Miscellaneous desk
< May 16	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 18 >

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 17

Official Goal of Wikipedia?

If I should be asking this somewhere else, please tell me.

Is there a stated official goal (or a mission statement) of Wikipedia?

Jimbo Wales had said in 2004, ″Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.″ and ″Our goal has always been Britannica or better quality.″ But is this official? 76.176.28.235 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:Purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long, stupid war over Wikipedia:Prime objective once. I don't think we'll be certain what Wikipedia was for till all the dust settles. We're apparently not even close to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, people finish a work (book, artwork, music, whatever) and only then discover what all their effort was for. If then. Since WP will never be finished, there's no need to know at this very early stage what we're all doing here. I'd rather not know anyway. Do drops of water in a raging river care about the river's purpose? All they know is that they're being dragged along by some huge external force over which they have no control, and they just sit back and enjoy the ride. I recommend it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The constant battles over "notability" run counter to Wales' vision about the "sum of all human knowledge." The "notability" restriction must have come up later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"All human knowledge" would be absurdly large, if taken literally. What were you doing on 19 April 2003 (to pick a date at random)? I'm sure there's some obscure record somewhere, and that is part of "human knowledge", but does anyone want to know? Even you? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "all human knowledge" and "shit someone just made up". At Wikipedia, we need to assure that what we publish is the former and not the latter. WP:N is one of those standards that makes that distinction for us, by requiring that what we publish is trustworthy and verifiable. --Jayron 32 03:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that automatically weeds out the information that is factually correct (such as what I had for dinner on my 37th birthday) from the stuff that is factually correct and noteworthy. Vast numbers of people know where JFK was on 22 November 1963, but very few know or care where he was on the same day in 1962. But if he happened do something notable on that earlier date, or even if some sleuth just needed to know where he was that day, it'll be available because every day of his presidency was recorded in detail. But nobody will ever publish my dinner menu for my 37th birthday, as there is an absence of interest in finding out, and an absence of any record to begin with. Hence, it will never appear in WP. But then, nobody in their right mind would ever expect it to, and that is the light in which Jimbo's talk of "all human knowledge" must be viewed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of verifiable information that we haven't included though. For example, I routinely turn to Wikia when I want to dive into the details of fictional works. They often do a much more comprehensive job than we do. We also don't go in for directory type knowledge. No where on Wikipedia would you find a list of all bakeries in Zurich, despite the fact that business listings are easily verified from many official sources. There are far more things in the universe that are verifiable than are Wikipedia notable. Personally, I think that is often a shame because I tend towards a more inclusive mindset, but others don't always agree. Dragons flight (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is a very specific kind of reference work. It may be better to think of the two Jimbo galaxies, being Wikimedia (including Wikisource, Wikinews, Commons, and all the rest) and Wikia, as more comprehensively "all verifiable knowledge". Wikipedia itself is not "everything that anyone can verify, in a random blender, and spit out randomly". It is an encyclopedia that contains articles which are written to be both informative and engaging, and not merely random bits of unassociated facts, which we slam together merely because they are verifiable. There also needs to be a certain narrative within the articles, and should be well-written as such. I agree that Wikipedia does not contain every verifiable fact ever known, but I also don't think it should. There's an advantage to limiting the scope somewhat, quality and quantity are not necessarily identical. --Jayron 32 06:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your definition of knowledge requires stuff of Wikia, I would suggest it's still insufficient. There are a number of wikis which aren't of wikia and are not likely to be for a variety of reasons. Even for stuff like TV shows, computer games, books and other fictional works the non wikia wikis are sometimes better than the wikias and probably will remain so for a long while due to having the people. It's impossible to predict the future, but I'm not sure that wikia provides sufficient advantage for them to take over everything, even if they have come to dominate in many areas. There are also all those wikis attached to websites and forums plus books and other documents (digital or not) plus audio, picture and video recordings which are not part of any wiki. And the websites and forums themselves provides knowledge that will probably never end up in any wiki unless AIs get good enough to do it automatically but in that case I'm not sure whether the wiki concept will continue anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you had for dinner that day is something that almost all of humanity don't know - it will not always be a part of human knowledge - it would be next to impossible to find solid references for it - so I really don't think it's a reasonable thing to record. Notability and verifiability are certainly tests we must care about.

But how about "How to change the exhaust system on a 2010 Mini Cooper?", or "How to install MineCraft under Linux using WINE?" (both things I've searched for online this week)? These are without doubt non-trivial pieces of human knowledge that ought to be considered both notable and verifiable. But "How To" guides are explicitly excluded by WP:NOT - so this kind of thing will never be a part of Wikipedia.

So clearly, Jimbo wasn't quite saying it right. What I think he may have intended to say was that these goals were a part of the Wikimedia Foundation goals...not just narrowly Wikipedia. WikiBooks/WikiSource/Wikiversity might well include information about how to change car exhaust systems or how to install various pieces of software. Those are all parts of the Wikimedia Foundation's collection of projects - but they are not a part of Wikipedia. SteveBaker (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information is not knowledge. Perhaps that is the confusion here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia were restricted to "knowledge", it would get a lot smaller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto!--TMCk (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary seems to disagree - there are a lot of entries for "knowledge" - but the relevant ones appear to be:

The total of what is known; all information and products of learning.
Something that can be known; a branch of learning; a piece of information; a science.

In both cases, "knowledge" is defined more broadly than information - the implication being that all information is knowledge - but perhaps there is knowledge that is other than information. If you are aware of some alternative definition that might apply here, then that would probably be quite illuminating. (Sources please!) SteveBaker (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I/we follow the philosophical approach where there is more to it. And never trust WP ;) --TMCk (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams are knowledge that isn't information because they can't be shared or imparted. The information that shapes them (and the information it shapes) is drawn from what the dreamer knows, so even if you somehow copy and run it flawlessly in someone else's dome, what he would see from it isn't what you programmed. Memory errors would be common, and increasingly fatal.

It is known. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three previous posters are perfectly entitled to define their own meaning of the word "Knowledge" - but if you expect others to understand what the heck you're talking about, you need to use the dictionary definition...it's all about communication. The dictionary definition is a superset of 'information'. Knowledge might also include other things that aren't "information" - perhaps dreams or feelings or whatever TMCk is talking about are also knowledge - but if the goal of Wikipedia (or, as I'd maintain, the total of all WikiMedia Foundation projects) is to contain all human knowledge - then all information is a part of that. You may have some alternative definition of "knowledge" - but your definition isn't what matters here. Read the dictionary. SteveBaker (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information we don't understand can't be known. So not knowledge, at least by Merriam-Webster's #2c and #2a definitions. If you're at least aware of whatever the heck we're talking about and have this info, you're knowledgable under #2d and #2b. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that understanding is necessary for something to be knowledge. Consider (for example) the scientific result that: "the expansion of the universe is accelerating.". This is data, it's factual, it's information. However, we don't understand why it's accelerating. Are you claiming that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not knowledge? If we have the information - we know it - even if we don't understand it. 24.242.75.217 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, half of the definition sees it your way. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think ultimately we try to make the "sum of all human knowledge" succinct because the reader's time is limited. The reader has other things to do. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

76 Street Station on the IND Fulton Street Line

Is there such a station east of Euclid Avenue? Whether there is or not, there should be an article about it. --46.115.12.226 (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to write an article about a station even if it doesn't exist? Our IND Fulton Street Line shows all the stations that exist, with articles for each. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 09:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of the 80th Street station? It's western-most entrance is on 77th Street. LongHairedFop (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean 76th Street Station, served from November 1948 to December 1948. It was east of Euclid Avenue under Pitkin Avenue. --176.2.45.41 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is an urban legend among New York subway fans to the effect that this station was built. Here's a New York Times piece about it from January 21, 2003, one of Randy Kennedy's columns about the subway that he was writing then. (Curiously, the column doesn't seem to be in Subwayland (ISBN 0-212-32434-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum), the book that's a collection of the columns.) And here is an elaborate April Fool's joke pretending that the station actually existed and operated for the dates mentioned by the last poster. Does this make the urban legend notable enough to have an article about it? I say no, but opinions may vary.--174.88.135.200 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The station is mentioned (along with the New York Times reference) in Euclid Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)#East of the station. This might be a potential redirect target if an entire new article isn't appropriate. Tevildo (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Athletic Prowess

I just watched some female track running. The majority of the runners who passed the finishing line quickest were black. Why is this?

Does merely the colour of ones skin attribute to sporting potential. One rumour has it that former colonies such as Jamaica produce exceptional athletes due to its dark past. It is said that during the times of slavery, the plantation owners performed eugenics to breed the best labourers. Any truth in this at all as an explanation to the above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.213.137 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, you'd expect slave owners to want slaves that can't outrun them. Perhaps we should look at the reverse, why people who live closer to the poles are less adapted to running fast. For example, more fat would provide better insulation against the cold, but would also reduce sprinting speed. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there are fewer fat people (of any colour) nearer the equator Stu? I don't think so. What about the Ethiopian marathon runners they are not very fast but hell they can last. Richard Avery (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the climate where each race's genes were historically selected, not necessarily where they live today, and this map seems to bear out my statement, with sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia showing a low incidence of obesity: [1]. However, where Europeans have colonized South Africa and South America, and Middle-Eastern people have colonized North Africa, the trend is reversed. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What about the Ethiopian marathon runners they are not very fast but hell they can last."

Sounds like what my wife says about me.

Ooh, you little bragger youRichard Avery (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of performance in some sports, see Race and sports#"Black athletic superiority". There's zero evidence and it's fairly unlikely it has anything to do with skin colour per se. In fact, while certain black people may tend to do well in a number of sports, and there may be a genetic factor, I would suggest it wouldn't even be accurate to say the performance is correlated with skin colour per se. How many pygmies have you seen winning a marathon or a 100m race? As our article explains, it's actually more complicated then even that. For example, at first glance it seems to be mostly people of West African descent who are the best sprinters and Nilotic peoples who are the best at marathon running, but that's also a simplification (but does emphasise why simplying saying 'black people' is problematic). Nil Einne (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skin colour is just one thing that comes with the race. By constantly calling these people black/Negro/coloured, it can seem like that's the main difference. But if you take the pigment out, you still have a person with a different body. That's how we know these albinos are black, despite being white.

Notwithstanding actual differences in muscle and bone, the skin itself does provide one illusory bonus: Muscle under dark skin has more clearly defined edges under bright lights, especially if shined up with oil. That's why Hulk Hogan stayed about as dark as (though oranger than) Butch Reed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a kids' show about racism that was on MuchMusic years ago...one kid explained "I'm not good at basketball because I'm black, I'm good at basketball because I practise." So the question really is, why is it important (culturally, personally, etc) for these athletes (Jamaican track stars, Ethiopian marathoners, or whoever else) to be good at these sports? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question like this is usually regarded as a racist inquiry. I'm surprised it's gotten this far without someone calling the OP on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a massive load of bollocks. There is a clear difference between people of (West-)African descent and Caucasians in athletics. Racism has nothing whatsoever to do with it, biology does. Different muscle compositions etc.... Fgf10 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, oddly, with Fgf10; the leg shape of typical Africans and Europeans is very different. Anyone who's dated interracially knows this, let alone those who pay attention to mixed-race athletics teams, etc. There's also a significant scientific literature on sprinting and long-distance running and ethnicity. Racism consists of assigning moral judgments collectively to genetics or physical characteristics, not of recognizing measurable physical truths. μηδείς (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The racist angle on this is the notion that athletic prowess comes "naturally" to blacks, while whites have to "work at it" to succeed. Hence the undertone of white superiority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that as racist if you mean [the notion that] individual blacks shouldn't get credit for their own athletic accomplishments while individual whites should. Effort is a moral concept. μηδείς (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the core premise, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you don't tell us the proportion of black runners in the particular race you were watching. Are we to assume they were in the minority? If not, the results would hardly be surprising. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all the contestants were black, if there were qualifying races with a mixture of races, and only blacks qualified, that would be quite a result in itself. StuRat (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be a bit silly (although we see a lot of that here) if it wasn't about an international elite event so I guess it was 2015 IAAF Diamond League#Shanghai, the second large athletics event this year. All main running events were between 11 and 13 UTC, 17 May. Results are at http://www.iaaf.org/results/diamond-league-meetings/2015/iaaf-diamond-league-shanghai-5647. Elite running is dominated by blacks for both men and women. Of West African descent for sprint and North or East African for long distance. Blacks do relatively poorly globally in most other sports but that may be due to most blacks living in countries with lousy access to sports equipment and facilities. You don't become Tiger Woods if you can never afford to play golf. Running doesn't require anything (not even shoes for many Africans), and many poor African and Caribbean countries do have systems to locate fast kids and give good training to the best. The very public success stories also mean that lots of kids train hard on their own and hope to be discovered as one of few chances to get out of poverty. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of relatively poor other sports, The Killer Bees used to put on masks and pull the old switcheroo on referees. Tonight, WWE Tag Team Champions The New Day (modern day jive soul bros) retained their belts by having their third man, who wasn't even in the match, do the same. But without a mask. The white ref simply couldn't tell two black men apart. Neither the white guy who rang the bell. Or the white ring announcer, who made it official. In 2015. In Baltimore. The crowd wasn't happy, but relatively so. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk:

The New Day was saved from speedy deletion by your humble narrator.

You do know that it's all all worked and even the supposedly shoot is probably worked shoot, yeah?

On second thoughts, shh, don't answer, don't break kayfabe

El diablo Tasmanico aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My lips are sealed on the legitimacy of pinfalls. But win or lose, Kofi Kingston has an extraordinary vertical leap (like Shelton Benjamin) and Big E (Ettore Ewen) can definitely lift (like Mark Henry). Xavier Woods is just OK (like Koko B. Ware), but it was him who initially called The New Day "Smart Athletic Friends". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why I'm not affected by alcohol?

Hello,

I rarely drink alcoholic beverages, but when I do, it seems not to affect me at all - I don't feel dizzy, happy, sad, tired, uninhibited, etc. (albeit the largest amount I've ever drunk was about three glasses of wine). Are there any medical problems\conditions that are correlated with such a resistance to the alcohol's effect? (I thought that alcohol tolerance should exist only in heavy drinkers). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.245.196 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not answer requests for medical advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give medical advice, like guessing at what's wrong with your system. But we can say it's hard to guess if there's anything wrong with it at all, given your admittedly scant testing. If you had three glasses of wine over a few hours, it's not strange to hear you weren't drunk. If you had them in a row, I'd expect at least dizziness. Then again, some wines are basically juice.

I say take three shots of any medium-strength liquor and call us back in the morning. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in pointing you to this little self-help guide. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I cannot comment as to the OP's health, simple explanations than a medical condition would be that either:

anyone who has never had more than three glasses of unspecified wine ($5 wine cooler? $10 riesling? $50 brandy? what size glass?) over an unspecified period of time might not have consumed enough quickly enough to get drunk
anyone who rarely drinks will not have enough experience with inebriation to fully be aware of their inebriation. Heck, there are some borderline alcoholics who will insist while slobbering and unable to stand will insist to the designated driver that "Ah'm naht drunk! Yooo are!"

Weight, gender, and time are huge factors. Heavier people have a higher tolerance, and women have about half of the enzymes that process alcohol then men of the same size. For example, I'm a male who is about 220 lbs (or 100 kg). I can down a bottle of Moscato d'Asti or Liebfraumilch alongside a two-hour meal and score better on sobriety tests that do not check my breath or blood. I once got my then-girlfriend and her friends (most about half my weight) "I need to sit down" drunk off a couple of small glasses of plum wine (and since one of them was a lesbian and the other viewed me as a brother, no, they weren't drunk off me). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is fraud on the part of the "wine" merchant, contact a lawyer. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or contact Jorah Mormont. Less hassle. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Question of condom study

I have a question of this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4012254/#!po=97.9167 page 16 says that out of 26 pregnancies, only 5 were because of condom related reasons what do they mean by that? does that mean only five occurred despite being used the right way? It doesn't seem clear what the other 21 pregnancies were because of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoami22 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most pregnancies are because of sexual activity ... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Discontinuation" section it says:

Furthermore, among all pregnancies, 19.23% (n = 5/26) were because of condom breakage, 11.11% (n = 3/26) were due to forgetting to use a condom, 50% (13/26) were because of incorrect condom use, and 19.23% (n = 5/26) were due to the spouses’ dislike of condom use and other reasons.

Rojomoke (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"forgetting"?! Really?! That seems exceedingly unlikely. SteveBaker (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I guess you've never been drunk...? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Call me old-fashioned, but I still say that pregnancy is a result of sexual intercourse. What the above is about is unwanted pregnancy, which is a sub-set of all pregnancy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christians would tend to disagree, at least in one notable case. StuRat (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I think the context of the question and study is fairly well understood to everyone else. Except may be the OP, who seems to have great problems understanding anything but history has shown telling them doesn't seem to help. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soup Greens (Czech/Slovak Cuisine)

I have recipe from a Czechoslovak cookbook asking for "Soup Greens". I'm familiar with German Suppengrün, but is that the same thing in Czech/Slovak cooking? 73.149.42.231 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the actual Slovak or a link, or can you give the title of the cookbook? μηδείς (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Czechoslovak Cookbook". I doubt that's helpful; at no place in the cookbook does it say what soup greens are. It's a 40 year old cookbook, so a lot of recipes are a bit antiquated. 73.149.42.231 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppengrün can vary regionally, from one cook to another, or by season. The key ingredients seem to be carrots, leeks or onions, celery root, and parsley. A cruciferous root such as rutabaga or kohlrabi seems to be preferred. Other ingredients are optional. This Czech recipe lists parsley root, parsley leaves, celery leaves, celery root, carrots, kohlrabi, onions, leeks, cauliflower, cabbage, and garlic. This meets the basic requirements for Suppengrün. Probably several of the ingredients in the Czech recipe are optional. Marco polo (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about it, under the French name mirepoix, the article discusses a number of variations. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]