User talk:Gregarobinson

Deletion of: "Talk:List of destroyed libraries What.cd Summary"

Hey, just a heads-up: The page you created for discussion of the What.cd destroyed-library-list issue seems to have been removed (on 23 November 2016, by Sphilbrick). James.Denholm^{Talk to me...} 02:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to just put it here. Gregarobinson (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Gregarobinson's digest of discussion regarding What.cd's inclusion on List of Destroyed Libraries.

General discussion

Thought experiment in comparison to a local library.

1. Gregarobinson's paraphrase of Timba047's contribution:
   • What.cd's is theoretically comparable to a traditional local library that had fully lent its entire collection. Burning the patron records, card index, and physical structure is comparable to What.cd's demise. The actual demise of What.cd is noteworthy compared to this hypothetical situation because What.cd is more difficult to reassemble than a village library, since people holding copies of items in the collection cannot freely coordinate their rebuilding efforts due to both technical and political reasons.

Can a site like what.cd qualify as a library, though mostly used to share digital media?

1. What.cd had considerable data ABOUT works, but in theory it never actually contained anything more than data locations. If every album entry on Musicbrainz had a link to Spotify, would it be considered a library? I'm not sure. -BalthCat (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
2. I would argue that what.CD was not a library, as per the definition mentioned above. They did not store any music directly on their servers. What they did was enable communication between thousands of private individuals who stored and traded music privately. They were a "torrent tracker". To call them a library is analogous to calling Google the internet. Google is merely an index into millions of web pages that are hosted outside of Google's servers, not owned or controlled by Google themselves. Just as there are other search engines, there are other torrent trackers. Many torrent trackers have been shut down in the past. Perhaps an entry should be created for shut down torrent trackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js8887 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
3. As per WP's definition of library, I'd say it does: "A library is a collection of sources of information and similar resources, made accessible to a defined community for reference or borrowing. It provides physical or digital access to material, and may be a physical building or room, or a virtual space, or both. A library's collection can include books, periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, films, maps, prints, documents, microform, CDs, cassettes, videotapes, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, e-books, audiobooks, databases, and other formats." tromaster (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
4. (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC) (Formerly Separate) I have now read up a bit on What.CD and have come to a couple of conclusions. It does not appear to have been a library, but rather a catalog and a cooperative of people willing to share.
   • The fact that What.CD hosted abundant and high quality meta data, it seems to me, is equivalent to the online catalog (although probably much higher quality than my online catalog).
   • The many individual users of What.CD are equivalent to the individual libraries in a cooperative library system.
   • The actions of the French government are equivalent to the destruction of the online catalog.
   • The shutting down of What.CD is equivalent to the member libraries shutting their doors to members of other libraries. While it is likely that many of the What.CD members were equivalent to libraries of one member, I rather suspect that many of them continue to share using other platforms. YBG

Do other torrent trackers automatically count as libraries?

1. If what.cd is included, all the other notable "destroyed" trackers and digital libraries should be too, so I added TPB. Feor (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2. Now that I see that this is not a single instance, may I suggest that a new list be created, starting with What CD and TPB and any others that people can think of. That article and this one can link to each other in their See Also sections. YBG (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
3. TPB and other 'public' trackers weren't really collections in the same way that what.cd was: They simply stored a copy of everything, while what was more specific on what could be submitted. 2001:470:1F06:1256:202:C9FF:FE4F:BD60 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
4. That seems reasonable to me considering there are two different pages for libraries and digital libraries already. Feor (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
5. TPB content was not curated like What CD apparently had. Completely different thing. TPB's aim was not to curate, moderate, archive. Further TPB is still around. What CD on the other hand was curated and of such high quality and depth there is no alternatives in existence, many have even said "The Library of Alexandria for music". 88.112.78.245 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What is a Perfect FLAC, and how should that be expounded?

1. A perfect FLAC had a cue file and a log file from Exact Audio Copy that was given a 100%, meaning the FLAC was an exact rip of the CD with no errors. The listed number of FLACs was just for "perfect" ones, the total number of FLAC albums on the site was much more than the number stated. Stating "perfect" is probably not helpful, but some definition or description of a "perfect" FLAC could be made. Roquemore92 (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Who is the perpetrator in the destruction of What.cd?

1. The article currently lists the Perpetrator for What.CD as "French Government" which is incorrect. Law enforcement seized some of their servers, but not those that the site itself resided upon. What.CD staff destroyed the site themselves in response to the seizure of the reverse proxy servers in France, so the Perpetrator should be edited to "What.CD staff." Secret Snelk (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

   It should probably list or at least mention both, since the reason WCD staff wiped the servers was likely in response to the raid by the French authorities. Roquemore92 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons behind votes to Exclude

What.cd was not a library.

1. Going by the below arguments, if what.cd is included, it would open a flood gate comprising of hundreds of private torrent websites which have ceesed to exist. Although TPB is still alive and not curated and hence can be disqualified, hundreds of private torrent and as matter of fact direct link website has come and gone. Certain of them have equally stringent standard if not more. Also, argument regarded size of library is bogus since the definition of library has no minimum size prescribed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.150.248.53 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What.cd was neither a library, nor was its closure a noteworthy destruction.

1. What.CD was a website and a torrent tracker, but not a library. They did not store any actual works on their servers. All they stored was user data, metadata pertaining to works (thousands of other websites have similar data), and torrent files which allowed users to connect with other users, outside of what.cd. When what.cd shut down, zero works were physically lost or deleted. If deleted websites or deleted torrent trackers are interesting to Wikipedia, they should go on a separate page. I am a former what.cd member, as most others commenting in this discussion probably are, as the link to this page was passed around. As much as I liked the site, it's ridiculous to call it a destroyed library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Js8887 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What.cd's closure is not Noteworthy.

1. I don't see a compelling argument for inclusion. Based on my reading of WP:LSC, this list is in need of some work: many entries, especially under the "Fire" heading, contain no account of destruction and no immediately evident significance. There should be a clear and rather strict criterion for inclusion in the interest of making this a great list, perhaps covering notability of the library, works lost, and impact of the loss. What.CD would struggle to meet the third criterion at this time.Res2216firestar 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons behind votes to Include

What.cd meets the definition of a library.

1. TPB is of a different beast I think, as the curation and quality control aspects of WCD are absent. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
2. The distinction between TBP and what.cd comes down to what.cd's rigorous moderation and curation. While they were/are both trackers (note that TBP still exists), what.cd's rigorously upheld standards of quality (both in terms of the fidelity of the uploads themselves and, critically, the metadata of those uploads such that the site served as a comprehensive, usable index for those uploads) is what makes it a library. what.cd was a tracker in the same way that the Library of Alexandria was a building --- both were only so such that their function as a library could be achieved. James.Denholm^{Talk to me...} 05:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
3. I agree with the reasoning that there is no need to make a distinction between digital and brick-and-mortar libraries. However, I wouldn't agree that TPB constitutes a library, any more than a warehouse filled with a massive variety of media constitues one. WCD's organisation and active community made it a library. Jacoman891 (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
4. What.CD may not have stored the content directly, but the content/torrents it provided access to were only available through What.CD - unlike TPB, where torrents are available via DHT and PEX and thus elsewhere. What.CD was the world's largest music archive, and also provided access to a large amount of literature and software. All music (and literature) was meticulously organised and the metadata alone was highly impressive. What.CD clearly fits Wikipedia's definition of library (previously mentioned), and it also fits conditions people may put on this, such as size and curation/organisation. On a different note, separating digital and physical libraries would cause some interesting situations in determining whether a library was digital or physical in an age where an increasing number are both (situations I would argue are best being avoided). CoreyW. (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking out of place doesn't invalidate the comparison.

1. Refusing to include a library that was purely electronic seems like a bad precedent, because more and more human activity takes place in the electronic-digital realm and not in the physical world. This happens to be the first notable non-physical library to be destroyed, but it will not be the last. As human activity broadens and includes new media, this list should reflect that change. We should not start a new list. In the votes for "separate", many people say "it looks out of place". The first gasoline-powered cars looked very out-of-place on roads full of horse-drawn carriages. Laptops once looked out-of-place in university lecture halls where everyone else was taking notes on paper. New technologies very often look strange and alone, but I have no doubt this list will grow to include many digital libraries. Fluoborate (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Anointing digital libraries as proper Libraries is good precedent.

1. A lot of physical libraries are starting to build a larger and larger collection of digital literature - so seperating between digital and physical libraries would be a terrible precedent. Cburja (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Both what.cd and its closure were notable for purposes of inclusion on WP.

1. Digital libraries are the future. Data was permanently lost. I would go to on to say a majority of the data was lost. It will take a long time to figure out what "books" were loaned out when the destruction happened and if they will be returned to a new library that is being built. In the end, it is impossible to deny this library was destroyed. If my hometown library got burnt down, I would still consider it a destroyed library even though their digital catalog still shows what WAS there and many other libraries have copies of the same book. Yeah other copies exist; this library was destroyed. TPB is in NO way a library. It's is a pile of books on a street corner, filled with disease.
2. In response to the general argument that the information contained on What.cd was not destroyed along with the site, because it exists on the users computers. 1) The purpose of What.cd was to act as an archive for music and information about music so that when future generations discover an artist who has been all but forgotten, they can not only experience their music but also understand the context of the music created by that artist. This information is not available on users' computers, nor is it stored anywhere else in the world, in such a complete and organized system. The loss of this archive means the loss of a significant amount of metadata relating to not only the music, but the artists themselves. There has never before in history been a library that existed in as complete a form as was present on What.cd, neither in relation to music nor literature. 2) Although a lot of the data was stored on users' computers, the possibility that it will survive there long enough to be shared with anyone else is not absolute. When any of the other great brick and mortar libraries were destroyed, I'm sure that a great amount of the content that was stored there was loaned out to various people within the community; and I'm sure that much of the content existed in several forms, however, that doesn't mean that the content survived long enough to make it back into another library after the disaster. 3) Although some people may believe that music does not compare to literature, I believe that musicians and historians alike would disagree. Music has been a part of human culture for most of history, possibly dating back as early as 40,000 BCE. It describes our culture and our beliefs as they have progressed throughout our history. A great deal of the content stored on What.cd was in all likelihood the only remaining copies in existence (including the physical media it was originally recorded on). If the destruction of What.cd resulted in the erasure of any music from existence, it should be considered a loss to all mankind, as it is erasing a piece of human history. Timba047 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons behind votes to make a separate list for digital libraries.

What.cd constitutes the Noteworthy destruction of a Library, but it looks out of place on the present list.

1. PremiumBananas (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Definitely doesn't belong in the current list and looks very out of place, but still deserves a mention (like other cases) so seperate is the best option.
2. In addition to what others have discussed, What.CD contained user-created content including, but not limited to, collages and metedata used to index and organize the site's content. The site was a library, and its destruction is noteworthy, but it does not fit in this article. The "City" and "Country" columns especially look out of place, and the destruction of a digital library is different from a physical library, with or without a human cause. ayane_m (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
3. I agree with PremiumBananas; this looks very out of place. Many great, significant libraries – important pieces of history... and then a random website at the bottom? No. I think much of the attention this talk page is receiving is due to What.CD "fans" flocking here, as they feel inserting their site into this list somehow guarantees it a place in history. I think there ought to be a separate page for websites or digital services considered "libraries" of sorts, but this article not the place for it. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
4. In agreement with GhostOfNoMeme et al. Rationale: with the onset of the digital era, this new kind of "libraries" aimed (among other goals) at curating and preserving digital data are gathering momentum and public fame (or shame...); a list might help track sites that bring/brought a prominent contribution to the broad dissemination of such digital data. This should likely include defunct sites, whatever their then/current legal status and cause for their demise. In this respect, there was more to What.CD than a mere catalog of links, owing to the substantial amount of work by some of its users (tracking and digitizing works that did not previously exist in digital form; cataloguing; reviewing; classifying...). The same would apply to other "library" sites dealing with specific topics featuring original user-contributed (meta-)data and functionalities, e.g. Library.nu/Gigapedia - which incidentally was closer to a book library sensu stricto. Cardioceras (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
5. Raskolnikov6 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC) In agreement with other posters in this section. I'm a former what.cd user but it doesn't classify as the intent of this page (to catalogue destroyed physical libraries). I think the appropriate title would be "destroyed digital libraries" or "destroyed digital catalogues."
6. Separate, either by adding a digital libraries subsection on this page, or by making a wholly new page. -- turdas^talk 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What.cd's closure constitutes a Noteworthy event; proposal to relegate this event to a list of defunct BitTorrent trackers

1. Not sure where to put this, but instead of making a separate article for digital libraries just because What.CD was added here, why not make a "List of defunct BitTorrent trackers" or similar? The original intent of this article clearly seemed to be historical buildings and landmarks. While What.CD happens to be a library of information, it was first and foremost a BitTorrent tracker. — ThreeDee912(^talk/_contribs) 02:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)