Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 August 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.

August 18

ads

why does this site not want ads? 70.114.248.114 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It does have ads - from Wikipedia, usually asking for money. I expect the (thank goddess) lack of spam here has to do with the rules for tax-exempt status. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can see some of the arguments for and against at Wikipedia:Funding_Wikipedia_through_advertisements RudolfRed (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons - perhaps the most obvious are:

• We don't need them. We get enough funding from public donations to fully fund the WikiMedia Foundation and to keep the servers running.
• If we accepted adverts, then there would be a risk that we'd be influenced to write only nice things about our major advertising clients. That would bias our reporting - and that would be very bad indeed for the encyclopedia.
• Even if we were not biassed in that way, our readers would inevitably imagine that we were - so the perception of bias would be almost as bad for our reputation as any actual bias.
• Almost all of the millions of pages of content within Wikipedia it provided by volunteer editors. A large proportion of whom wouldn't volunteer their time here if this were a for-profit organization.
• Adverts are annoying - they consume screen space that we have better uses for.
• It's very likely that advertisers would try to make their adverts look like the content of the encyclopedia and thereby confuse readers as to what is "The Truth" and what is some evil mega-corporation's spin on the truth.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

how wikipedia works

how wikipedia works how does wikipedia gets all the information about any company in any country which is mostly true? how does it earns money and how does it keep a check on the contents reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.103.65 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a charity to which people and organizations can donate money. We try to keep all information as accurate as possible (see WP:V), but it's a simple fact that lots of errors will creep in when you're trying to maintain millions of articles. What it really comes down to is the willingness of ordinary people like you and me to make the encyclopedia the best it can be by adding only good stuff and weeding out the bad. Matt Deres (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

More accurately, Wikipedia is a non-profit charity in the US and Netherlands, but not necessarily in other countries. In Australia for example, it's not a registered charity, so sadly I can't claim my donation as a tax-deduction. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is kinda amazing that Wikipedia works. With just anyone being allowed to come here and add, delete or amend information, you'd think it would be incredibly unreliable and mostly filled with junk. However that really isn't what happens. Enough careful, caring, intelligent, meticulous people come here to keep the worst of the craziness at bay. The accuracy of Wikipedia has been tested many times by independent groups - and it turns out to be more accurate than (for example) Encyclopedia Britannica!

The result is that for the kinds of facts that aren't vitally important to you - you can consult Wikipedia and be at least 99.9% sure that what you read is accurate. For things that are truly critical to your life - you might want to go the extra step and look for the little blue numbers in the article which link to trusted reference material that backs up what our article is saying. That way you can check that the article is correct for yourself. That feature is something that's unique to Wikipedia - and means that you can always double-check a particular fact for yourself.

Apart from that, the software that Wikipedia is based upon ("MediaWiki") is freely available to anyone to download. The millions of pages of information and most (but not all) of the photos, sound samples and videos can be freely downloaded and used for almost any purpose providing that you give Wikipedia credit for it.

Everything on the business and legal side is run by the WikiMedia Foundation - who are funded by donations and elected to to office by anyone who cares to vote for them. Those donations pay for the computers and the storage and network bandwidth for what has become one of the top ten most-visited sites on the entire Internet.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

how wikipedia works how does wikipedia gets all the information about any company in any country which is mostly true? how does it earns money and how does it keep a check on the contents reality?

Duplicate question with email address redacted. Please see above. Matt Deres (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alejandro Carbajal Estrada

I recently purchased a book written by Alejandro Carbajal Estrada entitled "Pandora, her Box and her Daddy's Curse" and I found a lot of information about him through searching the internet, however there is nothing on Wikipedia about this author and he makes some pretty incredible statements in his book that should be more closely examined because his claims seem to be valid.

From what I have read about Alejandro Carbajal Estrada, he could very well be the most influential person right now in the world. He has taken the intangible [God] and had made it tangible with recording various cause and effect scenarios with the use of copyright dates and press release dates which cannot be discredited or debated.

He could be a Prophet, and I am sure I am not the only person in the world trying to find out more about this person. I'm stuck because this person does not exist in your database and I am confused because I don't know what to believe. Help.

Wikipedia is written by volunteers like you and me. If you think this person passes the general notability guideline and that there's enough verifiable sources out there, you're free to write an article about him. In a very brief search, I didn't find much in the way of independent coverage at all, and none of it seemed to be in English. Your sources don't have to be in English, of course, but it would certainly help. Whether he's a prophet or not, I couldn't say, but as the saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Matt Deres (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, the above-mentioned Alejandro Carbajal Estrada does not appear to be the same person as Alejandro Estrada. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not seem possible that this person could remotely be "the most influential person right now in the world". If he was so influential, he would be influencing more people than anyone else and those people would have his name plastered all over all over the Internet - and it's not remotely the most commonly mentioned personal name! Search for my name and you get a more hits for me than he gets! The most influential person would clearly be a politician or a movie star or something like that. I understand that you were deeply moved by his book - but in terms of worldwide fame, he's very small potatoes indeed!

Perhaps he is just barely notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article - and if he's mentioned in many books, then he probably is. Wikipedia articles get written because people like you write them. But for those articles to stay in the encyclopedia, they have to provide proof of that "notability". For that, I strongly suggest you read the following Wikipedia guidelines: WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:RS. SteveBaker (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic Buildings for Germany

I'am submitting this question in reference to an request on the German Reference desk.

There was the question whether there is a building, that is typically associated with Germany eg. in caricatures outside the area of the German Language before the reunion 1989? So like France is associated with the Eiffel-Tower or the USA with the Capitol. At the German Reference Desk we thought about the Cologne Cathedral, Neuschwanstein Castle, Brandenburg gate or the Wartburg.

Greetings from the German colleagues --Jogo.obb (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps add the Reichstag building to that list too, even in its unrestored state before reunification - Karenjc 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The first structure that comes to my mind as a symbol of Germany is the Brandenburg Gate. Somehow, the next thing that comes to mind is life-size cuckoo clocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The latter remind me of Switzerland. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say you were right with Neuschwanstein, Cologne Cathedral, and the Brandenburg Gate. In that order. The Reichstag building doesn't necessarily say "Germany" specifically to me. And I don't think I've ever seen Wartburg before today. I could see where someone older than myself might rank the Brandenburg Gate higher on the list though. I am not old enough to remember John F. Kennedy speaking there and was only in my early teens for the "tear down this wall" speech of Reagan. Dismas|^(talk) 07:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but I'd put the Brandenburg Gate first - the iconic news video of the tearful woman demanding to be allowed to walk through the Brandenburg Gate "just once in my life" captures the end of the Cold War in an instant. As well as Kennedy, both Reagan and Obama have made key note speeches there. Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the video clip is not as well known as I thought - I have posted links on User:Viennese Waltz's talkpage if you're curious. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Brandeburg Gate is a new image of Germany used to represent Germany on television. The Neuschwanstein folly and Köln cathedral are instantly recognised in photo or on film. I've never heard of Wartburg, however I link the doors of Schlosskirche, Wittenberg with Martin Luther.

The quintessential caricatures of Germany are the Prussian helmet from World War I or waitresses serving beer in traditional costume at Oktoberfest.
Sleigh (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that Neuschwanstein is too similar to the Cinderella Castle to be recognizable to most Americans as German. Frankly, I'm not sure that most Americans would recognize any German structure as such, given the general ignorance of the world beyond our borders. While the Cologne Cathedral is distinctive, again, I doubt that most Americans are familiar enough with European cathedrals to know that it isn't Notre Dame in Paris or some other famous cathedral. While many Americans probably wouldn't recognize the Brandenburg Gate either, I doubt that many would confuse it with some other structure. For this reason, I think that it is the most iconic, at least in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really a building, but the structure which comes to my mind is the Berlin Wall. It stood, in my mind as the symbol of pre-reunification Germany with the guard towers and the graffiti art. Astronaut (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neuschwanstein. A Google Images search for "Germany" shows more pictures of it than any other building. There are also a number of pictures of the Kölner Dom, but most Americans wouldn't recognize it. Probably the next most recognizable thing after Neuschwanstein would be a picture of a generic Bavarian small-town Kirche. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Munich Olympic Stadium's distinctive roof was quite iconic in the 70s, and into the 80s. But again, Americans don't watch much soccer (or athletics, apart from the one Olympics). jnestorius^(talk) 20:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What about before 1989 or even before 1900 are there sites were you can see a lot of Caricatures which are about Germany.--Saehrimnir (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)