Talk:Where's George?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Where's George? article.
Article policies
This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Where's George?, has edited Wikipedia as
Henryhank (talk · contribs)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Imitators?

Hrm.... I don't like the word "Imitators". I feel it has a negative connotation. Certainly the other websites were inspired by WG, so I suppose I need a synonym for "inspire". UtherSRG 21:45, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How's this now? "Influenced" seems to work well.

--Kyle 04:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

--I think 'imitate' is the perfect word. That is, after all, what these sites are doing Superstarwarsfan (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chain Letter?

How does this compare with chain letters? A-giau 22:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite different, it seems to me. -DavidWBrooks 01:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defacing currency

"DoshTracker in England. In the UK its illegal to deface notes, so writing on notes is not an option, hence DoshTracker has not had the same kind of success as Where's George."

Shouldn't this be clarified? I think it's illegal in most places to deface currency, just not widely enforced. — Phil Welch 01:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not illegal to write or otherwise marks US currency. However, to do so with intent to change (ie upgrade) the value of the currency is illegal. - UtherSRG 01:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
No, I think it's illegal because Where's George had to stop selling their stamp.- Nathan July 11, 2005
You "think", but your logic is flawed. I know that it is not illegal. I've been Georging for about 4 years. WG had to stop selling their stamp but others did not. WG FAQ - UtherSRG 15:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The U.S. law on defacing currency is pretty clear, and simply writing on it is not illegal (else those brown pens that stores use to test the new bills would also be illegal). They don't care if you write on the bill, so long as the intent is not to deceive, defraud, or render useless. The law states: Defacement of currency is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code. Under this provision, currency defacement is generally defined as follows: Whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Defacement of currency in such a way that it is made unfit for circulation comes under the jurisdiction of the United States Secret Service. --Birdhombre 19:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
WheresGeorge stopped selling stamps mainly because it is taboo (if not illegal) to advertise on currency. If he was selling the stamps for his own site it might be considered advertising. However, if a WheresGeorge user wants to get a stamp for himself and goes to an online stamp seller, that's not illegal. --Cyde 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
You're exactly right. Hank had to stop selling stamps because it was considered advertising, which is indeed illegal. Other people selling stamps, however, isn't considered advertising, because the other sites are not the site being promoted. I think also the problem was this was seen as Hank encouraging people to stamp or otherwise mark their bills. The WG? site now does not encourage marking bills anywhere, except for very subtle remarks. Search4Lancer 07:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Code on Defacing Coin and Currency

USC 18, 331:
Mutilation, diminution, and falsification of coins
Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales, or lightens any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States- or Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or brings into the United States, any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled, or lightened— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [1]
USC 18, 333:
Mutilation of national bank obligations
Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. [2]

There are both laws, in Title 18, § 331 and § 333. myselfalso 16:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Except, 331 is in reference to notes, not coins. I've taken the liberty of making bold the important part of 333, most pointed out by Georgers, and most obviously making what we usually do, not illegal. Search4Lancer 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

LAW RE MARKING ON US CURRENCY I know I'm going to catch flack on this. I AM quite sympathetic to Georgers who discreetly mark their bills. However, the truth on the legality of marking US currency is generally missed. It is apparently quite true that discreetly marking a US bill for normal WheresGeorge purposes would NOT constitute defacement of US currency. However, it nonetheless remains illegal for different reasons, though the US Attorneys' offices have clearly thus far not chosen to enforce the law, which is why we see WG-marked bills. I'm not sure that marking the bills with a counterfeit-detection pen would be illegal. Here's why. The federal statute in question is 18 USC 475, and it is independent of "defacement," though there could obviously be an overlap. Here is a link to that part of the US Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=475 I've had people tell me that this pertains only to advertisement on bills, or that it pertains only to advertisements in the likeness of money, or some such. Yet, the plain language of the statute is clear. "Whoever ... or attaches ... or any notice or advertisement whatever, shall be fined under this title." This seems a bit ungrammatical, but I've pared away parts of the statutory wording to point out the "OR" word. Anyone who attaches a business card or advertising OR "any notice .. whatever" "shall be fined." I suspect that a counterfeit-detection pen's mark wouldn't be a "notice," but a website address likely would be. I don't like that this should be so; I am sympathetic to georgers in general, and I don't think that a discreet WG mark should be illegal, and I applaud the US Attorneys' good sense in turning their attention to other things than georgers (who, I would agree, would clearly not seem to be the intended targets of 18 USC 475, nothwithstanding the language used in the statute)... but I think it should be clear that there is no green light under US federal law to mark one's bills. I also suggest that Wikipedia's article should not suggest otherwise. Marking bills in the normal WG way isn't "defacement." It is nonetheless at least technically illegal. Zajacd01 13:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • To avoid original research it would be best to cite an outside legal opinion and not to form our own. --Dystopos 14:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is entirely true (if that was what was meant) that one can find God-only-knows how many pages online in which someone, someplace, is asserting that marking on US bills is only illegal if it constitutes "advertising," whatever that might mean in the context of 18 USC 475. (Is "www.wheresgeorge.com" advertising? Is "First Baptist Church of Ourtown, MD" advertising? For these purposes is "advertising" only that which is profit-motivated? Authority for this?) While most of these are lay newspaper reporters repeating what they've found on the web and elsewhere, it would also be true that some of these voices are from people in the enforcement community. However, as an attorney myself, I go back and look at the actual language in the statute. Legislators are presumed to mean what they say, unless another meaning is clear and unambiguous. DOJ manuals' interpretations are helpful but not binding, and are subject to change. If anyone is aware of a federal appellate decision interpreting this aspect of 18 USC 475, I'd genuinely be interested in seeing the cite. (...probably too much to hope for to want to see a SCt decision cite... ) Until then, 18 USC 475 makes it technically illegal (even if no one's enforcing it) to "attach" "any notice ... whatever" to US currency. I do not mean to suggest that some kind of a crazy crackdown is in the offing, nor that the DOJ has decided to put a stop to WG. My suggestion is that the Wikipedia article ought not categorically state that it is legal to mark bills. Zajacd01 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that Wikipedia should accurately convey any controversy, and the statutes should be referenced, but since there is clearly disagreement about how the statutes apply specifically to Wheresgeorge, we should rely on independent published arguments and not on our own analysis, no matter how well-founded. I encourage you to read the policy at Wikipedia:No original research in order to understand why this is important to Wikipedia's mission. --Dystopos 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Read it. Got it. I've in any event not sought to make any changes (to the main article) myself... Could the main article suggest, in the last sentence under 'Overview,' "However, the general view is that using Where's George? rubber stamps on currency is are not illegal per se..." instead of "However, Where's George? rubber stamps are not illegal per se..."? I will, in any event, make no change to the main article myself, and will let my posting on this topic go at that... Zajacd01 15:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That's certainly a reasonable change, so I made it. Thanks for your contribution. --Dystopos 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I was going nuts trying to find again the place on the Internet where I'd seen a government statement about marking on US bills, something which could be cited in a main article for the proposition that marking on bills is not necessarily "legal," even if enforcement was not at this point a priority for the powers that be. Something to get away from "original research." I found it. "The Secret Service would consider it a violation of 475," spokeswoman Lorie Lewis said. "But whether or not the U.S. Attorney's office would prosecute would be up to the U.S. Attorney's office."
This quote may be found online at: http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/092004/09292004/1520547/printer_friendly

[edit] Name origin

Perhaps a mention of the name (not necessarily the original idea) probably being influenced by the "Where's Waldo?" books that were so popular earlier in the decade? CFLeon 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds silly. And if anything, it'd be best to ask Hank before saying something like that. Search4Lancer 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scienceblog.com research article link

This is linked to twice, once at the beginning of this article, and once at the end. This is redundant. -EdGl 19:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. I find it comical how people will moan about things in articles when they can easily edit things themselves. OsFan 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
You mean, like you just did? - DavidWBrooks 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even check to see if it had been fixed or not. Has it been almost six months? OsFan 00:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also a blog, and unusable as a source unless it can be shown that the writer is a well-known journalist or professional researcher. Infact I can't see the entry being attributed to anyone whihc pretty much disqualifies it since the website asserts "published by a team of science editors, writers and enthusiasts". None of those fall under professional researcher, and since its not named we can't ascertain that it was written by a well known journalist. Any material referenced from it will have to be removed as will the source.--Crossmr 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gone?

I think the wheresgeorge website has been disabled and is no more.

No, it's still around. 68.54.163.153 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

hey guys, i tried to open the website but I always get this error message: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. can anybody help me to get to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.82.187 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this message for some information about the problem: http://www.eurobilltrackerforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=545851#545851 Avij (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

We need some additional links to establish notability. The website being told not to sell stamps by the government and some of its data being used in a study is really stretching the notability guidelines. Actual coverage of these events or other articles from a reliable source in which where's george is the main subject would be useful here. --Crossmr 16:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Dystopos 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of how to edit. I can point out a flaw in an article without being required to fix it. As it stands I don't really think this article meets the requirements, so rather than nominate it for AfD I've made a note so that an interested party can find the appropriate sources if they exist.--Crossmr 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The site has been featured in dozens of national magazines, newspapers, TV and radio news programs, etc. For instance:
Money Magazine: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2000/07/01/282746/index.htm
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2436133
Wired Magazine: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/start.html?pg=12
Or any of the other news items posted on the website: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/news.php (USA TODAY, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, AP, NPR, CNN, Business Week, just to name a few).
The release of Nature study and article released last January was picked up by hundreds of news outlets (printed and virtual) around the world. You can google "where's george? max planck" just for a sample of the stories still online.
And as far as website popularity, Alexa has Where's George? ranked at about 19,026 of ALL websites. Bookcrossing.com (which was inspired by Where's George?), whose Wikipedia article is not questioned for notability is ranked at 32,745. Where's George? has been around since 1998 and gets more than 1,500 new registered users every day, and is mentioned in some press outlet, somewhere, about once a week (local TV, newspapers, magazines, etc). Henryhank 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Since some of this is already in the article, I think your notability concerns are misplaced. If you're looking for non-notable articles, wikipedia has about a bazillion to choose from. - DavidWBrooks 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was just responding to the comment "We need some additional links to establish notability" posed by Crossmr directly above. I believe it was a valid response to a direct query. Did I mis-understand the question or was he looking for something else? Henryhank 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, I was unclear - I was responding to Crossmr; that is, I was agreeing with you that his objection was unsupported. - DavidWBrooks 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
None of those appear in the article currently. Hence why I asked for notability to be established. these should be included at the end of the article.--Crossmr 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing.. see this Wiki article Currency_bill_tracking -- The creation of Where's George? has inspired no less than twelve other money tracking websites around the world (several of which have their own Wiki entry). There are several not even listed because they are now defunct due to the Euro replacing other currencies. Henryhank 13:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tyvek or Guardian?

Do Georgers support moving US $1 bill production to Tyvek, Guardian, or another polymer to print $1 bills? (See the Wikipedia article on Polymer banknotes.) A George'd bill would last a lot longer in circulation! Xenophon777 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a contest?

The article states, "Although there is a scoring system, the website makes it clear it is not intended to be a contest." I would appreciate clarification on this. Can you show me any quote or reference to back up this claim? It seems there is extreme competition amongst Georgers to get a higher george score, and there is even a seperate webstite called bankoffrank.com that has a spy tool that Georgers can use to estimate when they will overtake another user.

Obviously, the primary purpose of Wheresgeorge is to track the natural circulation of currency. However, the answer to the first FAQ as to why the site exists is "For fun and because it had not been done yet." Thus, it has become a contest for MANY users. Georegers, in addition to desiring a higher George score, also have goals of reaching certain Bingos, such as a hit from every state. Yes, there are user guidelines and no prizes. But where does the claim that it is not INTENDED to be a contest come from? Is there a quote from Hank?

From the FAQ, discussing George Score points: "They aren't worth anything, and you won't get any prizes. It is solely for the enjoyment by some users that like to compare themselves with each other." That sounds pretty un-contest-ish to me - it might be competitive among users but there's no contest (that is, official competition overseen by the site). Perhaps that distinction needs to be made clearer. - DavidWBrooks 23:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Notable? Really?

WheresGeorge would be recognized by a percentage of the population throughout the United States and the world. It has inspired similar sites to track Canadian currency (WheresWilly), the Euro (EuroTracker), and others. It has appeared in articles in Inc, Fortune, and Forbes. I'm a bit bewildered by the notability suggestion... particularly as I'd thought that this question had been laid to rest back in March. (See the "Notability" discussion above.) Xenophon777 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what's the rule (or convention, or protocol...) for removing the "Notability" tag from the article if it isn't really appropriate? How long does it stay up there, if the matter has been dealt with in a prior month, before it should be taken down? Xenophon777 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability issue was, as Xenophon777 mentions, discussed and the tag was removed. This new tag should be removed immediately. Spacini 18:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo needed?

Does the article really need to have my photo on the page? I don't see the need or the relevance. Henryhank 22:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems encyclopedic to have a photo of the website's founder on an article about the website. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the consensus among Wikipedia. None of the following website articles have photos of their founders: Bookcrossing, Geocaching, Google, Amazon, AOL, Ebay, YouTube, Craigslist, Digg, Apple, NetFlix, Go Daddy, Match.com, Napster, and heck, even Wikipedia's own entry doesn't have a photo of Jimmy Wales. I don't see why Where's George? is different or important enough to have my photo. It needs to be removed. Henryhank 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the founders of the above websites have their own biographical articles...however, I requested an outside opinion on the issue here, and will be happy to go along with whatever consensus is at that discussion. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you also remove my image from wikimedia and wikipedia as indicated here: [3]. Thanks. Henryhank 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Weasel Words

It seems to me not necessarily notable that there are disagreements about whether or not certain entries are removed in the website. The website, after all, is one fellow's site sharing information with others. In general, internet common law seems to recognize that one may police one's site as one sees fit, and if the owner is capricious, the offended party may avoid the site. I recommend that the weaseling about arbitrariness be removed, as it is not in the interests of the reader. --Steve (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right: it was a load of vague, opinionated hooey. I have trimmed that section way down and also put in a couple of "fact" tags. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the user who originally wrote that section with all the Weasel words was recently terminated for "dumping" bills in banks. It was pure vengeance/retaliation they added that section. Thanks for editing it. Henryhank (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a citation we can add to the comments? Any notation or official comment on the Website about accounts being terminated for this? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's all in the User Guidelines: http://www.wheresgeorge.com/rules.php#7 (see #7) Henryhank (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Website discriminates against some browsers

I just added a paragraph noting that the www.wheresgeorge.com web server serves blank documents, instead of the real pages, to some browsers. I have a formal source for this, but it's difficult to cite, so I'm putting it here. Having received blank pages when attempting to view the website in Lynx, I sent a message to the website admins via the site's contact form:

When I attempt to view the www.wheresgeorge.com website using the Lynx browser, I get only a blank page. This happens not only for the front page but also for every other page that I've tried (such as /contact_us.php). I've experimentally determined that this is determined by the User-Agent: header. If I use lwp-request to send an HTTP request with no User-Agent: header, then I get a sensible HTML document as a response (which Lynx can then render suitably from a local file). If I send a similar request using lwp-request, differing only in the addition of the header "User-Agent: libwww-FM/2.14", then I get a response with a blank body. Please fix.

I then got a reply by email:

The website blocks certain user-agents due to abuse in the past from crackers/hackers, spammers, bots, and scripts. Yes, I know it's not a perfect solution, but it stops the script kiddies and spammers.
--Hank

For this dialogue I used a throwaway mailinator.com email address, so for the next couple of hours the reply will be accessible at [4]. mailinator.com expires messages really fast. 195.167.186.2 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not the place to endlessly debate about wether or not Wheres George is legal.

There are many good threads already about this on the Where's George forums and other websites. This is not the place to debate about opinions of the wordings of laws, please take these discussions elsewhere. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, so long as the article itself does not come out and flat out say there's no whiff of illegality in the marking of bills--even when that marking does not rise to the level of defacement (which is another issue). If the article says nothing at all about the legality of marking bills, I've no problem. However, please note that the prior edit not only claimed that marking bills is okay (pursuant to a compromise of last year), but went on to give a rationale for the assertion. I pointed out that not only does the law state that it's illegal (even if no one's enforcing it), but -- here avoiding original research -- also provided a link to a statement by a Secret Service spokesperson in print to that effect. Okay, I'm getting long-winded. If the article refrains from positively stating that marking bills is legal, then I'll be in agreement with you. Zajacd01 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mismatched Doublequotes

In the following:

The Where's George? site says it "prohibits trading or exchanging bills with friends, family or anyone known to the bill distributor for the purpose of re-entry". This rule is to encourage 'natural circulation' of the currency, and to prevent multiple 'fake hits' from happening on any bill." As a result, all bills containing the word "geocache" or "cache" are tagged as a geocache bill. The site has also dropped a separate listing of "Top 10 Geocache bills" and is cautioning that if geocache sites are used too often, "all Geocache bills will be removed from this site."

There the doublequote in 'happening on any bill."' seems unmatched. I dunno where its partner ought to be inserted though or whether it is extraneous, so cannot fix it myself.

Knotwork (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the page. Is that what you meant? Superstarwarsfan (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Site Policing"

I would like to request the other editors of this page that we remove the "Site Policing" section of the article.

It was originally written by a disgruntled WG user in retaliation for having their account disabled due to clear rule violations.

This section really doesn't add to the article, and it gives off a negative overall "vibe".

To avoid controversy, I am requesting discussion here, rather than just editing it myself. thanks.

Henryhank (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe

The title deserves to be changed. To what, I'm not sure.

Below is an example:

[edit] Regulation

In accordance with site policies, Where's George? is regulated so that certain activities do not adversely affect users and the site in general. One prohibited action is dumping: depositing a large amount of bills at one time into a financial organization. The site deems "dumping" an unnatural form of circulation and reserves the right to remove bills from the the database.[1] [2] Calebrw (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


I still don't like the overall tone. Most (if not all) websites have some level of *internal* policy enforcement... I don't see the need to make this public and give people the idea that this is a big problem they might run into. Like I said, the *only* reason this section exists is because of a disgruntled user who didn't like my policies. Henryhank (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Could this be integrated into the George Score section? Calebrw (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Example: Although there is a scoring system, the site makes it clear that this is not intended to be a contest. The site also prohibits marking bills and depositing them into financial institutions en masse.[3] [4]

Change made. No dissent. — Calebrw (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ User Guidelines/Terms of Service/Rules, no. 4
  2. ^ User Guidelines/Terms of Service/Rules, no. 7
  3. ^ User Guidelines/Terms of Service/Rules, no. 4
  4. ^ User Guidelines/Terms of Service/Rules, no. 7