Talk:Philip M. Parker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject France (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject University of Pennsylvania  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Deleted misleading cost figure[edit]

This article formerly said, "Parker estimates that production of a book costs him 12 pence." In support of that statement, it cited a Guardian article. The relevant sentence in the Guardian reads, "Parker estimates that it costs him about 12p to write a book" (note "write", not "produce"). A New York Times article says, "he [Parker] points out that once he has trained the computer to take data about past sales and make complex calculations to project future sales, each new book costs him about 12 cents in electricity." Since Parker lives in the U.S., he would be much more likely to express his expenses in U.S. currency than in British pence.

The actual cost of producing a physical book by the print-on-demand method falls roughly in the $1-to-$5 range. A reasonable estimate of the electricity rates where Parker lives is $0.25 per kilowatt-hour. A desktop computer and monitor together might consume somewhere around 200 watts. So for 12 cents, he could run his computer for about two and a half hours.

Going on this evidence, I think Parker's actual quote probably meant that it costs him 12 cents (U.S.) to run his computer long enough to create the content of a new book.

Additional comment on Parker's production costs can be found in his interview on the O'Reilly Tools of Change site. The tacit understanding there is that the 12 cents is the cost of writing a new book in a genre that has already been programmed (at much greater expense).

Gwil (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Connection to Webster's?[edit]

Does he have any connection to or recognition from Merriam–Webster or Webster's Dictionary? It seems not. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Icon books cannot be cited?[edit]

An editor removed one of my citations saying the Icon books often use Wikipedia as source material and therefore cannot be used. I don't doubt that this is true, but if it is, it's not mentioned in the article. Can anyone shed any more light on this? BashBrannigan (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This would probably have been a book from the series called Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. (I've added a couple of relevant sentences to the article.) One might cite a conventionally edited quotation collection (like The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) to show that a particular saying is well known, but the quotations themselves shouldn't be used as a source of factual information. The Icon books are worse because they aren't even human-edited: they're automated compilations of isolated sentences from online sources which happen to feature an arbitrary English word (including synonyms), so they're about as cite-worthy as a Google search results page. Unfortunately, Icon books turn up often in Google Books searches, which makes them attractive to editors in a hurry to find sources. EALacey (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Especially to newbies like me that never heard of this guy before. :)
I just saw the mistake I did when you removed my references on a couple of articles. I had no idea who this guy was before but I'll keep his name in the back of my mind now. I didn't even think it was possible to create books in such an industrial way like this. NeoGenPT (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"107,000 books on Amazon" number source?[edit]

There's no source listed for the number of listed books on Amazon. Currently, if you search his name without quotes, 110,000 results are returned, but most have nothing to do with him. If you search his name with quotes, only 26 results appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkinson 291 (talkcontribs) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)