Miscellaneous desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24

I know this is a tricky one

But.... what is the probability that someone asks a Q on the Rds and we DONT have an article on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonspeaker (talk • contribs) 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a Math desk question - but let's hit the concepts here - have you heard of a Fermi problem? Unfortunately, the baseline for this problem is terrible - do you know about Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Not only can we not complete a system, but we can't even speak to what's incomplete. Shortly, the answer is (I think) best stated in Hamlet -

"Hamlet: And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Or, in math terms - the probability is 1. Weird how that deviates from observation. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a different approach and define the reference desk to be an article, thus making the answer 0. While this answer doesn't deviate from observation, it does deviate from standard assumptions. Anyone got a non-deviant answer? --Tango (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In truth - all it would take is for someone to go through a few days' worth of articles to get a reasonable statistical answer. (No! It's too late and I'm tired!) There are really two classes of question for which we don't have an article:

Those (like this one) where you really wouldn't expect there to be an article because the question is about a completely non-notable subject - or is a matter of opinion or is just nonsense.
Those where you would expect there to be an article but there just isn't.

The latter kind are almost non-existant. I think I've only found one in the last week or so. I linked to maieusiophobia/maieuticophobia (an unusually great fear of pregnancy) - which has neither article nor Wiktionary definition. It's becoming quite unusual to find that though. Very often, when we find a gap in Wikipedia's coverage, someone will actually go and start an article - part of the Reference Desk's function is to find that kind of hole.

That lack of 'holes' suggests that Wikipedia is getting close to being "finished" for all notable human knowledge - obviously it'll never be literally finished because new knowledge is being created all the time - and we may start lowering our standards of notability if we really do get a serious drop in creation rate.

There is also some evidence (see graph at right) that the rate of article creation is starting to level off - which supports that idea that people are running out of things to write about.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to see that, but couldn't, Steve. The graph's had basically the same tangent since early 2005; and (apart from an odd surge in late 2003, followed by a corresponding plateau) it's been steeper since 2005 than at any previous time. Doesn't this mean that today we're still finding as many new topics per month as we've done at any previous time (apart from the 2003 surge)? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see a reduction in the steepness of the curve starting in the third quarter of 2006? Remember - we aren't looking for the curve to become a horizontal line because new knowledge appears spontaneously in the world every day at some rate. What we're looking for is a change from a time when we were adding old knowledge AND new knowledge - to a point when we're pretty much only adding new knowledge. IMHO, we switched from a roughly exponential growth rate to a more or less linear growth rate sometime in late 2006. I guess this would be more obvious in a graph showing the number of articles created per day rather than a graph of the total number of articles in the encyclopedia - but I couldn't find one of those for the English Wikipedia. The other languages are (of course) far, far behind - if there were reference desks in other languages, I'd expect them to see many more 'holes' than we do. SteveBaker (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks to me like it's leveling off—it looks like the beginning of a logistic curve with the inflection point at around 1.5 million articles. -- BenRG (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of questions about things we don't have articles on. The more important consideration is the number of questions about articles that we should have articles on, but don't. Those are pretty rare actually. Have a look at WP:RDAC, which lists some articles that were created as a direct consequence of a question here. For example: Moments of Reprieve and Minnie D. Craig. Dostioffski (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we've created 200k articles in the first third (roughly) of 2008, which would be (again roughly) 660k in a full year. That's a higher annual rate than ever. There were 600k in 2007; 650k in 2006; 450k in 2005; 250k in 2004; 100k in 2003; 85k in 2002; and 15k in 2001. 2007 was a little less active than 2006, but 2008 appears to be reversing that trend. If all these new articles don't fall into the category of "articles on topics we should have articles on", what are they doing there? Steve, I interpret the legend to mean that it's purely counting cumulative numbers of articles, not the size of the total data holdings (however that's measured). -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends on whether you think an article on every episode of a cartoon is something we should have ;). However, that wasn't really my point. My point was that the sort of questions we get asked here can be distributed into two categories: those that we should have articles about (based on our current inclusion criteria) and those that we shouldn't. It seems to me that there are surprisingly few of the former category where we don't have an article (or some information in a closely related article). Why that is, I don't know, but it might be because OPs tend to be exoteric in their choice of questions. Perhaps those that are interested in the more esoteric subjects, that we don't have good coverage of, are more likely to find the information themselves, and don't need our help! Dostioffski (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're getting your data - the graph doesn't look like that to me.

The distinction in the nature of articles is that we're likely to have a new article entitled the "2xxx Olympic Games" created every four years from now until the Internet freezes over. But articles like "Pythagoras's Theorem" that essentially documents "old knowledge" must eventually all be created. Between three years ago when I started editing and now, it's really noticable how hard it has become to come up with a notable "old knowledge" topic that hasn't already been done. So it seems reasonable that the rate of production of "old knowledge" articles will eventually come to an almost complete halt (I would contend that we're actually pretty close to that point right now). "New knowledge" articles will of course continue to be needed - but that ought to cut back the rate of article production significantly.

Look at an Encyclopedia Britannica "Year Book" - it contains only "new knowledge" and each yearbook represents about 3% of the entire encyclopedia. If we assumed that those numbers held for us then if (say) 1.5 million of Wikipedias 2.5 million articles today were "old knowledge" then a new article creation rate of 3% of that would be just 50,000 articles per year. Clearly we're at nothing like such a low level - but then we create an immense number of articles about things like individual episodes of "The Simpsons" and each and every character within the series - when the Britannica probably gives the entire phenomenon not much more than a footnote.

IMHO, what will eventually happen if article creation rates really do tank - is that the notability criteria will be gradually relaxed. They are currently completely arbitrary.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned it, I'll note that the going rate for articles per summer olympics seems to be somewhat more than five hundred. Algebraist 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! I annotated the graph at right: The red region looks like the initial exponential growth of a new novelty thing. The green region looks like we settled into a more or less linear growth rate that's pretty much inevitable when everyone who is likely to become a Wikipedia editor is already a Wikipedia editor. The pink bit at the end looks to me like the beginnings of a slowdown. SteveBaker (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wikipedia has no article on Demolition of the Babri Mosque

Why wikipedia has no article on Demolition of the Babri Mosque? Why the article on Babri Mosque contains so little information about its demolition? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no-ones written it yet? Why don't you make a start? Nanonic (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Wikipedia is a volunteer run project and a work in progress. Articles and sections of articles are written because someone came along who identified something they thought was missing and decided to fill that gap. That is not to say that anything can be added. We do have content policies and guidelines, such as that articles must be on notable topics; the information in articles must be verified by reliable sources; must be written from a neutral point of view and; article must not contain original research. So if you see a gap, you can be bold and fill that gap yourself, keeping in mind the policies I've noted. You can also flag that something is missing by going to the associated discussion page of an article (see here, talk:Babri Mosque), and note the missing content. It is best to do so by not just stating it's missing, but pointing other to sources to verify what can and should be written. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very important and tragic event, involving thousands of deaths. Like many other very important topics it is simply not really in wikipedia yet. I urge Otolemur crassicaudatus to amass some RS's and start an article on it, what is in the Babri Mosque article is much too little.John Z (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how do I know when to pick spaghetti squash

I have a spaghetti squash plant in Minnesota and i have squash that looks like the squash in the store is it ready to pick? Tom from Minnesota —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.66.101 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently if it has a yellowish tint, it is ready:

Harvesting your spaghetti squash occurs once it has reached its’ buttery yellow or deep orange coloring.

[1] Fribbler (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) A bunch of Google searches I just tried indicates that spaghetti squash is not highly susceptible to a ripeness window, but rather can be picked at anytime once it reaches a decent size. Some things to look for are the brightness of the yellow in the skin and, "if your finger nail won't pierce the skin then its ready to pick." This is all secondhand material so take it as you will.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of Headphones

For various reasons, I've had to replace the headphones on my MP3 player several times now. I have noticed that different headphones can need significantly different volume settings on the player to obtain the same volume level coming from the earphones. I don't have a decibel meter handy, but I'm pretty sure it is not a perceptual problem on my end (levels are consistent per headphone, and jump back and forth as I swap headphones). Is there some way to tell which headphones are "louder" than others before buying them? Is it in some way connected to the impedance measure I see listed on the box? Thanks. -- 76.204.102.226 (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically (I'm no expert), the lower the impedance, the easier it is for any given player to drive the headphones. You have high impedance cans, you need something like a headphone amp to boost the signal so that it's loud enough. With my ipod, my ear-canal headphones have an impedance of 48 ohms, and I have to play them at a much higher volume than my 32-ohm standard headphones to get the same volume. I've read that below 20 ohms the linear relationship breaks down a little. Darkspots (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. You need the dBA per milliwatt to be quoted . This is the efficacy of the headphones and will tell you how loud they will be for a defined input power. Alternatively, have you considered you might be going deaf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonspeaker (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one hell of a website

Why don't you guys donate to Wikipedia? Wikipedia has helped me. They need all of the donations they can get. Even the Admins are cool, helpful. They're also very sexy. 205.240.146.233 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for the compliments. Sorry, though, I don't donate because I'm a college student on a tight budget. Useight (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already donated hundreds (possibly thousands) of hours of my time to the project, and other regulars here have contributed far more. Good contributions are far more important to the project than money; if you think we're so great, you can best reward us by making us even better. Algebraist 20:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot editors also donate money to Wikipedia. I do occasionally, usually when there's a special appeal or something similar. Like Algebraist above the thing I mostly donate is my time. I am also planning a project that will combine my holiday with some voluntary work for Wikipedia - this will cost me money so I suppose you could possibly count part of the cost as a donation to Wikipedia. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see a calculation similar to that often done for the unpaid value contributed by "housewives": chauffeur, meal planner, cook, trip coordinator, etc. Use the same analogy for Wikipedia volunteers: article writer, wikignome, reference finder, vandal patroller, administrator, mediator, etc. etc. Multiply nominal value by time spent and calculate the "free" investment in Wikipedia. How many billions of dollars would that equal? Franamax (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those dollars were contributed by people at work and at school? :) Franamax (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Lots! Of course, those calculations for housewives are complete nonsense - very few housewives are skilled enough to do all (if any) of those jobs on a professional basis. I'm not sure how you would calculate the value for the various jobs Wikipedians do - they are pretty unique to Wikipedia, really (there are similar jobs elsewhere, but nothing quite like us! Dealing with wiki-vandals is very different from cleaning up graffiti). Even if you just assigned a minimum wage (the foundation is based in the US, so let's go with their federal rate of $6.55/hr) and assume the average edit takes 5 minutes (a stab in the dark - many are far shorter, many are longer), and take the number of edits on Special:Statistics (246 million since July 2002 - the number before then is probably pretty small relatively speaking), then multiply it all together and we get $134 million. That's a pretty meaningless number, though - it's fun to calculate it, nevertheless. A better value might be found by looking at the number of visitors we get and seeing how much we could earn by putting a few adverts on the site (a large proportion of the community are dead set against adverts, but we can still consider it hypothetically) - I don't have the figures to work that out, but I've seen other people do the sums and get figures in the billions. --Tango (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the time/dollar values are similarly meaningless - a whole pile of wiki contributors are just not very good, many are decent and a few are simply stellar. Where is someone looking for a topic for their Master's thesis? No charge for the idea. :)

My idea is that we invite Google to take over our search engine, let them place two ads per search, and we (WMF) get 1 million dollars per year. It's a slippery slope, but we'd get a decent internal search - I'd sell my soul for that. As far as your $134m figure, I assume you are talking about just my contributions, right? :) Franamax (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, 205. It's a very refreshing break from what IPs usually give us (RefDesk IP regulars excluded). bibliomaniac 1 5 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken the 12,000 edit barrier. So my donation in time is probably well over 2,000 hours - and even at minimum wage, that's a pretty big amount. But I do donate maybe $30 to $80-ish when the request goes out. It would cause a PHENOMENAL upset if Wikipedia added adverts. So many tens of thousands of people donated hundred to thousands of hours to making Wikipedia what it is - on the basis that it was an entirely free site in every sense of the word. If that changed, there would be an enormous upset - I guarantee you'd see a revolt amongst the most dedicated editors - the Wikipedia database would get forked with all of the best editors struggling on with an even worse funded site than we have now - and the main Wikipedia would fall apart due to lack of talent and lack of vandal patrol. Before you know it, it would be like "Yahoo answers". Hopefully enough of the high-up folks understand that. If the foundation ever gets in serious trouble, it's not an expensive operation - a couple of million dollars a year would fund it perfectly well. I'm sure that some company that benefits from us (Google has to be one) would step in with a no-strings-attached grant. Google ALREADY is Wikipedia's most effective search engine - our search box it TERRIBLE. I couldn't count the number of times I've searched for something in our Search box - not found it - Googled it and found a Wikipedia page is the first hit. Every time I do that, Google make money from the ad revenue. They can't fail to have noticed how often Wikipedia is the top hit...they might well fund us without asking for anything in return. Aside from anything else, if Wikipedia DID advertise - as the highest ranked site on the entire internet that doesn't carry advertising, we'd be taking money from their mouths. It would be cheaper to fund us than to compete against us.

(Oh - and I didn't realise that Admins were considered SEXXY! If I'd known that, I wouldn't have turned down the offer to apply to be one last week!) SteveBaker (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European measurement symbol

So my Mom just got home from Denmark with appropriate goodies like herring and cod roe. On each of these packages, next to the weight/volume ("200 g", "300 ml") is an "e" symbol. It looks like a lowercase "e" but it's as large or a bit larger than the "200 g" text and in a different font. The bottom stroke of the "e" doesn't stretch as far right as the top part (and my Unicode listing isn't graphical, so I can't show it here).

It is some sort of standards symbol and I used to know what it meant. Can anyone fill me in? I believe it also shows up on euro wine labels. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Estimated sign. Nanonic (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Prepackaged food must carry the e / estimated sign in the EU. Basically it guarantees that the weight / volume printed conforms with the EU guidelines, which refer to standard deviation and the like. This is not to be confused with the Ennn numbers, which list the additives in some produce. --62.47.142.0 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do so love the RefDesks, thanks for the immediate response! We spent some time looking at the Ennn numbers too. It may be bureaucratic, but I like the idea of having solid references for what's in your food. Now if we could only adopt the idea of ripping off all the extra packaging and throwing it onto the floor right in the store - we might actually see some eco-progress! Thanks again. Franamax (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And all that litter would create extra employment for cleaners, too. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is precisely the idea. Then the store would tell the manufacturer to stop the nonsense. Buy one stupid little USB memory stick - how much stuff do you throw away? Franamax (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some larger branches of newsagents in Britain (particularly WH Smith) now provide bins by their magazine/newspaper sections because there was a consumer led campaign in recent times to just shake all the leaflets and other assorted crap contained inside onto the floor before purchasing items in protest at the amount of useless gumpf. Nanonic (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wonderful! That's so VERY British! We shake out the contents of our magazines in protest then carefully put the resulting trash neatly into the bin provided! It makes me proud to be a member of that quirky little country.

How very clever of them. When I lived in Britain I often bought my newspaper from WH Smith. Yes they were full of leaflets and other crap but I didn't make an issue of it by throwing them on the floor of the shop. I just threw them in the nearest rubbish bin on the street. Would it really have been beyond these "protesters" to do the same thing? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it defeats the purpose of protesting. If you simply remove the offending parts and politely put them in the bin provided then there is no incentive for the store to protest to the magazines about how much they are annoying their customers. If you (and an majority of other people) throw the junk onto the floor, the store will be embarrassed by it - and that provides a motive for them to protest to the magazines and prevent the practice. It is slightly unfair to drag the shop into an argument that you essentially have with the magazine - but the alternative is to simply refuse to buy magazines that offend you in this way. If the magazine "understands their readers" they'll fix the problem. But beware of the dangers of getting what you want. With less advertising, the cost of magazines and newspapers would increase dramatically. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative – and the one that I would favour – is simply not to bother protesting. Just put your unwanted leaflets in the bin, like you do with all other rubbish, and get on with your life. I am very sceptical about the leap you make from the shop's being embarrassed by litter to the newspapers' putting a stop to the practice (all the shop will do is tell their staff to go round picking the stuff up). But, even if such a link could be proven, there's something insufferably smug about deliberately dropping litter in order to make a point that sticks in my gullet somewhat. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to say that here in the USA, there is the faintest glimmerings of a movement to fix it. Suddenly, all of the stores like WalMart and HEB here in Texas have started selling rather nice $1 re-usable shopping bags to use as an alternative to the free plastic ones. They even claim that these bags are made from recycled plastic. Now, if only I could remember to bring the darned things with me when I go shopping! But it really does annoy me when things are over-packaged...or (in some cases) packaged at all.

However, it's not all forward progress. I think the DIY shops are the worst. It used to be possible maybe 5 years ago to go to Home Depot and buy a large cardboard box full of about 100 screws. Those boxes could be piled up neatly in one corner of your workshop so that the minimal amount of packaging represented by that box was actually a useful thing to have. Now they all come packaged in little bags or vacuum-formed plastic bubble packs with about 8 screws in each. Once you've opened the package and used the one screw you actually needed, the rest fall out and go everywhere and there is really no convenient way to store them other than to go out and buy ANOTHER pile of plastic boxes to put them in and to have to go to all the trouble of labelling the drawers carefully so you can find them again! Argh! SteveBaker (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we're off topic on eco-shopping, it reminded me of the supermarket near my office. I bought a chocolate bar to eat while I waited for the bus, and the checkout assistant asked me if I wanted a plastic bag for it. When I looked at her like she'd just grown a third eye, she looked vaguely ashamed and said that she'd been asked for one in similar situations before. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Bermuda one of the larger supermarket chains doesn't even have paper/plastic bags anymore. If you don't bring your own they will gladly sell you a reusable one. Plasticup ^T/C 13:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful! Perhaps this move on behalf of stores in the US will move towards that position. The bags they are selling for $1 hold about the same amount as three or four regular plastic bags - so you don't need many. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been selling those sturdier reusable bags here for at least 10 years, but you hardly ever see anyone using one. Everyone buys them with the best of intentions, and I've acquired about half a dozen of them in my travels, as have most people I know, but they just sit there collecting dust. Our government's policy is to eventually outlaw plastic bags completely. In the meantime, they've just started to trial a system of charging 10 cents per plastic bag in certain places, to see whether this works as a disincentive. When I was a kid, every housewife had their own large bag, and a string bag for a small shop, and typically they'd come home with very little packaging to have to immediately dispose of. Ah, the good old days. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not that hard to keep a handful of plastic shopping bags in the car - you just hook the car keys onto the empty bag, then you can't avoid taking it out with you. I personally now walk to all my shopping (yay Kitsilano! :) and I just have made part of the routine of leaving the house stuffing a bag in my back pocket. Habits are what need to change, before anything else. I don't go for that crap where a store makes a profit by selling you a re-usable bag, I just keep bringing the same bags back to the store again and again. Here in Vancouver that's pretty normal and one grocery store gives you 3 cents for each bag produced at the checkout. (I bring 30 bags and ask them to triple-bag each item separately ;) Franamax (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Phew that's a lot of colons) Why do people like bags so much? I put one of those plastic storage box in the car, put all the grocery in there in the car and just take the whole box when I get home; so much simpler and neater than bags. (plus you can practise 3D tetris) --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(If the number of colons bothers you, then beyond maybe five or six colons, it's considered perfectly OK to say...

(unindent) Then start your response against the lefthand margin. SteveBaker (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic games

What is their purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonspeaker (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their purpose is set out in the Olympic Charter, but the basic point is to honor and promote the ideals behind the Ancient Olympic Games. Dostioffski (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, love, unity, etc. Plasticup ^T/C 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]