How big can Wikipedia pictures get?; fundraising season

Boing Boing [1] and The Atlantic [2] blogged about what they call "the largest image on Wikipedia", File:Georgetown_PowerPlant_interior_pano.jpg, a 27,184 × 16,995 pixels panorama with a file size of 25.79 MB, that was uploaded in 2008. Like other large images, it carries a warning that it might not display properly at full resolution in all browsers, recommending that the Toolserver-based zoom viewer be used instead. The high-resolution version (which has been criticized for being blurry at full resolution and containing "a creepy disembodied head on the left and a child's floating torso on the right", having been stitched together from around 56 photographs) is currently not used in any Wikipedia version; the English Wikipedia's article about the Georgetown Steam Plant museum uses a smaller version of the image. There are images on Commons with larger file sizes, such as the featured picture File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg, which weighs 44.68 MB at 24,726 × 5,000 pixels. The limit for files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is currently 100 MB.

• Bio-wikis: An article in Nature ("No rest for the bio-wikis"), published in anticipation of a conference titled "Biological Wikis" later this month, examined the various uses of wikis by biologists to maintain databases, such as Gene Wiki, a collection of more than 10,000 Wikipedia articles on single genes. As an advantage of such bio-wikis that are "hosted by Wikipedia", the article cited that they "benefit from the contributions of its existing altruistic community of 'Wikipedians'", and that they attract more readers as well. As a disadvantage, it mentioned being subject to Wikipedia rules, in particular the notability guidelines. Bio-wikis in general were said to be still limited by the text-based wiki syntax (with Semantic MediaWiki as a possible solution), and the fact that a scientist's contributions to wikis are not yet being recognized by funding agencies and tenure committees.
• How do students use Wikipedia?: Following up on last week's article by Virginia Heffernan in the New York Times Magazine (see Signpost coverage), where she had praised "the lucid exposition that Wikipedia brings to technical subjects", the NYT's "Learning Network" blog asked their student readers (13 years and older) How do you use Wikipedia?, eliciting 72 comments at the time of writing.
• Fundraiser: After the annual Wikimedia fundraiser began with a "technical testing" phase on November 12 (see this week's "News and notes"), media coverage started on November 13, with Softpedia reporting that "Wikipedia has kicked off 2010's donation campaign", noting the lack of an official announcement (the official launch of the fundraiser was on November 15), but quoting from a version of Jimmy Wales' personal appeal to donate. ReadWriteWeb followed on November 14 ("Wikipedia: We Need $16 Million To Stay Free"). On November 15, articles by The Huffington Post ("Wikipedia Fundraising Begins: $16 Million Needed To Stay Free", New York Magazine ("Wikipedia Asks Public for $16 Million to Stay Free-to-Use") and Techland ("Wikipedia Needs $16 Million to Remain Ad Free") appeared, the latter reporting that "[the banner with Jimmy] Wales sad, Don Draper-esque expression was the most effective at getting people to give up a couple bucks." Non-English coverage included Heise News [3] and El Pais [4].
• Fundraising easier for Wikipedia: Jimmy Wales was interviewed on the blog of Creative Commons, as part of a series called "Meet our board members". Among other things, he commented on the difference between CC and the Wikimedia Foundation with regard to fundraising opportunities: "At Wikipedia, we are able to fund-raise directly from small donors because we are huge, public, and visible, and our community builds something that everyone uses every day. With Wikipedia, we can always know that there will be lots and lots of $30 donors from the heart and soul of the Wikipedia donor community. It’s harder for Creative Commons."
• Termites explaining termites: The Hindu last week reviewed "Smart Swarm", a recently released book by Peter Miller that seeks to elucidate collaboration in companies and online communities by examples from the animal kingdom ("What creature crowds can teach us"). Unsurprisingly, Wikipedia is mentioned as an example of online collaboration - according to the review, Miller reveals that "indirect collaboration that makes it easy for almost anyone to get involved is one of the secrets of Wikipedia's success" and illustrates this by citing "a quote that compares wiki to a termite nest, thus: 'One initial user leaves a seed of an idea (a mudball), which attracts other users who then build upon and modify this initial concept eventually constructing an elaborate structure of connected thoughts.'" Curiously, the sentence appears to have originated on Wikipedia itself, where an anonymous user added it in 2004 to the article Stigmergy, preceding it by "This wiki is a perfect example!". The insect analogies shouldn't be taken too far, however - The Hindu notes that according to the book "as members of such groups, we don't have to surrender our individuality, because good decision-making comes from competition as much as from compromise, from disagreement as much as from consensus."

← Previous "In the news"

Next "In the news" →

In this issue

15 November 2010 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Dispatches

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

To answer this question is quite simple, I do not use it. I think that Wikipedia is a waste of time and it is all fake. It has not been proofed and anyone can put whatever they want on that website. Just because it is there does not mean that it is true. Kids are using this for their homework and book reports, using false information and then getting punished for it in the form of their grades. If it were up to me, I would ban Wikipedia and make everyone used it pay a fine to their community and their teachers for the time they wasted reading whatever the student gave to them.

— aspen

That's not very nice! :P Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good students know how to use Wikipedia properly (I do all the time), it's the lazy ones that screw up. Grsz¹¹ 00:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point out one instance where WP is wrong if "it is all fake". ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 01:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my teachers discomfort, I use Wikipedia quite frequently...if they disallow it, I just use the wiki's references to get pretty much exactly the same information, and come out with an end result exactly the same. I've found it's mostly the old-fashioned teachers or the harder classes (AP Language & Composition comes to mind) that tend to ban it from use, but even then the best reason they can give for why is something along the lines of "The information isn't credible." Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the source, consider the time, consider the situation. Recently the US had another election, characterised yet again by the worst in assertions and inferences. Sprinkle the above with a few different words, like Democrats, big government, evolution or Fox News, and you can see this kid is a budding politician, simply parroting the common mode they see on TV and heard in the home. The kid obviously has much to fear from being here - they would definitely get in trouble with the 'adults' if they started to compare realities. Shenme (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quotation that caught my eye: "Wikipedia is just a bad excuse for Google or Dictionary.com, they want to be like other search engines, but the truth is that they will never be as good as any of the other search engines that have factual information that is very much true and that is verified by reputable indivudials." I'm worried if this kid thinks the information one finds on Google is "factual" and what's on Wikipedia isn't. Powers ^T 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is some of my professors believe exactly that. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there the head of a man hiding on the left-most edge of the "biggest picture on Wikipedia?" Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the page, find "... having been stitched together from around 56 photographs ..." Shenme (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A rather large oversight in the stitching process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]