Object Model and Wikipedia

At the end of the prior blog entry where I arrived at Capital (enonomics) and Capitalism and their relationship to Wealth and Money.  And what about the thing that seems to emerge here called Financial Leverage?

Cool!  A good place to end that entry and now take a look at where I am at and the "Meta Structure Path" that guided me here.

What guides my path is Object Orientation.  Examining what a thing is (its properties) and what it does (its behavior).  Look at the links cited in the paragraph that says I came to the end of this blog entry (which I have not).  They are all refer to Wikipedia.  In essence what is the nature of each of the conceptually high level Objects Classes???? Capital, Wealth, Money, Leverage?  The essence is that each describes its own self in common terms of Properties, Behavior and State as well as, in come cases, children of their class (sub classes) where that serves the explanation of the Super Class object.

Another way of looking at Wikipedia is a "Soft Object Oriented Model of Everything We Know"  Or Soft Object Model expressed in the "Stealth Mode" of object oriented structural design principals.  Well......surprise! Natural Language is also a stealth mode to the extent that it is also a meta structure on which Wikipedia is built.  The Object Oriented Model is simply a more precise formalization of Natural Language and Program Language (which is an Object Oriented Language) is a more precise formalization of Object Oriented Model Language that is a translation to a language that a machine can understand, (actually through increasingly formalized logic languages to the binary that computing machines understand and speak fluently with each other.  It must perplex them that they have to go through so many translation steps to be able to communicate with us.

Wikipedia is a Soft Object Oriented Model of our entire known world of real and conceptual things.  It is soft to the extent that it uses Natural Language to explain in a soft formalized framework.  That framework is essentially Object Oriented in its nature, and a step toward drawing it all together, and I mean everything,  in a more formalized, more integrated Object Oriented Design Model (OODM).  Wikipedia 2.0 for the common person will not be called by that OODM name but that is what it will progress to be.  Wiki is a now a generic term and there are all kinds of Wikis that have already taken that step to a higher degree of OODM.

The "Personal Wiki In My Head" is one of those more formalized in the Object Oriented Model and Language.  Nobody reads this blog is not a true statement.  It gets a few random hits.  Out of all the blog entries I have made here the one that gets the most few hits, and this surprises me is the one I wrote about the Personal Wiki in My Head.  We all have one of those.  They are  framed in terms of  Object and Function, each of us having our own dominant approach  like we have left/right brain approaches.  The Object approach obviously dominates in mine but when I can grasp the object I can understand the Function.  Logic rules everything. 

The content of Wikipedia is like what an expert in building a formalized Object Oriented Model gets when they sit down with a Subject Matter Expert to discover what they know in their domain and then take that narrative and extract object classes, behaviors and relationships from it to build Use Case and Object Models that the Subject Matter Expert might look at and ask:  Did I say that?  Yes, you said that as accurately and exactly as I could parse what you said to a model that systemically places everything you said in a formalized Object Model Structure Language, more formalized than the Natural Language you used to say something in your domain of expertise.  I am only the translator, you might not understand the logic based translation but since it is logic based and you are an expert then the translation is a fundamental expression and evaluation of your logic.  If not then we might have to discuss your logic in the next meeting to see if the translation got it right (or your subject matter logic might not be entirely logical consistent or contributing to a related subject matter domain or a higher level subject domain but that is why I have my job) 

Wikipedia is Open Source.  Beautiful!

What if OOD experts were to take what subject matter experts say there and express it in an OO model.  Perhaps as an intermediate step format and style experts might edit what is said to refine it for input to the OO model.  The OO Model is a different language that just takes a translation, like all the other languages that Wikipedia displays as a language of choice on its opening page.  I would like to read it in the OO Language.

Start with all the Wikipedia pages that address Object Oriented and there are many that do that. 

To illustrate (but this is not from Wikipedia) this is a subject matter problem domain expert's statement made here about objects in classes, and their behaviors.  It is rich in object and relationship content in its language.  This could be expressed well in an object model by someone skilled in that art and science that may find even greater meaning when related to other object models.  Discovery of relationships and meaning in a modeled world is far easier, faster and more efficient than connecting such knowledge in a purely narrative language world.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Divided We Stand: Three Psychological Regions of the United States and Their Political, Economic, Social, and Health Correlates
Peter J. Rentfrow, Samuel D. Gosling, Markus Jokela, David J. Stillwell, Michal Kosinski, and Jeff Potter
Online First Publication, October 14, 2013. doi: 10.1037/a0034434

There is overwhelming evidence for regional variation across the United States on a range of key political, economic, social, and health indicators. However, a substantial body of research suggests that activities in each of these domains are typically influenced by psychological variables, raising the possibility that psychological forces might be the mediating or causal factors responsible for regional variation in the key indicators. Thus, the present article examined whether configurations of psycholog- ical variables, in this case personality traits, can usefully be used to segment the country. Do regions emerge that can be defined in terms of their characteristic personality profiles? How are those regions distributed geographically? And are they associated with particular patterns of key political, economic, social, and health indicators? Results from cluster analyses of 5 independent samples totaling over 1.5 million individuals identified 3 robust psychological profiles: Friendly & Conventional, Relaxed & Creative, and Temperamental & Uninhibited. The psychological profiles were found to cluster geograph- ically and displayed unique patterns of associations with key geographical indicators. The findings demonstrate the value of a geographical perspective in unpacking the connections between microlevel processes and consequential macrolevel outcomes.