Talk:Amazon Kindle/Archive 4

Is the pricing information suitable/necessary?
Three thoughts here:

1) This is an article about the device, not a sales ad. 2) Even if the pricing information can be incorporated in such a way that it does not read like a sales pitch, it will become out of date relatively quickly. 3) Most importantly, assuming the above two points can be satisfied, this is the English-language article, NOT an AMERICAN article. "$" is ambiguous: US Dollar? Australian Dollar? Zimbabwean Dollar? Peso??? Assuming we clear that obstacle, why would one show the US-dollar price? That is only of relevance to US-based readers of the article. The device cannot be bought at that price outside of the US - there are different prices in different markets, even after allowing for exchange rates. Why not show the prices in Pounds Sterling? Or perhaps in Euro - after all, the Euro area is a larger market than the USA. If the kindle is available in India (?), the potential market there is enormous. Perhaps prices would be best listed in Rupees. 86.178.58.30 (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When its something like Kindle (or the Motorola Xoom for example) we often do mention its starting price in the 'host' currency, the difficulty here is that there are so many versions of Kindle now. Over time these things normally fall in price rendering the introductory price mention irrelevant outside of a historical context. -- wintonian  talk  17:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note the US market is bigger than the European market with regard to electronic devices and Kindles are available worldwide. I think the US prices should be shown to show the differences in Kindle prices over time (the first model was 399 and the latest is 119, that is notable) and Kindles are released in the US first.Frmorrison (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindle versions Suggestion for Table of Details
I was wondering if anyone else thought this might be a good idea if we could create a table similar to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod#Models_and_features With pictures and specs all in a summary. I don't think any text should be deleted.

12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankk74 (talk • contribs)
 * This page is already quite long and more Kindles will be released in the future. In addition, this type of information is shown on the sidebar on the top right side of the page and in each device's section.Frmorrison (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Serial Number vs. Model
I removed the section by this name in the article as it contains unnecessary technical details. I don't think it merits as an encyclopedic content. I'm hereby quoting the contents of the original section in the article (which I removed from the article):

BEGIN QUOTE

The first four characters of the serial number can be used to determine the specific model of Kindle as follows:

B001: Kindle first generation

B002: Kindle second generation, U.S., Sprint cellular service

B003: Kindle second generation, international, AT&T cellular service

B004: Kindle DX (original white model), U.S.

B005: Kindle DX (original white model), International

B006: Kindle third generation, 3G + WiFi, Graphite/White, U.S., Canada, some European cities

B008: Kindle third generation, WiFi

B009: Kindle DX, Graphite

B00A: Kindle third generation, 3G + WiFi, Graphite, Europe

B00E: Kindle fourth generation, WiFi

B00F: Kindle Touch, 3G + WiFi

B011: Kindle Touch, WiFi

D01E: Kindle Fire, WiFi

END QUOTE

Please dispute. If this information is necessary to be added to the article, there must be a better way of representing it than just dumping it as a subsection in the "Devices" section! -- ADTCTalk Ctrb. 22:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No source but my UK Paperwhite has a serial the begins "B024" - in case it is ever useful. -- wintonian  talk  16:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

October 2013 Edition Kindle DX is D00801 (Printed on rear and in 4th Edition Guide) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.171.163 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

usage of anchors is screwed up on this page
For example, 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.4.1 go to the same anchor, which only belongs to the first section that I've cited. I don't have time to inventory all the links/anchors and ret this up right now, maybe someone else would. Nemodomi (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed that specific anchor by calling the 4th gen Kindle the "Basic". Frmorrison (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Whispernet
Whenever I want to find out about something I first go to Wikipedia. However, when I typed in "Whispernet" I was redirected to Amazon Kindle, which barely mentions Whispernet. I want to know how it works and what its limitations are. You have a separate article for Wi-Fi, why can't you have one for Whispernet? 66.81.132.77 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the Whispernet link to go to the paragraph that talks about it. Frmorrison (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Supported languages
Can someone add to the article this vital info? That is, a sourced list of supported languages of Kindle Books. -79.177.122.137 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the language list, it is currently 34.Frmorrison (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Table to replace infobox
The infobox is starting to look a bit ridiculous with all the specs of all the kindles in it. It may look better if a new section was created with a table like this

130.102.158.22 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is rather long, so I added some collapsible lists. I do not think that the long infobox should be removed. I can add more of these lists if you think it helps. Frmorrison (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

obscure criticism?
Why is this note about "Linn Nygaard, an IT consultant living in Norway" included in the criticism? This is surely just a one-off individual trivium? This kind of thing devalues WikiP and should be deleted. No?
 * The matter serves as a reminder to Kindle users that even though you click buy, you only hold a license to view ebooks that can be revoked by Amazon anytime for violating the Terms of Service. Frmorrison (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermarket section
This section appears to be completely unnecessary. The first three paragraphs--and perhaps some other parts--of this section apply to nearly any product of any sort, not specifically Kindle devices. It seems strange that someone would go out of their way to note in an encyclopedia entry that there's a secondhand market. Of course, if the secondhand market caused controversy (as it sometimes does when discussing used video game sales, for example) it would probably be worth mentioning, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. There is good information about donating and recycling used Kindles, but "aftermarket" probably isn't the right term for that. 98.235.202.85 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I removed the first two paragraphs. I think the title is fine. Frmorrison (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Browser unable to establish secure connection
SQGibbon complains that forums are not reliable sources for w'pedia. I'd agree with this as a general principle. Here, however scanning the forum reveals that quite a number of users were complaining of this problem and getting agitated about it, and it's hard to argue that this is not a reliable source for what is stated in the article. Rules should not be blindly applied (Emerson's 'foolish consistency'; see w'pedia article on self-reliance for the quote). We're not dealing with theory here, where there can be dispute, but with what people say is their experience. And this went on for a long time, with people keeping on saying the problem had not been solved -- unless there is an update (for which there is a reliable source, viz. an announcement by Amazon), so you can't really suggest that everyone was not reconfigured, especially as the update fixed the problem. A lot of people were very annoyed by losing their Facebook connection, and this, it seems to me, makes it pretty notable given the popularity of Facebook. I suggest you actually read what people said in the forum and have a rethink. Unless you can produce a compelling reason for users not to see this discussion as supporting the entry I will revert. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Forums generally are not reliable sources. One of the problems is how do we determine what is significant to include in an article? The best tool we have for this is if something is reported on by an independent and reliable source. Otherwise we run the very real risk of committing original research with each of us doing our own research to see what people are saying in the wild and concluding that that information should be included in Wikipedia. This clearly runs against Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and general practice.


 * Another way to look at this is how do you determine which user complaints from which forums are worthy of inclusion? Notice there is no policy or guideline to deal with that question (for good reason!). So you just make that decision yourself?


 * You said "I suggest you actually read what people said in the forum and have a rethink". I think this betrays your basic misunderstanding of the issue; it doesn't matter in the least what I read or think about what those forum users said. I am not a reliable source. The only thing that matters here is if an actual reliable source reports on the issue. SQGibbon (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be blindly applying a rule here. Does anyone here who has read the forum have any doubts as to whether there was a problem with the Kindle?  The problem is that the rule is too all-inclusive.  In any case the actual rule, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, is 'Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable', not that they are never acceptable.  Intelligent application of the rule would demand consideration of reasons, as per 'Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field.'  This is a perhaps an unusual situation where expertise is in the main not being asserted, people are just complaining that they can no longer access Facebook, and no users of the experimental browser are contradicting this. That having been said, let me just say this.  I am pretty familiar with disrupting or tendentious editing in w'pedia, there's a lot of it around.  I have no particular investment in this small contribution to making w'pedia more informative, so do feel to disrupt in this way if it makes you feel good to do so -- I am all for bringing a little happiness into the world.  --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add that I (personally) find it absurd to describe reading the article and deciding that the fact these people are all claiming they can no longer access Facebook probably means that people actually could not access Facebook as 'original research'. Things are a little circular here.  Saying this is OR depends on asserting that the content is not reliable, and it is not reliable because generally statements in fora are not reliable.  You have to think a little to decide, and that makes it OR, even though anyone who thinks about it would decide the same. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur that forums are not reliable sources, and would probably exclude the info even if it were in a published reliable source. It's certainly not a "criticism" per se, and apparently it wasn't an issue for all that long. Issues like this aren't all that uncommon with tablets, and an e-reader is even less capable. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here who has read the forum have any doubts as to whether there was a problem with the Kindle? 
 * I have no doubt that there was a problem with the Kindle. The question is whether it was significant enough to include in the article. The only way to make that determination in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and general practice is to see if a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia) has reported on it.


 * In any case the actual rule, see ..., is 'Internet forum postings ... are largely'' not acceptable', not that they are never acceptable.
 * Did you read the examples of when they are acceptable? Taking a cue from when blogs are acceptable an internet forum would be acceptable if it is populated by reliable sources discussing the area of expertise that makes them reliable sources in the first place.


 * I'd just like to add that I (personally) find it absurd to describe reading the article and deciding that the fact these people are all claiming they can no longer access Facebook probably means that people actually could not access Facebook as 'original research'.
 * That's not exactly what I said. The original research is determining that the complaints are significant enough to include in Wikipedia.


 * Things are a little circular here. Saying this is OR depends on asserting that the content is not reliable, and it is not reliable because generally statements in fora are not reliable.
 * This is not circular. I am claiming that what you are doing is OR because you are not a reliable source working in the field that establishes that you are a reliable source. This is the Wikipedia definition of what is original research and what a reliable source is. That particular forum is not considered a reliable source in this instance because it is an internet forum -- again, by Wikipedia definition.


 * You have to think a little to decide, and that makes it OR, even though anyone who thinks about it would decide the same.
 * Again, Wikipedia is not about what you and I think but are our summaries of what established, independent reliable sources state. The key idea is that we are not publishing our research on Wikipedia (like you deciding that the information is noteworthy enough to be included in the article) but are supposed to report on what others have written (like if you find a reliable source that has reported on the issue). The difference seems pretty clear to me. SQGibbon (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have edited this article a lot, so I want to be sure there is no OR in it. The source quoted is a forum, not an independent news source so it can be considered OR. Also, the issue with Facebook access was only with the nearly five-year-old Kindle Keyboard and only for three months. I believe there are hardly people still using the Keyboard that also use its browser to look at Facebook. It loads slowly and can crash the browser because of the small amount of memory, so it is a poor experience. Frmorrison (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It was not just the keyboard version that had the experimental browser -- for example the Kindle 5, 'announced by Amazon on September 6, 2012', as the article says, which I have, has the problem also. Amazon must have thought the issue serious enough that they updated the software for it (eventually).

I must ask objectors to consider the reason behind RS and NOR. It is because unreliable sources and original research can constitute barriers to verifiability. Verifiability is the key issue. Unless you think that people are making up these complaints, which seems highly unlikely, it is a reasonable assumption that people using the experimental browser to access the internet had this problem. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to contradict this conclusion: no-one using the experimental browser wrote in to say they had fixed or did not have the problem -- until the update was made available -- and the latter can be verified by the fact that there was an official announcement. There seems to be confusion in these parts between OR, which requires expertise, and simply going through a forum to check on what people are saying. Calling this looking through the forum to check that what is said there supports the content of the article OR is an abuse of the term 'research'. In short, what matters, by w'pedia's foundational principles, is verifiability with no significant expertise needed. Check it out! --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, this doesn't appear to be a major issue, nor an unexpected one. A Kindle is an E-reader, not a full-featured tablet, and the fact that it can access any web pages at all is remarkable. It's called an "experimental browser" for a reason. I won't be surprised if Amazon completely removes or disables the experimental browser one day due to web page compatibility issues, and that would be noteworthy as a critisicism. At this point, you probably need to consider dropping the stick, as there is currently no consensus here to support re-adding this issue. - BilCat (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal as far as I am concerned, but it seemed to me that in view of the vast number of people who belong to Facebook and the fact that quite a number of them suddenly couldn't access this essential part of their life was reasonably notable. Anyway, I have far more important things than this to concern myself with. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Article picture
This article's picture is of a Kindle Keyboard. I'm thinking it's about time to change that, since that model has been discontinued. A picture of a Kindle Paperwhite would probably be best, since it's Amazon's best-selling and arguably most iconic current Kindle, although a Kindle Voyage or a regular Kindle would be fine as well. --Spug (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the Keyboard's appearance when compared to the newer Kindles. However, if you think one of the newer models should be in the infobox instead there are images of the newer Kindles in the article that can be copied. --Frmorrison (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do too, but I think the picture in the infobox should be of a current model and not a discontinued one. I'll swap it out for one of the Paperwhite images. --Spug (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Stallman's criticism
This sourced content was removed on the basis that: promotional/non-neutral, self-published source. Well, of course it's not neutral, it's someone's critical opinion. The redaction of the paragraph itself is as neutral as can be in lieu of this fact. Also WP:SELFPUB states: "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Stallman is giving his opinion through his website, there's nothing wrong with a primary source in this case (in fact it would be preferred). Thoughts on this? Pikolas (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this addition from Stallman saying Kindle is a Swindle is not valid criticism nor is showing his graphics a valid addition. This section is about criticism that has facts behind it, not opinions. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate as to why it's invalid? Opinions are the definition of "criticism". According to Merriam-Webster, criticism is: "a. the act of criticizing usually unfavorably; b. a critical observation or remark". Pikolas (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Invalid in this case to Wikipedia means it is only personal opinions not 100% backed up by facts.--Frmorrison (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reminder: Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. As long as it's sourced, it's not our job to refute or reinforce his criticism. If we did that, it would be original research. Pikolas (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you're talking about would be like using the Kindle website to source a statement about the Kindle.  This is not that.  Stallman and Kindle are two very separate entities.  Stallman is making statements about the Kindle, not himself. --SubSeven (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the paragraph is not to confirm or deny the truth behind Stallman's arguments. It is simply there to show that an important person has critized the Kindle. What better source to use to back his opinions if not his personal website? What would be the point in using a third-party? What I'm suggesting is allowed per WP:SELFPUB, because the paragraph is about Stallman's opinion on Kindle, not about the Kindle itself. Pikolas (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been using Amazon for over ten years and used Kindle for the past five years and I have never heard of Stallman. How I would know if Stallman was important is if a 3rd party (like NY Times) reposted a Stallman rant. Anyway, Stallman dislikes DRM and there is already lots of criticism about Kindle's DRM in the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an.. interesting(?) interpretation of WP:SELFPUB that would basically allow anybody's opinions about anything to be added to articles. There's no way that was the intent of that sentence.  --SubSeven (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I disagree with your take. However, would you accept the paragraph if I added third-party sources? Pikolas (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the third-party sources were legit, I would not object to the text.  The mock logo image, there is absolutely no use for. --SubSeven (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In this discussion, the name (The Amazon Swindle) that Stallman calls the Kindle seems both gratutitous and hyperbolic.842U (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Operating system information is misleading
In the sidebar the article states about the Kindle OS: "Kindle Firmware utilizing Linux 2.6.26 to 3.0.35" which is misleading later when it says the paperwhite runs off of 5.6.5, since it is assumed that this means Linux 5.6.5, which doesn't exist. perhaps "Linux for Kindle" would be more suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapnJackBevs (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Linux number is the kernel versions being used and the 5.6.5 number is current Kindle firmware version. There is no such thing as "Linux for Kindle". A Kindle is a computer that uses an ARM processor that runs the Linux kernel. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Amazon Kindle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130625225434/http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kindle-Wireless-Reader-3G-Wifi-Graphite/dp/B002LVUWFE/ref=pd_rhf_pe_p_t_1_3MEH to http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kindle-Wireless-Reader-3G-Wifi-Graphite/dp/B002LVUWFE/ref=pd_rhf_pe_p_t_1_3MEH

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Kindle scout section
Hello, I am a student at the College of DuPage and as an assignment for my English class. I decided to work on the Amazon Kindle article. I plan to add a section on Kindle Scout and expand the Kindle direct publishing section. If you have any questions or concerns on my edits, please let me know. --Youngauthorkat (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)Youngauthorkat
 * There is not any information on Kindle Scout on Wikipedia, so your contributions are welcome. I have been considered moving some of the publishing content to a new article, such as Kindle or Amazon Publishing, but for this next week, I am not going to change anything. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds great Frmorrison! I am willing to help you with adding a separate article if you would like. Thanks for the feedback. --Youngauthorkat (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Youngauthorkat
 * I made the separate article, Kindle Direct Publishing. I moved the Scout items there. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Kindle 8
Article says 167 ppi; Amazon literature says 300 ppi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.187.95 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. See https://www.amazon.com/All-New-Kindle-reader-Glare-Free-Touchscreen/dp/B0186FFA1Y/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8, which is the source used in the article. The "NEW - Kindle" column in the comparison table is the Kindle 8, and list 167 ppi. The current Kindle Paperwhite has 300 ppi, but is a different product. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)