Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia-CD/Download

message: 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)
thread_title:  Torrent Suggestion 

message: They have nothing about it... Renata 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image copyrights

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, that would seem to be a loss for no gain. — Matt Crypto 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GFDL images 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  VERY Bad idea 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article selection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Really unfortunate selection

message: 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)
thread_title:  Very good idea 

message: See archived talk for no longer current discussion.
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)
thread_title: Another wikipedia for children, online

message: 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)
replies: text: Both are listed on 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. Download is SchoolsWP:index:download--BozMo talk 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Download URL? 

message: I'm constantly referring to Wikipedia while doing mathematics, but I'm not always online.  It seems like just the subset of that deals with math should be a manageable size...is there any way to download just one part of Wikipedia? EricDBurgess (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not easy in practice. Someone would need to do some work unless of course this list is good enough then the schools wikipedia would do for you --BozMo talk 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the math part?