Talk:Wikipedia

Who exactly is liable when copyright images are used in Wikipedia?

Who exactly is liable when copyright images are used in Wikipedia, and what practical legal action can be taken against them? -Patrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.155.93 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The person who uploaded them. As with any textual content, everything added to Wikipedia by someone remains their responsibility. As with other websites which contain public postings and comment it would be open to an individual or organisation to contact the uploader/author directly with respect to any infringement issues though placing a note on discussion pages and other 'process' pages will bring the matter to the attention of others who will be able to assist en passant by removing the image or content. Sole legal responsibility however always remains with the originator. --AlisonW (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Article in different languages

How does Wikipedia know for sure that two articles are about the same topic in different languages?--24.166.56.195 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, interlanguage links are added by people who can read both languages. For some topics, that's not even necessary: if I look at a Japanese biology article and see the Latin genus and species name is the same as in an English article, I can safely assume the two articles are about the same critter. Sometimes bots add the links too, on the principle that if A = B and B = C, then A = C. —Angr 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Random "pletters"?

Before I assume that this is the very vandalism it seems to be referring to (i.e. "random letters"), will someone tell me if there is such thing as a pletter? I will remove it soon. Cuindless (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

world record!

Hi. Wikipedia is listed in the 2008 Guiness Book of World Records as the world's largest encyclopedia. Should this record be mentioned one of the Wikipedia-related articles? Can the book be used as the reference or is the record too obvious? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the Guinness Book of World Records even a reliable source? I didn't think so. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, even if GWR isn't reliable, wouldn't Wikipedia's record as the largest encyclopedia already be quite obvious? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nevermind, I guess I forgot to look at the article before I posted this comment. When I checked, It was already there. It says we beat even the one that remained the largest encyclopedia for 600 years, great work everybody! Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

72 mile-long Encyclopedia

How much bookshelf space would a printed version of Wikipedia take up? I calculated it at 72 miles (figuring all the books in one shelf). Here's how I did it:

As of November 30, 2007, this page reported Wikipedia contained 916,000,000 words. I figured only 5 characters per word (but actually believe it could be higher). A standard 8.5" x 11" page contains 2,000 characters per side, or 4,000 characters for each sheet of paper, resulting in 1,145,000 sheets of paper. I measured and found 1,000 pages of 20# paper takes up at least 4 inches, or 4,580,000 inches. There are 63,360 inches in a mile. That's 72.285 miles. It would actually be longer since I didn't figure width of each book's front and back covers.

I am open to other assumptions (the number of characters including spaces per word, for example).

And all accessible via a computer and the Web or in the palm of your hand by using the new Kindle electronic book. Ed 16:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1,145,000 sheets of paper. Each book is 1,000 pages, so divide the sheets by 1,000. That makes 1,145 books four inches at the spine. Four times 1,145 is 4,580. 4,580 inches / 63,360 = ~0.0722 miles, or 381.216 feet (116 m). --Henry W. Schmitt 21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than going first up to miles and then back down to feet, 4580 inches / 12 = 381.666667 ft (381'8", or 116.33 m). Certainly more shelf space than I have in my study! However, if Wikipedia were to be published as a series of books, it probably would be on much thinner paper than that, as most big encyclopedias and bibles are. 1000 sheets of paper like the kind my King James Bible is printed on is only about 2 inches thick; 1,145,000 sheets would then be 2290 inches (190'10"; 58.17 m) thick. Add in another eighth of an inch for covers on each 2000-page (1000-sheet) volume, though, and that adds another 143 inches (11'11"; 3.63 m). So in total, we're looking at over 200 ft of encyclopedia. Not 72 miles yet, but still impressive. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Size of Wikipedia might interest you. -- Taku 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And especially Wikipedia:Size in volumes, which I had never seen before. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 09:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"689.1 volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica." Good god. -- Taku 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But that 200 feet contains a lot of poor quality stuff. I prefer having an editorial filter. Life is too short... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.126.219 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'd like to see how long the featured articles are. Real encyclopedia don't have articles that are not at least the quality of Wikipedia's featured ones. Except real encyclopedias don't feature Pokemon and Reese's Pieces. I suppose bad articles are better than no articles, but Wikipedia is not going to trump books anytime soon. --Henry W. Schmitt 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I think this is great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.194.201 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ruined my classroom! Students don't read anymore! They just turn in Wikipedia with the words changed!!!

Wikipedia is what all the stupid, lazy students cite and copy. Wikipedia is destroying research and education! Fuck you, Wikipedia. My students never do any work. They just read wikipedia!!!

HERE IS MY DEMAND: Get the begging for money ads off of Wikipedia! Wikipedia is trying to take money from readers. Wikipedia is a fraud! Why should I give money to Wikipedia? It is the users that generate the content. What the fuck does Wikipedia do? The Edit Wars will continue until the bullshit donation ads are removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.89.122 (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, can't you fail them for doing that? And secondly, Wikipedia needs servers to run and that is why money is needed. The Placebo Effect 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fail them for plagiarizing. We still need donations to keep it running smoothly. The editors aren't paid. Marlith ^T/C 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to contact the Wikimedia Foundation please e-mail info-en-o@wikimedia.org though I recommend you reading this article written by a member of the WMF Board of Trustees, Erik Möller.

Also, when you say "Wikipedia is destroying research and education!", how so? All we are trying to do is create an encyclopedia to help the world and somehow that is a bad thing to you. Wikipedia can be used as an education tool. Or as a teacher, you may wish to start a Wikipedia project in the classroom as many others have done before (see Wikipedia:School and university projects).

"Why should I give money to Wikipedia? It is the users that generate the content." Is is the users that create it because they want to help the world. What users contribute does not even belong to the Wikimedia Foundation as it is all licensed under the GFDL (though that may change in the near future to another free license written by Creative Commons). The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit charity trying to spread knowledge through projects such as Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, and Wikisource. With the money you give, we can do things like:

• $200 from you and 99 other people – We can make Wikipedia available in developing countries through DVDs, books and pamphlets.
• $100 from you and 99 other people – We can pay for two Wikipedia Academy events in Africa.
• $60 from you and 99 other people – We can send three students to our annual Wikimania conference.
• $40 from you and 99 other people – We can deliver 100 million pageviews of free information!¹

Now, is Wikipedia really such a bad thing? By the way, this page is for discussing how to improve our article about Wikipedia. Please do not direct complaints here. If you wish to contact me personally, you may do so at User talk:Greeves. Kind regards, Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

¹ From the Wikimedia Foundation website at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate.

Dude, your a teacher, right? I hope you don't say "fuck" at your school children. And besides, this is what Wiki is for. Instead of having tp search through an encyclopedia, you can search Wiki. And besides, this information is all proofed, or it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. If you don't like it, e-mail Wiki. Children come here. Your someone of a discrase, handling your problems with trash talk and spam. KT529 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WIKI MEANS

I RECALL A LONG TIME AGO I READ THIS ARTICLE TO FIND OUT WHAT WIKI MEANT AND IT SAID SOMETHING LIKE THE FOUNDER HEARD IT SAID AND IT WAS A HAWAIIN WORD AND NOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD DOMINANTLY MEANS A TYPE OF COLLABORATIVE WEBSITE BUT THAT WASNT ITS DEFINITION AT WIKIPEDIAS INCEPTION. SAY WHAT IT ORIGINALLY MEANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A wiki is indeed a collaborative website. The origin of that word is from the Hawaiian word for "quick", and Jimbo (the founder of Wikipedia) is not the one who coined the word. Wikipedia gets its name directly from wiki in the sense of collaborative website; the Hawaiian word for "quick" is a more indirect source. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Free Encyclopedia

I am thinking about how "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" would be translated into Mongolian in the Mongolian Wikipedia. What is the exact meaning of "the free"? Personally, I think it is free, because no one have to pay for what they read. Or is it free, because everyone can access freely? Please help me to determine the right meaning. Bilguun.alt 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's "free as in free speech", not "free as in free beer". Please read gratis vs. libre for more about this important distinction. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do both not apply? I see it as a play on words. the_undertow ^talk 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Both don't apply because not all forms of Wikipedia will necessarily be free as in free beer. The much discussed CD-ROM version, if it ever actually appears, will almost certainly be sold for a price. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That is purely speculative. In addition, that would imply that the content on the CD-ROM could not be found on the website. As far as users are concerned, Wikipedia is free to edit and free to use: speech and beer. the_undertow ^talk 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add Secret mailing list scandal to controversies section

It has been revealed that the editors of Wikipedia use a secret mailing list to ensure that the content on Wikipedia remains inline with their liking. Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/

(ps: Would love to see the discussion happening on the secret mailing list about this proposal :) )

TwakTwik 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have read about this then you will know that even mentioning this could get you banned, your comment removed (even from the history) and a speech about how you were an "insider" tring to undo Wikipedia from the inside and that you comment was trolling and that all of your comments ever written were.

(ps: who will when Wikipedia's "inner circle" or Wikipedia as a community. At this point it will NEVER be both.) --71.170.1.101 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there are few bad apples among Wikipedia senior editors, but its not all bad. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unless new editors step up their game and start exercising the openness aspect of Wikipedia, some of the old farts with interests will continue to run their secret mailing lists. So, my advice to you is to take an active interest and press for fair and balanced articles. TwakTwik (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this affair looks more and more to me as a giant storm in a teacup... If we added every article The Register writes about every company/organization, some articles would be hundreds of pages long. See first if anyone is still talking about this incident in a few months, I might be wrong... -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of The Register can we add the naked short sell shares controversy? 202.58.54.187 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as the Ministry of Truth

After a discussion as to the impact of Wikipedia on the world and our everyday society. My co-workers and I came to the agreement that Wikipedia was perhaps the greatest innovation in information availability since the invention of the printing press. And as the printing press could be used to spread knowledge but it could also be used to spread propaganda and lies. As Wikipedia grows in volume of information and becomes more and more prevalent in our society as the best source for any information you could ever want or need it has the potential to become very similar to the "Ministry of Truth". Clearly we are a long way off from the "Ministry of Truth" described in George Orwell's book 1984, but potentially we have the power collective as a society to change any fact historical, literary or scientific..... Or if it was taken over by a government agency of coarse. :-P
With the power of Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised if a world government sometime in the near future doesn't forge their own private Wikipedia (and block the real deal) and populate it with only the information they deem acceptable. And a true "Ministry of Truth" is born.

Thoughts?

--John hmstr (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's called "The Press" in some countries ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

How Much Memory?

I saw in the article that they have hundreds of Linux computers running a deicated server. I want to know how much memory is used to keep this site up. I know YouTube has quite a few tarabytes. This surley must have quite a few. -KT- KT529 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I could not find the hardware specs, but the database is surprisingly small - maybe around 30 GB. It's hard to take up too much space with what is mostly text. Video, as on YouTube, is the worst. And for the space of one average MP3, you can have all the text in the King James Bible.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)