Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Wikipedia Releases Offline CD

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Apr 25, 2007 01:08 PM
from the vandalize-to-your-hearts-content dept.
An anonymous reader writes "WikipediaOnDVD, with cooperation with the Wikipedia community, has released its first offline test version. The articles were selected by Wikipedians and reviewed for accuracy, vandalism, and importance. Nearly 2,000 core Wikipedia articles will be sold on compact disc to give people without a net connection access to highlights of the popular web resource. The CD can be purchased or downloaded online via their site or the torrent."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:09PM (#18873225) Journal
    I pick 77 as the number of articles on the CD that will be wrong
  • by MouseR (3264) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:11PM (#18873253) Homepage
    [...] to give people without a net connection access to highlights [...]. The CD can be purchased or downloaded online [...]

    Now that's a hefty business plan.
    • by tepples (727027) <slash2006@@@pineight...com> on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:41PM (#18873715) Homepage Journal

      If somebody has 15 minutes of net connection, would he look at live versions of Wikipedia articles for those 15 minutes, or would he spend 15 minutes buying the disc to take home to use on his own computer without an Internet connection? Examples of such intermittent connection include Wi-Fi hotspots, public libraries, and (to a lesser extent) dial-up.

      • by NerveGas (168686) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @02:30PM (#18874469)
        The real benefit here, which seems to have been overlooked, is access to all of that information in places where bandwidth is either very poor or non-existant - or, where political pressures make it impossible or unwise to view the information online. I could imagine these DVDs being passed around in countries like China...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I see value in these DVDs. In fact, I even downloaded Wikipedia once, something like 7gig for just the text, made an exact mirror on my own laptop. It is nice to use when you have linux, and bad wireless drivers hehehe. My internet is so intermittent at school, that I just use downloaded content to review during school. I even used the articles while I was on a 10 hour drive from Wisconsin to New York. My neighbor would love something like this too because he uses dial up, and I think he's still using a 33k
    • by BinaryPower (1089809) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:44PM (#18873767)
      What is this...offline?
  • No net connection? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HoosierPeschke (887362) <hoosierpeschke@comcast.net> on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:15PM (#18873309) Homepage

    Wikipedia articles will be sold on compact disc to give people without a net connection access to highlights of the popular web resource. The CD can be purchased or downloaded online via their site or the torrent


    The no net connection / download / torrent is a gimme, but where will they offer this CD for those without net connections? I could see this being useful for libraries or schools to have solid access. Advertising it to people without a net connection seems to be pretty pointless as the only means of acquiring said CD is via an internet connection.

    Either that or we'll start seeing Wikipedia salesmen going door to door.
    • by soundhack (179543) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:19PM (#18873357)
      This reminds me of a retail cd drive that came with no printed installation instructions, the manual was on a CD.

      • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:24PM (#18873441)

        This reminds me of a retail cd drive that came with no printed installation instructions, the manual was on a CD.
        Let me guess: it contained a PDF containing a single word: "Congratulations".
    • They currently do silly. See WikipediaOnDVD [wikipediaondvd.com]. I believe even though the website is WikipediaOnDVD, it is a CD. Keep in mind this is a test release; the idea is when it is too big for a CD for 1.0 releases it will be distributed on DVD, thus the website name.
      • Oh, I see, how are people without a net connection going to SEE this? Well, I think the biggest problem isn't internet costs a lot more in other countries; no everyone has broadband. Dial-ups and cost per minute kills Wikipedia for that kind of environment. I know I guy in a remote African community who wanted me to send him a Wikipedia database dump on a hard drive which he was willing to pay for - downloading it with his current cost per min of internet was WAY more expensive than just buying the HD outri
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      People without net connections might have friends with net connections. Or they might just get some help from their local librarian. Word-of-mouth will be how they find out about it. It's not a plan designed for total market saturation or anything, but it isn't crazy either.
    • by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:24PM (#18873447) Homepage
      It would be nice to be able to take wikipedia with you when you don't have a net connection, even if you usually have one. If you're using your laptop on the plane, it might be nice to look up something on wikipedia. That being said, I think they should implement it differently. I'm not sure how their repository system works, but it should be possible to download the whole thing, and then download only the changes when you need it updated. Kind of like with CVS or SVN.
    • "Either that or we'll start seeing Wikipedia salesmen going door to door."

      I have the perfect guy [retrojunk.com] for you.
  • by garcia (6573) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:16PM (#18873325) Homepage
    Wikipedia is a powerful tool because it can be constantly and immediately updated with new information as it becomes available. By burning it onto CD and distributing it, it becomes almost the same as any other encyclopedia available minus the cost and the fact that it doesn't carry the same reputation.

    It's a good idea in theory but in reality it's sorta pointless.
    • So basically you're saying that if people can't get the most updated information, they shouldn't get any information at all? Brilliant!
      • I think what he's trying to say is more like if you can't get the most updated information then why use Wikipedia at all? And he's right, there's no real point to Wikipedia (beyond a large volume of data) compared to other encyclopedias if you don't access it online.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Some things don't change on a day to day basis. Say for example the location and the history of a mountain. Gratned is someone dies climbing it well you wont know the latest and greatest but at least know something. Would wikipedia be that much less valuable if updates were performed monthly instead of daily?
    • Not only that, but this sort of thing encourages the view of Wikipedians that they're working toward a final goal, which causes serious problems with article ownership and forced stagnation. It's near impossible to get an entrenched fact out of an article. Took me three or four tries to get Black Sabbath off a short list of proto-heavy-metal bands who are considered "hard rock" in the heavy metal article a few months ago. All the guy had to do was click the link to their article and see they're always calle
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Plus the breadth. Wikipedia covers a lot of material you don't find in most encyclopedias, just because they have encyclopedia editors have limited time resources and Wikipedians have collectively nearly infinite free time.

      It seems to me that cost+breadth gives the Wikipedia CD a reason to be. If you can't afford an encyclopedia but want something available even when you can't get to the Internet, it seems to be a huge bargain.

      It doesn't entirely supplant real encyclopedias, either, but it does narrow the
    • it can be constantly and immediately updated with new information as it becomes available

      Encyclopedia != news. Once most articles are "done," the rate at which they're modified should be really low. After all, "new information" about a 500-year-old event doesn't come up very often...

    • by Vampyre_Dark (630787) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @02:15PM (#18874261)
      Pointless? I think that's way off base.

      There was a point when your random, off the shelf encyclopedia didn't have a reputation either. That's built up over time. And a cheap disc of Wikipedia can be very helpful to some people. The fact that anyone can add to it doesn't change the fact that it's still an encyclopedia.

      It's biggest strength of wikipedia is also it's biggest weakness. You can't read about any software that isn't under the gpl without seeing a page that's been hijacked by GPL zealots time after time. Hell, the fact that 3DS Max is NOT under the GPL and free is somehow more important than anything else about the software, despite the fact that's it's the industry leader/standard 3d modeller and renderer. The articles about 3D software are all really about how you should be using Blender instead, because it's GPL. Just like every other software page. So much for the NPOV policy.

      An article about a person in the public eye often turns into a battle gound and then a daily log of that person's life by an obssessed fan who thinks what they had for breakfast on friday is important information. Factual information that paints them in negative light is often editted out by these same people.

      Then we have magazines and newspapers editors who think it's funny to write articles about how they vandalized an article. We have Stephen Colbert logging onto Wikipedia during his show, and making article edits. Even my local newspaper had an article written that detailed a spree of silly article edits along the lines of turning into a werewolf if you visit a certain country on a certain date. This is a columnist in his 50s, not a 15 year old kid.

      The whole thing is overrun by GPL Zealots, anti corporate hippies, immature kids, obssessed fans, bible thumpers, etc. None of these types are competant enough to make Neutral Point Of View contributions. Not to mention the fanboys who flood serious articles with video game, comic book, and star wars|trek references.

      How is a 12 year old kid, taking everything in there at face value, supposed to seperate the BS from the truth so they can get their school project done? Especially when you have older people who should know better, filling it with such facts as 'E = MC Hammer'.

      The disc distribution can solve that, and users can feel confident that the information contained therein is actually worth something. The disc may be the only version that is ever really usefull as an encyclopedia. The online version could be best used as a temporary editing version, with real versions being pressed and distributed, and competantly edited.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Pointless? I think that's way off base.

        Thanks for at least taking the time to explain why you think that way.

        In my eyes, I don't trust it at all over any other encyclopedia and I have a low appreciation for encyclopedias of any kind as primary publication research is where it's at. Sometimes I wish that they would teach that sort of research earlier than high school -- school aged kids might actually learn to enjoy the research they do instead of considering it tedious.

        The disc distribution can solve that,
  • Wikipedia without accuracy or vandalism problems... What fun is that?!?!?
  • I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kabocox (199019) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:25PM (#18873449)
    Ok. It's a CD size, why is their title wiki on DVD? Actually, I was looking for something like this just a few months ago. At that time, if you wanted an offline copy of wikipedia, you had to download something like 80GB and figure out how to install/run the wikipedia backend.

    I think the folks behind this project just don't get what wikipedia is best used for. It sounds like they are trying to release the best fact checked copy that they can within those subjects. Um, that's not what I use wikipedia for. I use it to quickly figure out who this guy is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen [wikipedia.org] or immediate trivia that in 5 minutes I could care less about, but I just would like a vague idea of who the guy is and such. Wikipedia is great for fast trivia. I bet you most of the articles that I look up won't be on this CD because those that are making this want wikipedia to be like a book reference and all the junk that I want researched would be filtered out. Oh well, maybe it would be useful for the kids to look through.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The full version of WP's current articles is a XML dump of 4.7 GB. That alone fits on a DVD. Then there are about 60GB of images (plus all the images in Commons). Getting a copy of every article you want would take up at least a Dual-Layer Blu-Ray even with the best of compression (you can put it in a database smaller than the XML dump), and you can down-res most larger images.

      They realized they couldn't do that, so instead they picked a few hundred articles, and got the most accurate copies they could.
    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PurifyYourMind (776223) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @02:32PM (#18874507) Homepage
      That in five minutes you COULDN'T care less about. Don't use a phrase if you don't know how to use it.
  • Why is the website called wikipedia on dvd, and yet they only have an option to download a 420mb CD image? Where is the 4+GB DVD image their name implies?
  • Performance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FunkyELF (609131) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:30PM (#18873531)
    Something makes me thing that having a local copy in place in your cdrom would take longer to load than a halfway decent network connection.

    I saw the title of the article and initially thought : cool, that'd be nice to have a nice fast copy.

    Then (in my head) I heard the sound of my cdrom spinning up to speed before reading an article and came to realize that most of what is on Wikipedia is just text and it loads fast enough for me and probably faster than the CD would.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      As someone else said, you're probably not the target audience. Wikipedia's benefits not only include the fact that it's constantly updated, but also that it's free as in beer, and free as in speech, both of which are designed to try to spread the wealth of knowledge to places that couldn't otherwise afford many textbooks or commercial encyclopedias, including third-world countries. Wikipedia also will be distributed on the One Laptop Per Child, another way that Wikipedia hopes to distribute the knowledge

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:31PM (#18873549)
    so you can edit it. Also it will only work if you place it in a publically accessible network drive so others can make changes too.
  • by Hachey (809077) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:34PM (#18873613)
    This is a release for Wikipedia 0.5. The next release is Wikipedia 0.7, and if you see something you not in 0.5 that you want in 0.7, cruise on over to the nominations page [wikipedia.org] and let 'em know.

  • How does it compare with Encarta in terms of article count?
  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by roelbj (95481) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @01:39PM (#18873689) Homepage
    Now my information can be wrong AND outdated.
  • 2000 ...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @02:35PM (#18874539)
    Given the amount of information we know is on Wikipedia, putting 2000 articles seems highly insufficient. Another thing is, informations dates really fast these days, and their efforts will quickly age.

    Wouldn't it be much smarter if they wrote a little system to prepare those torrents automatically, say, every week, and include much larger fraction of the articles. Reviewing for vandalism is something that should happen for the online version of Wikipedia naturally by the existing editors (similar to OSS "stable" version vs "development" version).

    In the 21-st Century, having enough information and always up to date is more important than accuracy. Reading an article where 20% of the info is wrong is better than no article at all. We still know it's Wikipedia and can use critical though process to check additional sources when we get to an Internet connection or the library.

    Another flaw of this project, is that by handpicking the articles, it automatically means I can't download a localized version of that DVD.

    And right now I really needed the localized version, to distribute to a set of computers without connection in a local school. Bummers.

    Only way forward is automatization.
  • OLPC (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bytor4232 (304582) on Wednesday April 25 2007, @03:45PM (#18875693) Homepage Journal
    I can see these distributed to poor nations benefiting from OLPC. Include this with the PC given out to the poor and needy.
    • Their motive is staying afloat so they don't have to see all that hard work go to waste. They're looking for ways to keep their cash flow out of the red so that they can continue to operate the site. If that requires selling Wikipedia on DVDs, or putting up a couple non-intrusive text ads, then I'm all for it. You can't pay for bandwidth and servers with smiles and good feelings.
    • You'll get modded down because your post is bunk. Of course they'll sell goodies, they're trying to keep the thing running [as another poster pointed out].

      Until they *deny* access to the non-paying public they're not really violating their stated goals. It's when articles become "members only" that you can start biting your thumb at them.

      Tom
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In order to give people without an internet connection a chance to look at Wikipedia you can only buy or download this CD on the internet? Somebody didn't think this all the way through.

      1. Many people who have no internet service don't know what Wikipedia is and will not seek it.
      2. Many people who have internet service know what Wikipedia is. Some of these people see some value in Wikipedia.
      3. Some of the second group may be civic-minded enough to buy or download the cd and share it with people and organizations that do not have internet service but might be interested in Wikipedia.
      4. Finally, some people have internet access sometimes but would like to have access to most of Wikipedia

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Pfft.... the Dragonball fancruft had to make way for articles with much greater use to humanity, such as this one. [wikipedia.org]

      (Can you believe that there is such an in-depth article for that subject? It says something about Wikipedia, though whether it's good or not is unclear... :-/ )
      • Why does this even have a compatibility list? Shouldn't it just be a bunch of HTML and images on a CD? Why do they need any programs?

        To decompress the HTML perhaps? People are working on compressing Wikipedia 6 to 1 [fit.edu]. Though it's on a CD-ROM right now, the number of Good Articles will grow quickly once people become jealous that their pet WikiProject didn't get as much coverage on the disc as others. I'd guess that Wikimedia Foundation is looking to delay migration to BD-ROM or HD DVD-ROM as long as possible.

    • But what's the point? What's the convergance of a) a person who would trust the information in Wikipedia, with b) have access to a computer, that c) wouldn't also have net access?

      Would be handy for me at my vacation/retirement house.

      For about 5 years it had no network connection whatsoever. Finally needed network on a vacation so now it has a dialup line that typically connects at 28.8 kbps. That's the best available in the area other than $atellite. But using it ties up the landline.

      Nearest WiMax is Cl
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      They should be careful for first grade, though - this is an adult encyclopedia, and we didn't censor it. If you take a look at things like Mozart's article [wikipedia.org] (2nd paragraph), you'll see the kind of thing I mean - important to include in an adult release, but not what I'd want my second grade daughter reading! For young kids, I'd recommend the 2006 SOS Kids release [soschildre...ges.org.uk]. That has no browser, but every article should be kid-friendly.