Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 May 12

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.

May 12

Wikipedia

Is it true that Wikipedia is mainly written by teenagers, unemployed people and semi-literate internet junkies? --Aoslok (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 05:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

All kinds of people edit Wikipedia. See the Wikimedia Foundation's video. Neutrality^talk 06:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that WP-vandalism is mainly done by those groups, but they are probably a minority for constructive edits. Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Citation Needed, you all! Half of Wikipedia editors are below the age of 22 [1], so while it's not true that it's "mostly" teenagers, it's pretty close. I can't find anything on employment status, but given that there are a large number of student-aged people, it seems likely that a large number of editors aren't employed. "Semi-literate" is more difficult to quantify, but it is almost certainly true (though I don't have any statistics, just my observations and common sense) that people who edit Wikipedia do tend to spend more time online than the general population. This is a self selected group of people who spend time volunteering on an Internet project after all. The one statistic that hasn't been mentioned is that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male, and not in a romantic relationship (same study). Take all that as you will. Buddy431 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make wikipedia users fully literate? Knowing how to type and write (albeit with poor spelling and grammar) is a pretty good indication of functional literacy, especially when said tasks are in writing an encyclopedia. Book-learnin' isn't the only manifestation of literacy. Mingmingla (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Take another look. What the survey says is that half of the responders were under 22; 65.92% of those were readers, and only 7.42% were "regular contributors". Also, contributors (regular or occasional, I presume) had an average age of 26.14. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the average age, which is only 1 year higher than the average for all respondents (25.22) or readers (24.79). I think we can presume that the median age of editors, then, will also be within about a year of the 22 years quoted for all respondents (it's unfortunate that they don't give the medians for the different categories, only the averages). Buddy431 (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Additionally, it appears that a new, more involved survey was just administered [2]. This survey does ask about employment and income, so we should be able to get a better picture of typical editors. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia foundation is pretty terrible in documenting what they do, so we have no idea when the results of this survey will be released. Did anyone take this survey? I didn't know it existed, and it seems like most people felt it was pretty poorly implemented - i.e. you can't skip questions you aren't comfortable responding to. Buddy431 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I started doing the 2011 Survey, but stopped when it would not let me skip some questions. My feedback to the surveyors is here. I suspect that the results of the survey may be skewed, for example toward younger people who may be more likely to divulge personal information on the internet. Ie the actual mean/median age may be higher than reported by the survey. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Retired and "underemployed" people also commonly edit Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re the semi-literate charge - I routinely spend a portion of my time here repairing the English in articles about sports most commonly played by the "lower classes". In my country, Australia, that includes most football codes (we have a lot here), but not Rugby Union. (The players of the latter code tend to come from the right schools.) It's quite common to find additions to articles using mangled forms of tabloid style English. Sometimes it's so poorly written that I cannot comprehend the meaning, and just delete stuff, with a polite Edit summary if I'm in the mood. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you give when you're not in the mood - an impolite edit summary? no edit summary at all? I hope you teach your students that it takes no more effort to be polite than not.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My cranky moods generally only happen when I suggest to one of our editors less skilled in the literary arts that they take their intentions to the Talk page first, but am ignored, and more illegible garbage gets added to articles. It's a more serious sin in my eyes to not just be bad at something, but not be aware that one is bad at it and/or ignore offers of assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Think of something that a semi-literate person would write and try putting that word in either of the Search fields at the top of the page. The quantity of hits will interest you but Wikipedia admins object to such extracted information being posted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not Mr.Aoslok.Wikipedia has a lot of work going into it at any given moment and you can see for yourself the quality of the majority of articles.The citations,the analysis,the generalizations etc.I assure you "Semi literate internet junkies" would have fared far worse.LOL

A lot of experts and specialists,who want knowledge(not just information) to be readily available for the general public, work on the topics as is evident from the discussion pages.Infact the quality of wikipedia rivals that of encyclopedia Britanica.

©Pseudo 10:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I get almost the opposite opinion of the refdesk answerers. I think many of the regulars are older, with a generally high standard of educational attainment, though some of us might be unemployed or are (semi-)retired. Astronaut (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be curious to know the average age and general lifestyle of the top 500 to 5000 or so most active editors, who as I understand are responsible for a disproportionate part of Wikipedia's content. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits for a list. I know at least some of the people listed here are not teenage semi-literate internet junkies. Unemployed, maybe. Pfly (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

electric tower and lightning protection

There is a 220 KV electric tower line overhead where I live. There is a forty meter wide swathe of land bare of long trees along where the line passes. My house is situated just outside this swathe. Do such electrical lines have protection against lightning? Do such protection, if it were in place, protect the things and people below the line? Has there been any conclusive study about the health hazard of living under such extra high tension lines? --117.253.191.105 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about lightning, but I think the swathe of land with no trees is there to ease maintenance. As for health issues, some years ago there was the suggestion that living near power lines increased the risk of some cancers. Then again other research denied any link. This (old) FAQ from the BBC might be useful. However, it has all gone quiet and I've heard nothing on this for 5 years or so. Astronaut (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The lines are protected.Ground wire (transmission line) --Aspro (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The empty swath of land is for more than maintenance. The Northeast Blackout of 2003 which saw 55 million North Americans lose electricity was triggered when one high voltage line hit one tree. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Atop high voltage transmission towers there is commonly in the US what is called a "static wire," equivalent to what the Wikipedia article calls a Ground wire (transmission line). The theory of lightning protection has varied over the years from the time of Benjamin Franklin to the present, as to how wide is the protection from such a wire. One engineer I worked for described it as the "'Cone of Protection,' not to be confused with Maxwell Smart's 'Cone of Silence.'" Other theorists wrote of "rolling spheres" of protection. It sucks to be the highest grounded object in a neighborhood, when it comes to the threat from lightning strikes. A 100 foot tall oak tree near my house took two major lightning strikes over the years, which finally killed it and led to its being cut down. I suspect that a nearby static line might have done the same favor, had there been one. Edison (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Contributing to Wikipedia

Is it possible to become an internet celebrity somewhat like youtube celebrity by contributing to wikipedia? i will only contribute if i get something in return, otherwise i am not wasting my time here. --Aoslok (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you may want to find something else to do. Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and does not provide the guarantee of any benefit besides a job well done. --Jayron32 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You likely won't get anything of that nature in return. People who edit for wrong reasons not only are wasting their time, but around here they tend to waste a lot of othere people's time too. Staecker (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is, however, possible; see Simon Pulsifer. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Essjay controversy for another somewhat famous wikipedian. Didn't work out so great though. Staecker (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia doesn't reward individual authors with much credit or notoriety. There are a few exceptions but most of them rather peculiar (Jimbo Wales being perhaps the most exceptional, here). If you're looking for lots of credit, Wikipedia is not a good use of your time. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aoslok requests "something in return, otherwise i am not wasting my time here". How about a feeling of making the world a better place? To many here, that is obviously something. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP sounds like comedian Ken Platt who began every performance: "Allo, I won't take me coat off - I'm not stoppin'!". Such is mortality for us all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Croquembouche with chocolate 'strip' around it

I was working (waitering) at a 40th once and the cake was a large croquembouche, but rather than what seems to be the usual spun sugar/toffee coating, it was covered in 'strips' of milk and white chocolate: imagine a very long flat strip of chocolate, with one side cut as though with pinking shears, wrapped around the cake to the top. Anyone have any idea what that would be called, or how to describe it more elegantly?

Thanks, Daniel (‽) 15:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Humm. That's got me salivating... Did they look as though they could be made with one of these widgets. http://www.sugarcraft.com/catalog/gumpaste/FMM/page6.pdf Or if they were smaller maybe a frill cutter http://www.sugarcraft.com/catalog/gumpaste/FMM/JEM.htm --Aspro (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a specific word for it, but that would come (probably0 under the general definition of a 'showpiece,' being a specific subset of candy/pastry arts which specializes in very large display pieces. They usually aren't meant to be eaten, just displayed. (Many of the execrable Food Network 'competition' shows are about making showpieces). Essentially they are a way for pastry chefs to show off their not-inconsiderable talent (and engineering skills! I saw a showpiece last year that was about eight feet tall, made of nothing but spun and pulled sugar. I was scared to even breathe near it). Making such a thing as you describe is very simple; generally one will pour melted chocolate onto a sheet of acetate, wait until it is mostly set but still pliable, then cut as needed (probably a frill cutter, as doing this in a silicone mould would be very difficult unless using gelling agents in the chocolate to maintain pliability), and use the acetate to form a circle. Peel off, and you're done. I'm not watching this page, it clutters up my watchlist, so if you have further questions please ping me on my talk page. → ROUX ₪ 09:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

remembering films blog

Hey. I found a blog the other day where the guy who writes it attempts to summarise the plot of films that he hasn't seen for years from memory. Now I can't find it at all. Can you help me to find it? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

afv taped on March 27, 2010

I am trying to locate a video of this show. I have not been successful... My family saw the taping, and they were told that it would air on May 2, 2010, however it was aired a week or two prior to May 2nd. Thank you in advance for any assistance. Patricia <<E-mail removed for user's security>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.92.252 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I actually might have it recorded on my TiVo (my kids love that show), but actually getting it to you would be a bit tougher. I think your best bet, if anything, would be to go to ABC's episodes archive and see if it's there. (I'm at work so it's blocked.) If it's not there, I doubt it would be anywhere. Good luck. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I take it you mean America's Funniest Home Crotch Injuries ? StuRat (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can buy a compiled release on VHS or DVD if you know how your video was categorized. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Resource for Finding People

I had a good friend back in elementary school (early 80s) whose family moved to a different state. We kept in touch via snail mail (no e-mail in those days, and calling was still too expensive, especially for a young kid), but when they moved to a different (third) state, we lost touch, and I haven't heard from them since. I know her name and her family's names (brother and parents), their ages, where they went to church, what state they moved from, the rough time period that they were our neighbors, what state they moved to, what their Dad did for a living, and a few of their hobbies. I have tried to locate them with Facebook, Google, Zabasearch, and Spokeo, but their last name is "Jones" and their first names are also pretty common, so as you can imagine, I get a ton of search results from all over the place. Understanding that people are concerned about privacy in 2011 and not everyone wants to hear from every long lost friend from the past, it would seem that if the information I remember is bona fide, there would be an online resource where I could go and in combination put it all together and try to locate them. Do any of you experts here know of anything like that? Thanks much! Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I'm already aware of the old comedy meme, "Well, if they were such good friends, they'd probably contact you." Yes, I get that. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 19:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You could try classmates.com. There you enter your school info, and they list the classmates who have also entered theirs. It's free to check, but actually getting contact info likely requires a paid membership. StuRat (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've had pretty good luck using peoplesearch.com. An example -- I just searched for my roommate's (ridiculously common) name in his hometown (where he hasn't lived in ten years) it pulls up John Q Roommate, three cities he's lived in (which help me make sure it's him), and also the names of other folks he's shared an address with (namely his parents and his sister).. It also gives an approximate age. Based on that, a Google search for John Q Roommate + one of the towns listed brings me to his blog and an obituary, both of which can be helpful tools to track him down. Your mileage my vary, but I've found chaining Google searches to get extra bits of information to add to the search VERY helpful. Foofish (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is no help! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the US have an equivalent of this site?--TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Penny matches

I was in the store today and found a box of Diamond brand strike anywhere matches. Something on the box caught my attention and I found myself reading the rest of the box. On the back it said something like, "check out our full line of products including penny matches". So, this got me wondering what a "penny match" is. An internet search leads me to believe that it's just another name for a wooden stick match but I'd like that confirmed as well as an explanation of where the term came from. Am I right in assuming that it's because they cost a penny at some point in time? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a lot for a match, especially long ago. Maybe a penny for 100 ? The other possibility is that it was a match that weighed the same as a penny. StuRat (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it is just a term for wooden stick matches sold in boxes containing about 30 matches, presumably costing 1d once upon a time; there may also, in some cases, have been an association with a particular form factor of the box - cf. Penny Match Holders. Clearly the term is still in common use, such as here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry StuRat, but don't you usually buy a BOX of matches? This article from 1930 tells you anything you wanted to know about "penny matches". The phrase is unknown in the UK - if a box of matches had cost a "penny" (ie one cent) in the US it would have cost about a ha'penny in the Britain at that time. One cent per box sounds plausable because you can buy a cheap box of matches for 30 pence now. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one that suggested the price of one match for a penny, that was the OP. I suggested 100 matches for a penny. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies StuRat. Alansplodge (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Peasants. I wouldn't be caught dead lighting my Gurkha His Majesty's Reserve cigar without my $48 (per hundred) Fitzsu matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

After lighting your cigar you can enjoy watching your 99-match firework. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for the answers. I thought one penny per match was very expensive as well but neglected to state it. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an era, back in the 1840's when matches were made in cottage industry by poor people and sold in the streets by children. See The Little Match Girl. One thing the match did was to eliminate the Tinderbox, which was used by the previous generation to kindle fires, however tediously. Edison (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Our article on John Walker (inventor) who created the first friction matches, says he used to sell them at one shilling (ie 12 old pence) per box. As an agricultural worker in the 1830s was earning about 20 old pence per day[3], you can see that matches were for the wealthy only. When companies like Lundström Brothers and Bryant & May began to mass produce matches using machine tools, the price fell dramatically. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)