Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia-CD/Download

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Novel Bandwidth saving concept

I would like a complete different system. First I want as much data (actually the complete Wikipedia) as possible. On the other hand I want to save bandwidth. I suggest we have a base version and different modules you can additionally install. Moreover there is a strong need for a full-version. The important thing is, that every version has a release number and you can automatically update/patch your local version to the most current Wikipedia version. This way you only copy the changes instead of download and install every 6 month the most recent Full-Wikipedia distribution. What do you think?

[edit] Torrent Suggestion

First of all, this is a big file. You have to click on the link to d/l it, and then come back later. I suggest a couple of people seeding it indefinatley...and other people who use the bit torrent network can d/l the file much more easily. I am willing to seed for the first couple of weeks until other people join in...then again, just a thought.

A good idea, I'm downloading it now and it's only going to take about 20 minutes, but people with a slower connection may find a torrent very useful. I'd be happy to help out seeding it, view my user profile for contact details. JJMan 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who needs a CD ROM?

Comment by my teenage son, with a bewildered look in his face: Who needs a CD ROM when we have Wikipedia online? If you guys think that we will want a parent/techer-approved/censored version of Wikipedia, you are mistaken. We like Wikipedia because we can find almost anything in it, not just what you guys think is important. You guys are so 90s. There you have it... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, why are you interested in a CD version at all then? It is also massively faster than WP in peak perions. --BozMo talk 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I was just presenting a different perspective, that of a teenager to which the Internet is a given. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think, "Children mini-version" of Wikipedia is a good idea. Wikipedia is too big and complex for people, who have just entered a school, and 4000-pages offline encyclopedia with the most interesting (for children) articles may increase their interest to the world, and to Wikipedia project (in the future). Also not all computers in the world are connected to Internet, and some others still have non-permanent (e.g. dial-up) or too expensive Internet connection (e.g. in my city Internet costs 100-200$ per 1 GB, and average MONTH salary for people here is the same).
It might be great, if somebody also automate CD/DVD releases of offline Wikipedia for EVERY LANGUAGE and publish its fresh CD/DVD-images every year or month in Internet (by FTP, HTTP, Bittorrent or eDonkey) - maybe even without part of images (which are too large), and with GZIPped HTMLs, which every browser unpacks "on-the-fly". There might be NO MANUAL CHECK - just a static version of EVERY article with basic navigation between them, search function, and links to original (online) version of every page on wikipedia.org. So the only thing is needed is a converter from Wikipedia dumps (http://download.wikimedia.org) to static HTML pages with simple offline-search script.
Somebody may even sell these DVDs and pay some part from its profit to support main Wikipedia project (as WikiPress already do with german DVD-version: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia-CD/Download). Alexey Petrov 23:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
ADDED: I found what I described above here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download#Static_HTML_tree_dumps_for_mirroring_or_CD_distribution and in links from there. In short, WikiMedia 1.5 software has its own converter of entire content to static HTML pages (without search function), which look like this: http://static.wikipedia.org - this web-site includes also 7-ZIP archives of Static (HTML) Wikipedia in each language from November of 2005 and TAR archives of all images.
Also MandrakeSoft and some volunteers prepare English and French versions of Wikipedia DVD distributions. Alexey Petrov 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a good idea for high schools whose blocking keeps people from being able to use Wikipedia at all. What's the harm? Ben Tibbetts 01:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a really good idea... especially when you consider that, despite all the information housed here, you'd only need one more hard drive on a server. What would that mean to the common teacher? CLEAN OUT YOUR INBOX YOU DECREPID OLD HAG. Heh... Vegasrebel29 05:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about people in Africa that could never spend much time on the interent. I wish there was a pda version as well. I could read on planes and trains. Please put it on CD-ROM-- but it will put encarta out of bizness.--Halaqah 00:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A PDA version of the CD/Download content is available from User:Wikiwizzy and a file distribution page is developing here. It is for the Palm OS. A similar file distribution page for Wikipedia content in Pocket PC TomeRaider format is here -- Paleorthid 02:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyrights

They have nothing about it... Renata 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure we do. All images are clearly attributed to their creators named as listed on Wikipedia and it is stated that some images are not under GFDL but under other licences listed there. i.e. creators are named in a way which uniquely easily identifies them (unlike most legal names: which is why most CC's user wikipedia usernames) but perhaps not with their preferred title (which would be advertising not attributing). I reckon that's compliant but I would be interested if you think not? I think this is a valid and appropriate attribution. See copyright & disclaimeralso the CC licence which states "Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit."--BozMo talk 07:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I mean, do you have info about every individual image: who's creator, what license, source, etc.? I could not find it in your cd. (I did not look too closely) Renata 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't. I refer the user to WP for licence details. Although I know some people submit their own images and claim they are under different copyrights both Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ and Wikipedia:Copyrights are (and have been at all prior dates to the CD being generated) explicit that all material and images submitted is under GFDL. These are the terms under which people submit. The only grey area is people who submit someone else's CC work on the basis that CC is close enough to GFDL and I have not yet found an example of this on the CD. Personally I think the WP community should clean up all the multi licence and creative commons stuff and return to the basics. It would certainly make doing a 1.0 properly much easier. --BozMo talk 12:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, this is a great idea. Not everyone has internet access. Hopefully it will spur improvements to the Wikipedia articles as people find errors and make corrections. - Taxman Talk 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DVD

Why a CD ? Why not a DVD? A DVD could fit much more content! -- Frap 00:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A DVD can hold more data, but is also about seven times as large, and will take ~seven times longer to download/use ~seven times more bandwidth.--210.49.181.22 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't follow the logic there. Is not the idea to make a disc that is then distributed to people who don't have net access/for whom net access is very expensive? Presumably they won't be doing the downloading. That said, outside the richest countries DVD drives are nowhere near as widespread as CD drives. --kingboyk 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, I think a choice should be given. For people who want a CD, fine have a cd, but for people who want a DVD or hard-drive version with more articles, then that's great too, although it would require more work. I could see a non-PC dvd being useful as well, meaning a DVD that plays in an ordinary DVD player, and is navigable via remote like movie DVD features. And while some think a hard-drive version is useless, consider laptops being used in areas without wifi.--Trypsin 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL images

Why must we include GFDL images only in WPCD articles? What purpose does that serve? What is wrong with including free but non-GFDL images? Dysprosia 11:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that would seem to be a loss for no gain. — Matt Crypto 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the idea is that Wikipedia is GFDL text, and assumedly the people behind the CD/DVD want to list it as GFDL as well. It is unlikely that a CD/DVD could be listed as GFDL if it contained free images from other licenses, such as the Creative Commons. Staxringold 12:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, it's a bad idea. I don't much like using the GFDL for photos - it's too unwieldy - and there are quite a few I've uploaded to the Commons that I would have been much less happy about putting there had I had to use it. I have no intention of stopping using CC/PD pictures unless it becomes policy. Loganberry (Talk) 01:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

This seems to be a bad idea, and a waste of plastic. Just use the Internet to use Wikipedia. Badagnani 08:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove other editors' text from "discussion" except in the case of vandalism. Thanks. Badagnani 12:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to use the Internet, if that's what you prefer, but not everyone has perfect access to the Internet. — Matt Crypto 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel that it is a terrible idea because of the politically charged nature of certain wikipedia editors and their contributions to various wikipedia articles. The problem is that the people that are messing with the neutrality and factual accuracy of articles always remove the disclaimers. There should probably be disclaimers at the top of any political articles.
The articles on Lenin and liberal democracy were fine articles until user:Ultramarine began editing on them. Now they are full of factual inaccuracies and biased POV edits. Ulramarine makes a habit of this on just about any article that he can add his neoliberal ideology into, heck he even adds it retroactively into historical articles relating to last centuries wars and the like. Solidusspriggan 21:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell? I'm glad you're so unbiased and like to stay on topic, solidusspriggan. TheRaven7 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VERY Bad idea

This is a very, very, very bad idea. It defies everything wiki. It's one thing to see your work transformed before your eyes. It's quite another to privatize it. Further there is arrogance in its implementation by hijacking wikipedia commons. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Commons&direction=next&oldid=55199121

To be fair I keep taking Wikicommons off the list but someone else keeps adding it. On the privatize, the licence you contributed under allows commercial use, but this is not for profit giving the content as a freebie with no adverts so am not entirely sympathetic. --BozMo talk 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I no longer trust Wikipedia Commons and will no longer post pictures to it and may even withdraw pictures I have posted to it. The damage has been done. Americasroof 12:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of withdrawing pictures, however strongly you feel. Given that every picture you've uploaded to the Commons is (by definition) freely useable, including for commercial purposes, you can't stop other people re-uploading any such photos they have themselves. You'd simply end up with an incomplete collection of your work. Loganberry (Talk) 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Sir Robert Castellano 23:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article selection

The article selection seems so arbitrary as to render the CD little more than a novelty. For example, they grabbed the article on World War II, but not the article on World War I! I don't see how this will be usable to anyone. --DDG 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly part of what they'll be working on for version 2 (which will fill a whole CD). Be patient; let them work on it. --Swelke 17:52, 19 June 2006

[edit] Really unfortunate selection

I regret to see that you are including Democracy. Like most of Wikipedia's political articles, it is the toy of polemical cranks of all varieties, and doubtless will continue to be. Septentrionalis 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It only goes into the top of the funnel. We hope the flag will mean someone serious takes a serious interest in it, otherwise it will get binned --BozMo talk 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very good idea

I read the criticisms above of the CD project, and I would just like to say that I think this project is a very good idea. The arguments that a CD-version is unnecessary because Wikipedia can be accessed via Internet is very puzzling, since one of the ideas is to make a version accessible to those who do not have internet access, or very bad access. Furthermore, the arguments that emphasize problems with the contents are also puzzling - the problems are connected to the nature of Wikipedia itself, and I think it is unfair to blame a subversion for problems which origins in the original. Keep up the good work with this project! My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Index Suggestion

I have downloaded and tried the CD version, and I have some suggestions for the next version. In the "index" folder there are some special pages like "nature", "places", "science" etc. I have some comments & suggestion regarding these:

  1. "Places": I think this page could benefit from being divided into "Countries", "Capitals", "Cities", "Continents" and "Regions". To bundle them all together makes it a little messy.
  2. "Nature": Same thing here. This page could be divided into "Animals", "Plants" etc. and perhaps to a certain extent comply to the kingdoms in the biological classification system (see Kingdom (biology) and Scientific classification). I would suggest "Animals", "Plants", "Fungi", "Monera" or "Bacteria" and "Protista", that is, 5 toplevels.
  3. "Science" could benefit from a division into Chemical elements, other elements (composite), and subdivions of science like "Mathematics", "Physics", "Chemistry", "Biology", "Earth Sciences", "Astronomy" and "Technology" etc. Perhaps it is even better to skip the "Science" page and have separate pages for the separate disciplines.
  4. "General knowledge": I am not sure of the intention of this page, but it would definitely benefit from being divided alphabetically, with an A-Z index at the top, which links to anchors further down (like on the List of countries page).

That's all for now. If you want further clarifications on my opinions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. The next version will be 5000 articles and we will have to find a better way of dividing the contents. The WP category Portals probably still don't quite work and this is the major obstacle to the CDs usefulness. --User:BozMo
Maybe the category tags could be tweaked, somewhat like the stub sorting project. I might be able to help. Maurreen 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be very cool if you could. --BozMo talk 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have started with "Earthquakes" and asked for help with the template. Maurreen 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

New sugestion: offline personal wikipedia software who download and update pages who have special interrest (for you) for offline consulting and also permit to create an personalitzed CD/DVD with contain who you have selected ex: if you are interested about linux, go to linux online page of wikipedia click to add to myWikipedia in software you can select download 1) only this page 2) this page and relacioned pages in Wikipedia (selecting depth)

[edit] Another wikipedia for children, online

This CD will be usefull in certain case BUT ;

  • If the main target of this CD is children, one may consider that "normal" articles of wikipedia would often be too hard for them,
  • So it would be better to simplifie or rewrite them all,
  • But it would be a much bigger job than just to pick them up,
    • The way to do it that would be the one we know well, by wiki
    • That would permit not to be limitative on the number of article and subjets (online version)
    • that would still permit to get a CD out of it

Then

  • Childreen or teenager may get involved in writing the new article
    • Because they can bring a big amount of work,
    • Because this can be of great pedagogical interest (be involved in the building rather than just a reader)

In that idea, there is the wikimedia project Wikikids Astirmays 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Download URL?

Where can the CD actually be downloaded from? It would be useful to have a link or BitTorrent instructions. -- Beland 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Both are listed on 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection--BozMo talk 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)