) - we all try to collect "the knowledge of the world". But
what kind of knowledge is in Wikipedia and what is the difference
between the knowledge in Wikipedia and knwoledge in a brain? There is
enough to investigate without taking off to ungrounded
 Nothing against philosophy - it's a true science! But using some
philosophical terms and theories does not make it more scientific. I'm
very interested in *pure* philosophical thoughts about Wikipedia!