MediaWiki API result

{
    "batchcomplete": "",
    "query": {
        "pages": [
            {
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "API",
                "missing": ""
            },
            {
                "pageid": 1,
                "ns": 0,
                "title": "Main Page",
                "revisions": [
                    {
                        "user": "Admin",
                        "timestamp": "2023-08-23T18:52:58Z",
                        "slots": {
                            "main": {
                                "contentmodel": "wikitext",
                                "contentformat": "text/x-wiki",
                                "*": "== Overview ==\n\nblup\n\n== Books ==\n\n=== [[Info-Ops 1: Build The Right Thing]] ===\n\nInfo-Ops 1 is about how groups of people get together to learn what sort of technology they would like to build. Programming is applied philosophy, and book one describes why and how this is true.\n\n=== [[Info-Ops 2: Build Things Right]] ===\n\n=== [[Info-Ops 3: Learn By Building]] ===\n\n[[Constructivism | The Power Of Negative Thinking]]\n\n== Philosophy ==\nThe Info-Ops works are based on a loose synthesis of four major school of philosophic thought.\n\nUnless otherwise noted, these definitions are lifted verbatim from internet sources.\n\n=== Pragmatism ===\n[[File:2023-01-icon-pragmatism-large.png|200px|thumb|left]]  <blockquote>Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism originated in the United States during the latter quarter of the nineteenth century. Although it has significantly influenced non-philosophers\u2014notably in the fields of law, education, politics, sociology, psychology, and literary criticism\u2014this article deals with it only as a movement within philosophy.\n\nThe term \u201cpragmatism\u201d was first used in print to designate a philosophical outlook about a century ago when William James (1842-1910) pressed the word into service during an 1898 address entitled \u201cPhilosophical Conceptions and Practical Results,\u201d delivered at the University of California (Berkeley). James scrupulously swore, however, that the term had been coined almost three decades earlier by his compatriot and friend C. S. Peirce (1839-1914). (Peirce, eager to distinguish his doctrines from the views promulgated by James, later relabeled his own position \u201cpragmaticism\u201d\u2014a name, he said, \u201cugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.\u201d) The third major figure in the classical pragmatist pantheon is  John Dewey (1859-1952), whose wide-ranging writings had considerable impact on American intellectual life for a half-century. After Dewey, however, pragmatism lost much of its momentum.</blockquote> [https://iep.utm.edu/pragmati/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]\n\n===  Tripartite Semiotics ===\n[[File:2023-01-icon-tripartite-semiotics-large.png|200px|thumb|left]] \n<blockquote> In the nineteenth century, Charles Sanders Peirce defined what he termed \"semiotic\" (which he would sometimes spell as \"semeiotic\") as the \"quasi-necessary, or formal doctrine of signs,\" which abstracts \"what must be the characters of all signs used by\u2026an intelligence capable of learning by experience,\"[16] and which is philosophical logic pursued in terms of signs and sign processes.[17][18]\n\nPeirce's perspective is considered as philosophical logic studied in terms of signs that are not always linguistic or artificial, and sign processes, modes of inference, and the inquiry process in general. The Peircean semiotic addresses not only the external communication mechanism, as per Saussure, but the internal representation machine, investigating sign processes, and modes of inference, as well as the whole inquiry process in general.\n\nPeircean semiotic is triadic, including sign, object, interpretant, as opposed to the dyadic Saussurian tradition (signifier, signified). Peircean semiotics further subdivides each of the three triadic elements into three sub-types, positing the existence of signs that are symbols; semblances (\"icons\"); and \"indices,\" i.e., signs that are such through a factual connection to their objects.[19]\n\nPeircean scholar and editor Max H. Fisch (1978)[d] would claim that \"semeiotic\" was Peirce's own preferred rendering of Locke's \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae.[20] Charles W. Morris followed Peirce in using the term \"semiotic\" and in extending the discipline beyond human communication to animal learning and use of signals. \n</blockquote> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics#Charles_Sanders_Peirce From Wikipedia]\n\n=== Philosophy of Language ===\n[[File:2023-01-icon-philosophy-of-language-large.png|200px|thumb|left]] \n<blockquote>\nWittgenstein left Cambridge in the early 1920s and pursued projects outside academia for several years. He returned in 1929 and began doing very different sorts of work. It is a matter of great debate, even among Wittgenstein acolytes, how much affinity there is between these stages. Many philosophers of language will speak of \u201cthe later Wittgenstein\u201d as though the earlier views were wholly different and incompatible, while others insist that there is strong continuity of themes and methods. Though his early work was widely misunderstood at the time, there can be little doubt that some important changes took place, and these are worth noting here.\n\nIn the posthumously published Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein broke with some of the theoretical aspirations of analytical philosophy in the first half of the century. Where analytical philosophers of language had strived for elegant, parsimonious logical systems, the Investigations suggested that language was a diverse, mercurial collection of \u201clanguage games\u201d\u2014goal-directed social activities for which words were just so many tools to get things done, rather than fixed and eternal components in a logical structure. Representation, denotation and picturing were some of the goals that we might have in playing a language game, but they were hardly the only ones. This turn in Wittgenstein\u2019s philosophy ushered in a new concern for the \u201cpragmatic\u201d dimensions of language usage. To speak of the pragmatic significance of an expression in this sense is to consider how grasping it might be manifested in actions, or the guiding of actions, and thus to turn our attention to usage rather than abstract notions of logical form common to earlier forms of analytical philosophy. (Speech act theorists will also distinguish between pragmatics and semantics in a slightly more restrictive sense, as we shall see in \u00a74.2.) The view that \u201cmeaning is use\u201d (1953, p.43) was often attributed to him, though interpretations of this view have varied widely. Wright (1980 and 2001) read this as a call to social conventionalism about meaning, McDowell (1984) explicitly rejected such a conclusion and Brandom (1994) took it as an entry point into an account of meaning that is both normative and pragmatic (that is, articulated in terms of obligations and entitlements to do things in certain ways according to shared practices). But it can be safely said that Wittgenstein rejected a picture of language as a detached, logical sort of picturing of the facts and inserted a concern for its pragmatic dimensions. One cannot look at the representational dimension of language alone and expect to understand what meaning is.\n\nA second major development in the later Wittgenstein\u2019s work was his treatment of rules and rule-following. Meaning claims had a certain hold over our actions, but not the sort that something like a law of nature would. Claims about meaning reflect norms of usage and Wittgenstein argued that this made the very idea of a \u201cprivate language\u201d absurd. By this, he means it would not be possible to have a language whose meanings were accessible to only one person, the speaker of that language. Much of modern philosophy was built on Cartesian models that grounded public language on a foundation of private episodes, which implied that much (perhaps all) of our initial grasp of language would also be private. The problem here, said Wittgenstein, is that to follow a rule for the use of an expression, appeal to something private will not suffice. Thus, a language intelligible to only one person would be impossible because it would be impossible for that speaker to establish the meanings of its putative signs.\n</blockquote> [https://iep.utm.edu/lang-phi/#SH3b Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]\n\n=== Analytic Philosophy ===\n[[File:2023-01-icon-anaytic-philosophy-large.png|200px|thumb|left]]\n<blockquote>\nThe school of analytic philosophy has dominated academic philosophy in various regions, most notably Great Britain and the United States, since the early twentieth century. It originated around the turn of the twentieth century as G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell broke away from what was then the dominant school in the British universities, Absolute Idealism. Many would also include Gottlob Frege as a founder of analytic philosophy in the late 19th century, and this controversial issue is discussed in section 2c. When Moore and Russell articulated their alternative to Idealism, they used a linguistic idiom, frequently basing their arguments on the \u201cmeanings\u201d of terms and propositions. Additionally, Russell believed that the grammar of natural language often is philosophically misleading, and that the way to dispel the illusion is to re-express propositions in the ideal formal language of symbolic logic, thereby revealing their true logical form. Because of this emphasis on language, analytic philosophy was widely, though perhaps mistakenly, taken to involve a turn toward language as the subject matter of philosophy, and it was taken to involve an accompanying methodological turn toward linguistic analysis. Thus, on the traditional view, analytic philosophy was born in this linguistic turn. The linguistic conception of philosophy was rightly seen as novel in the history of philosophy. For this reason analytic philosophy is reputed to have originated in a philosophical revolution on the grand scale\u2014not merely in a revolt against British Idealism, but against traditional philosophy on the whole.\n</blockquote> [https://iep.utm.edu/analytic-philosophy/ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ]\n\n== Synthesis ==\n\n== Derivative Work ==\n\n=== [[Info-Ops Implications For Public Education]] ===\nBecause Info-Ops is about the free and instantaneous flow of information into, around, and out of a person or group of people as they learn, it naturally has implications for public education.\n\n== Common Fallacies ==\n\nblup\n\nThe result of all of this helps address [[common rhetorical fallacies]] found on the internet\n\n== Iconography ==\n\nFor information on what the various icons mean, check out [[iconography]] page.\n\nConsult the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents User's Guide] for information on using the wiki software.\n\n== Getting started ==\n* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]\n* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]\n* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/ MediaWiki release mailing list]\n* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]\n* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]\n\n{{Template:Flowlist}}"
                            }
                        },
                        "comment": "/* Info-Ops 3: Learn By Building */"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    }
}