Dyadicism is a species of reductionism amounting to the assertion that any explainable phenomenon can be explained in terms of dyadic relations, that is, by means of 2-dimensional arrays or square matrices.

Analyzed on purely formal, logical, or mathematical grounds, the assumption is quickly seen to be untenable, but there's always the Chance that Nature is Content to Actualize but a Part of the Whole Potential of Form, and so it becomes a fair empirical question to ask whether the premiss of dyadicism might be True In Practice (TIP).

I would have to say

Jon

For a lot of folks who are recurrently hopeful that the right marriage of society and technology might just carry humane wisdom over the threshold of the terrible infant that its lowest common denominator labors to deliver in the pregnant present, Wikipedia is just the latest cloud on the horizon of our once bright aspirations.

So we keep asking:

— Is that all there is?
— How did it come to this?
— Dare we hope to do better?

My abductive hypothesis that dyadicism is one of the devils in the details of the dynamix is directed toward answering the question, "How did it come to this?"

My best current guess is that Wikipedia manages to survive and even to thrive — against all odds and despite a host of maleficent mutant oddities — by exploiting an Artefactual Lack Of Intelligence (ALOI) in the way that Dubya³ presently operates.

Jon Awbrey

My latest comment on Vipul Naik's What Is Research blogicle, "More On Wikipedia Criticism", more or less belongs here.