What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
143 Comments
- TechEvil, on 06/16/2009, -4/+107I really hope that my insertion of "PENISPENISPENISPENISPENIS" on the Eiffel Tower page made it into the book.
- gigitrix, on 06/16/2009, -0/+71Were the [citation needed]'s left in?
- vtbarrera, on 06/16/2009, -0/+69http://www.splicetoday.com/vault/posts/0001/0493/5 ...
- sgtbutterscotch, on 06/17/2009, -4/+65You had me at "my insertion of penis."
- Llanowar, on 06/17/2009, -1/+61Don't lie. You've never inserted a penis anywhere!
- Escmymind, on 06/17/2009, -0/+40Maybe some photos would be nice?
http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wik ... - STBAT25, on 06/17/2009, -5/+43Well there went a perfectly good tree.
- TobiasParker, on 06/17/2009, -1/+38Only on the "Scientology" page.
- anonymousmedic, on 06/17/2009, -3/+33Bah. Wikipedia is just that other wiki who tries to misinform you with falsehoods and conspiracy theories, like Arabs did 911, and Man went to the moon!
Uncyclopedia is the way to learn the truth! Jaws did 911! - hugepedlar, on 06/17/2009, -0/+28Not only that, but he claims that by producing it in a dysfunction physical form (i.e. really fat book) he's showing how it's dysfunctional compared to a conventional encyclopaedia.
But that's total ***** nonsense (as if the size made any difference to its reliability... wtf?), because normal encyclopaedias are produced in a separate series of volumes, not one huge fat one.
What a ***** retard. - miquonranger031, on 06/17/2009, -1/+29He said: "I'm comparing the internet Wikipedia to a traditional encyclopedia by putting it in the same format.
"I wanted to make a comment on how everyone goes to the internet these days for information, yet it is very unreliable compared to what it has replaced." and "Reproducing Wikipedia in a dysfunctional physical form helps to question its use as an internet resource."
What a douchebag. Not only does he want to make money of the work of countless other people, but he's a total moron. He's making the exact opposite statement. The fact that under 500 of the articles on the nearly 3 million-large English Wikipedia take up 5,000 printed pages in no way says anything about its use as an internet resource. Instead, it makes it seem far superior, highlighting the far-increased depth and range of articles that can be updated immediately as the world changes, as opposed to a print encyclopedia, with fewer articles of less length and depth that are updated far less frequently (most commonly annually). - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -0/+26"the book contains 437 featured articles"
Try putting them all in. That would be an accomplishment. - Albumen, on 06/17/2009, -3/+28That's what SHE said!
- Ghostalker, on 06/17/2009, -5/+29Sounds like a good use of a rain forest to me.
- NiMip, on 06/17/2009, -0/+22Oh? Weird... I thought the ones that weren't selected would have been included
- 471776, on 06/17/2009, -0/+21They should. And they should call it The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
- nysus, on 06/17/2009, -0/+21Headline should read: "437 wikipedia articles printed out"
Big ***** Deal - KMye, on 06/17/2009, -7/+27"Mr Matthews said he had had a great response to the book, which he later hopes to sell. "
What a ***** douchebag. It's not THAT clever an idea, and the thought he'd be profiting off of all that collective hard work makes me a bit ill. Is it even legal to sell unaltered Creative Commons Share Alike content for personal profit? - Llanowar, on 06/17/2009, -0/+20Regular encyclopedias can reach such sizes too. But they generally sell them in a ***** of volumes.
So the total size of the encyclopedia isn't really amazing.
The actual size of that one copy is kinda cool though, but I doubt it will sell well.
Also, I'm sick of people constantly saying wikipedia ain't reliable. Sure, it's easy to put lies into it, but it's far more likely you'll find what you're looking for on Wikipedia vs some printed encyclopedia.
It's also far more likely what you're looking for isn't outdated. - Culyt, on 06/17/2009, -0/+19I wounder if its actually usable. Seems like it would be impossible to open the middle of it.
Also of interest, A real full physical copy of Wikipedia would be this big (rather than just the featured articles):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_in_vol ... - pat0neill, on 06/17/2009, -0/+16can i use it in my research papers now? or is my english teacher still going to be a d*ck about it?
- crossmr, on 06/17/2009, -0/+14This is why encyclopedias are traditionally broken into volumes.. I mean brittanica or any of the other supermarket ones would be equally as massive if you shoved them all between the same covers..
- Culyt, on 06/17/2009, -0/+14Is that actually it, I've seen that picture a while ago, at the time I assumed it was a joke.
EDIT: Just saw http://www.rob-matthews.com/index.php?/project/wik ... on the post below, so yeh :) - mudgie, on 06/17/2009, -2/+15I thought at first this was an art project... But the dick wants to sell other people's work? ***** him. ***** him in the ear.
- JohnFlux, on 06/17/2009, -3/+14I don't see what the problem is. You are totally free to do exactly the same thing.
- Sanfranon5, on 06/17/2009, -0/+10Thanks for the pics.
The skinny jeans proved a hunch. - dazparkour, on 06/17/2009, -0/+10Yes - but I would not.
I would hope they would do it themselves and raise funds - if I did it, I would donate all the profits back to them.
Wikipedia is an ever growing asset and it isn't free to run it. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -0/+9Nope, you're only allowed to use ratty old books from the library from 50 years ago
"Israel...the new state everyone is going to love!" - ripple123, on 06/17/2009, -0/+9its really great to have a article about a 5000 page wiki book, and NOT HAVE A PICTURE OF THE BOOK.
- dazparkour, on 06/17/2009, -4/+12"Rob, a graphic design student from Brighton, Sussex, took two weeks to make the book"
Two weeks?
Hundreds of thousands of FREE man hours and you sell them out in TWO WEEKS?! - ScubaSt3ve, on 06/16/2009, -1/+9Once they make the Kindle's online features a little bit smoother it will be amazing with Wikipedia. Right now checking things up on Wikipedia takes too long, but it has a ton of potential. Maybe wikipedia should come out with their own portable wikireader?
- Chachuka, on 06/17/2009, -0/+7"The Free Encyclopedia" written on the cover...
- mobilephone2003, on 06/17/2009, -0/+7Surely the book would be instantly out of date from when it was created?
The whole point of Wikipedia is its editable and constantly updated. - inactive, on 06/17/2009, -0/+7"yet it is very unreliable compared to what it has replaced"
How the ***** does he know? - zenthax, on 06/17/2009, -1/+7there's still the online wikipedia, you know
- Albumen, on 06/17/2009, -0/+6Does it it come with a pencil and eraser?
- ImyK, on 06/17/2009, -1/+7You know who's awesome?
That guy from Scrubs. - sirbeta, on 06/17/2009, -0/+5This book only contains some the featured articles. I wonder how big the book would be using even just 25% of the entire database. Although I do think I remember someone having a book made that contained all of the featured articles.
- Junkyarddawg, on 06/17/2009, -0/+5Yeah, my Casio calculator has totally replaced my Encyclopedia Britannica too.
- number5, on 06/17/2009, -0/+5after reading the article it seems odd to me he only used the featured articles for it, then talks about how it is so much less then a traditional encyclopedia
- Jaime2000, on 06/17/2009, -0/+5There are a lot of topics, such as historical topics or calculus, that have virtually no new information forthcoming so new updates are attempts to improve the article based on existing information or making editorial decisions. So it depends on whether you consider some minor additions to make the printed work "entirely out of date." I personally would consider it something more akin to an older edition than anything else.
- 0tis, on 06/17/2009, -1/+6Just like in that xkcd comic!
Hell, I dugg you anyway. - animatedtripod, on 06/17/2009, -0/+5You do realise that this is a one off student art project, right? It's not a commercial venture, and he's not planning to mass produce these and sell them in ***** Borders or somewhere. And even if he does manage to sell it, I imagine that it's pretty unlikely he'd even recoup the money that he spent making it in the first place.
- shibbyo, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4It's called a smartphone. And a lot of the dumbphones, too.
Also, H2G2. <3 - theafroguy, on 06/17/2009, -3/+7I think we've already established that this guy is hardly adept at thinking things through thoroughly.
- Deepmist, on 06/17/2009, -1/+5Encyclopedias are split up into seperate volumes, if you hacked them all together it'd probably be about the same thickness. I know Wikipedia offers alot more than that though.
- Krissam, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4I guess it doesn't work the same way in the rest of the world. But a lot of the Danish publishers at least plant 2 trees for every 1 tree they cause to get "murdered"
- dazparkour, on 06/17/2009, -1/+5How do you know they will not be making a profit?
Or did you just make that up to add to your argument? - Krissam, on 06/17/2009, -0/+4I lol'd if you're ever in Århus, Denmark hit me up and I'll buy you a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster
-
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 