Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 March 29

= March 29 =

Why is wikipedia possible?
Knowlegde is a commodity as well as power. Sharing your knowlegde with others, though it is great, will decrease the sharing peoples' competitveness over others. If everyone is aware of this idea, then how possibly could Wikipedia be formed? What are in the editors mind when they are contributing to Wikipedia? Personally I love Wikipedia as selfless global project. I am just curious about how do people get rid of their selfishness.--Lowerlowerhk (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, cooperating on a project like this is not necessarily completely unselfish; you can learn a lot from others while working on wikipedia, which might improve your competitiveness. Apart from that, selfishness is not the only motivation people have. There are also things like pleasure in cooperation, the satisfaction of contributing something that's useful to others, the desire to share information you find important or interesting, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a zero-sum game. If we share knowledge, we are both better off than if we don't. And, of course, there is the peacock effect. By contributing to Wikipedia, we advertise how smart we are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a story about the mistress of selfishness Ayn Rand herself (she wrote novels about the virtues of being selfish). The main character of Atlas Shrugged gives a 100+ page speech in the middle of the book, which the editor at the publishing house wanted to shorten drastically.  Rand wanted to keep the speech enough that she ended up unselfishly agreeing to pay the extra printing and paper costs incurred by keeping it in the book.  What it all means is that people like to share their ideas, and will undertake sacrifices in order to do so.  You might ask yourself why anyone joins any volunteer project.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although if you dislike Rand, or even if you don't, you could say it's at least vain to pay for the printing of something readers would rather not have... Personally, what I get from editing Wikipedia and answering questions includes a distraction from unpleasant chores, such as actual work, as well as the satisfaction of having been of service. The latter is no mean thing, as anyone knows who has ever given directions to a stranger. A trivial service, and yet you can bask in that warm feeling for hours. (None of this is intended to disparage altruism.)--Rallette (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's also quite interesting that Jimmy Wales is a self described Libertarian and Objectivist. TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Altruism. (otherwise known as "enlightened self-interest"). --TammyMoet (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reciprocal altruism may be more accurate. The OP should read The Selfish Gene. --Mark PEA (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also free software movement, which Wikipedia, if not really part of, is certainly strongly influenced by. Although an encyclopedia isn't software, both are easy to distribute and copy, and also amenable to incremental changes by lots of people at once. Paul (Stansifer) 12:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a paid job as an Editor or perhaps a writer, it can look good on your CV/Résumé. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. The amount of time it would take for a potential employer to determine what your real contributions were is probably prohibitive—they won't look at it. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it's not that hard to find someone's contributions? Mitch Ames (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is also partly due to the differences between a Professional and an Amateur (not that professionals don't use their knowledge to improve Wikipedia). A lot of information in Wikipedia is people engaging with their passion by improving content or making content available. E.g. I take photographs - I could withold those photos and only let people who pay 'use' them - that makes sense if i'm a professional (ignoring the 'free' content discussions for now) but as an amateur i'm just happy to try get my work seen, to share my passion with others and to maybe get some feedback and learn how to be better. Flickr lets me do that. The license I use means anyone can use my photos for free on a non-profit basis (e.g. in a blog, a charity website whatever) but must negotiate to use them in a for-profit scenario. I'm a bit half-way house that way, but there's plenty of entirely free license-free imagery that people will share. All the answers so far have been great, I hope this explains a little more about how things differ when it is an 'occupation' (professional) or a 'hobby' (amateur). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of serious academic studies about what motivates people to edit Wikipedia. Simple explanations like "altruism" don't really account for the full spectrum of why people do it (especially since most psychologists think that literal altruism would be a very rare thing to witness indeed, and could not sustain a community), and why they spend hours and hours of their own (presumably valuable) time on this of all tasks. (And not, say, working at a soap kitchen, or making tons of money to then donate to the poor.) Academic studies about Wikipedia discusses some of these though they don't seem to have much on the motivation models (they do note, though, that a minority of editors produce a majority of the content, which is useful to know in thinking about editor behavior)
 * This paper, for example, is from my skimming a pretty good overall breakdown of the many, many facets of answering this question. The are different motivations for different types of editors, there are different things that editors get out of it (knowledge, interaction, positive feedback, a feeling of belonging to a community, etc.), and so on. There is not going to be a one-word answer that sums up Wikipedia's success or model adequately. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I edit Wikipedia to impress the chicks. —Kevin Myers 13:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sharing your knowlegde with others, though it is great, will decrease the sharing peoples' competitveness over others." I can't make head nor tail of what you are trying to say here.Knowledge is not always something that can be bought,bartered or sold.There is such a thing as love of knowledge for it's own sake.You now owe me 10/6 for this answer..88.96.226.6 (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The editing of Wikipedia is a product of the Internet age. Just like gold forms in veins in rock within the crust of the Earth, the Internet gives birth to Wikipedia. It is a freaky coming together of dictionaries, encyclopedias, books, and newspapers in the environment of easy access to information, facilitated by the software of the Wiki that makes collaboration possible to recompile information in one place. Editors get up to speed by understanding the reliance on reliable sources. Other than that it is the usual glue of sociability, tempered by animosity, that keeps the beat going. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fun. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge is one commodity that can be given away and yet still be retained. Besides, enlightenment of humanity is in the best interest of everybody. Vranak (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Refrain from trying to define knowledge, it'll only confuse people.200.144.37.3 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Vranak (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re Mr. 98: it's true that the vast majority of edits to Wikipedia come from a relatively small number of editors. But most of those edits—categorization, spelling corrections, project space and talk page edits, etc.—don't actually add content. The one study I know of (from 2006) that checks for actual amount of content contributions, indicates that most of the content (at that time) came from anonymous editors. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That study was limited to the article Alan Alda. My own experience over the last 6½ years on a broad front, is that permanent content comes from logged-in editors. "It turns out that the people who believe in truth and objectivity are at least as numerous as all the crazies, pranksters and time-wasters, and they are often considerably more tenacious, ruthless and monomaniacal. On Wikipedia, it’s the good guys who will hunt you down," observes David Runciman, Cambridge University, reviewing Andrew Lih, The Wikipedia Revolution; his is the most sensible description of Wikipedia ever: read it.--Wetman (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2006 study started with the Alan Alda article, but then says "I don’t have the resources to run this calculation across all of Wikipedia (there are over 60 million edits!), but I ran it on several more randomly-selected articles and the results were much the same...". David Runciman's review of Andrew Lih's book doesn't (IMO) say much that we don't hear all the time on-wiki, but I might look for the book anyway. Thanks for the link. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added: a follow-on to the 2006 article mentions that he processed about 200 articles, and even the exceptions he found to the pattern turned out not to be convincing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

what atheism
what does athist's du actualy just live a normal life or what cus i am new to atheism what?? is there many other atheist's out there —Preceding unsigned comment added by The eldar scrolls (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Atheism is an article which describes the various types of belief systems athiests posess. A related set of belief systems is Agnosticism.  Other than the obvious (like clergy) atheists generally occupy all sorts of jobs, and live in all parts of the world.  -- Jayron  32  14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure you'll find atheists in the clergy. I doubt you'll find a great number that are open about such (lack of) beliefs though. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're wondering how atheism is reconcilable with morality, you could look up ethical humanism etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you are looking for some role models, there are Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Julia Sweeney, Pat Condell, Tim Minchin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Isaac Asimov, Ayn Rand, Emma Thompson, Douglas Adams, Simone de Beauvoir and the Marquis de Sade ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're religious. Analyse your own life, pick out the bits where your activities are religion-based, and replace them with with either a) doing something else (like doing homework or playing Tetris) or b) doing it for a different reason (philanthropy, perhaps). Unless you take religion very seriously, atheists basically live the same. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But make sure to factor in arguing on the internet with Christians. That seems to take up at least the equivalent of church per week for most atheists I know. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I play online word games against Christians instead. Unless I manage to argue with unusual brilliance, this comes to much the same thing and is less emotionally fraught. 81.131.10.167 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, normal life. Probably just like yours, except we get to sleep late on Sundays. APL (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Christian services are now available in Sunday afternoons or evenings, believe it or not ;) . Many religions outside Christianity also do not observe Sunday as the day of worship. --Kvasir (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Atheism is a mental stance. And it need not be particularly long term. One can believe in God one day and not believe in God the next day. Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, by flipflopping between many religions, you can anger all kinds of deities! Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the UK as far as I recall from surveys at least half the population are aethiests. Hardly anyone goes to church. The US seems to be more religious, and I find its guns'n'bibles stance difficult to reconcile. 89.242.246.24 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet an enormous number "claim" they are Church of England by default. This is particularly prevalant in things like marriages were a church wedding is seen as a desirable experience - I know of many couples who have had a church wedding despite almost never setting foot in a church before or since.  No wonder statistics, in articles such as Demographics of atheism, seem skewed.  I've raised the question at Talk:Demographics of atheism.
 * As for atheism, the OP was talking like atheism was a religion. I really don't think it is just another religion in which one believes or has faith and there is no official conversion ceremony or regular gatherings.  We are just people going about their normal lives.  Astronaut (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are aspects of atheism that seem religious, such as the "dogma" that God cannot possibly exist, and therefore any apparent evidence to the contrary must be disregarded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have read the Book of Atheism (revised edition by Malaclypse the Younger), which absolutely forbids dogmas and in particular "dogmas" of any kind (if you can't find the passage, get the official version with the secret appendices). Or you misinterpret Occam's razor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the forbidding of a dogma, also a dogma? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but a dogma is not necessarily a religious matter. The 5 Pillars of Wikipedia are in effect its (her?) dogma; even though one of them is the very undogmatic statement that we have no firm rules, except these five, one of which is that there are no firm rules, except these five .....  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Bugs: atheists typically won't say that god cannot possibly exist. They might say that believing in a god is like believing in unicorns - possible but astronomically improbable. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually from the results of two surveys - which sadly I can't cite - it was apparent that most of us in the UK self-identify as Christians but can't be bothered to go to church. 81.131.10.167 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that that is terribly germane to living a Christian life. The ones who go because they actually enjoy going, they're OK.  But the ones who go because they feel it's a duty, well, they may as well stay at home.  Sometimes the most Christian people are found among non-churchgoers, and vice-versa.  If I recall, there's nothing in the 10 Commandments about having to attend a church every Sunday; all it said was keep holy the Sabbath day.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See http://mlbible.com/hebrews/10-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/hebrews/10-25.htm: http://mlbible.com/james/1-22.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-23.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-24.htm; http://mlbible.com/james/1-25.htm.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What? How are any of these biblical quotes relevant to this discussion. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was replying to Jack of Oz with Bible quotations about assembling together and about living a Christian life.
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Debt Defaults
Hello Wikipedians

I have been thinking about sovereign debt crises, and was wondering if someone could give me some information. Sovereign debt default almost always occurs when the debt is priced in a currency other than that of the country involved, because otherwise the country's central bank could simply print more money in order to pay order to pay its obligations. (Or rather: the country's central bank/government would have to consider it worse to have high inflation than to default on its debt). When was the last time (or even better: does anyone have a list of all the times) that a country defaulted on its sovereign debt when it was priced in its own currency? Thanks! 91.84.177.93 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't know what the most recent case was, but it happened many times historically when governments refused to redeem their own paper money (look up "assignat", "not worth a continental" etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Historically, from at least medieval times until 1971, most sovereign debt was payable in silver or gold. During that period, all or most countries' currencies were based on a silver standard or a gold standard.  For example, between 1900 and 1933, the U.S. dollar was defined as 1/20.67 of an ounce of gold (that is, an ounce of gold was defined as worth $20.67).  So during that period, governments did not borrow in a currency that they could completely control.  Instead, typically, they promised repayment of debts in terms of precious metals.  During this period, there were plenty of instances in which governments defaulted on their debts.  After 1971, virtually all currencies in the world were fiat currencies, whose value was not linked to anything tangible.  As a consequence, governments issuing debt in their own currencies could theoretically inflate their way out of that debt.  However, since 1971, investors have not been willing to fund government debts issued in currencies investors deemed unreliable, or they have demanded prohibitive interest rates to do so.  So most countries have had to issue debt denominated in currencies investors deemed trustworthy, such as U.S. dollars.  The United States has enjoyed the ability to issue debt denominated in its own currency. A few other countries have also enjoyed this ability, mainly in western Europe, but also Canada, Australia, Japan, and perhaps a few others.  Since 1971, I am not aware of any country that has defaulted on debt issued in its own fiat currency.  As you say, a number of countries (not including the United States) have defaulted on debt issued in U.S. dollars.  However, it has been not quite 40 years since the abandonment of the gold standard, and we are really in uncharted waters as many governments' outstanding debt seems to mushroom.  Debts in many countries (including the United States and the United Kingdom) are now much higher as a multiple of GDP than they have been at any time since 1971.  While it is true that no government with a hard currency has defaulted on debt issued in its own fiat currency as of yet, we don't know whether some government might choose that course rather than the course of inflation if the government finds its debt burden intolerable.  Marco polo (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure that during the early stages of the German interwar hyperinflation, the German government paid off a significant amount in war loans to Sweden (?) before they realised what was going to happen. So I'm thinking not all pre-1971 sovereign debt was fixed in something tangible. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Russian government defaulted on ruble-denominated debt during the 1998 Russian financial crisis. (I think they called it "restructuring" the debt, but it's the same thing, since I don't believe they gave the bondholders any say in the matter.) --Tango (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this group against the law?
Thanks. 67.243.7.245 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Chinese, but it seems to have something to do with paedophilia (according to Google Translate). Without knowing precisely what it has to do with paedophilia, I can't even guess about its legality. Its legality may also depend on which jurisdiction you are interested in. If you are interested in whether it is illegal for Facebook to be hosting it, then US law is probably the relevant one (and the Communications Decency Act probably protects them, as long as they take it down upon being notified about it). If you are interested in whether it is illegal to be a member, then it is probably Chinese law that matters (I'm assuming the members are mostly in China). I know nothing about Chinese law on the subject. If you are concerned about it, I suggest you report it to Facebook and let them deal with it. --Tango (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The application name asks: "Who engages in pre-adult sex?" or better phrased: "Who engages in sex before the age of majority?" Without installing the app and hence knowing the content, I can't tell you what it's for. But on face value it's seems like a survey, and probably not illegal. It definitely has nothing to do with paedophilia. Note that in most of the Chinese-speaking world the age of majority is 18 (It's 20 in Taiwan but this app uses simplified characters). --Kvasir (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Google translated it as "Who is having sex with minor?" (emphasis mine). You would translate it as being more like "Who is having sex as a minor?"? The former is clearly about paedophilia. --Tango (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I didn't need translation. --Kvasir (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the thing. The thing is what the text actually means. I asked you to clarify your translation, why didn't you just do that rather than make a sideways insult about me not speaking Chinese? --Tango (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tango: age of majority in many jurisdictions is 18, but age of consent is 16. Minor =/= paedophilia in these jurisdictions --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Illustrious 14 Romans
Who are these men? Moved to Language Desk.

The first is obviously Scipio Africanus.

Caesar is Julius Caesar.

Pompeo is Pompey.

Octaviano is Augustus.

Vespasiano is Vespasian.

Can someone give me the names of the others.

What does the very last line say?

Thanks. --Doug Coldwell talk 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Quintus Caecilius Metellus is any one of the 10 or so members of the Caecilius Metellus family with the same name.
 * Marco Porcio Catone is probably Cato the Elder.
 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And lastly Trajan. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ...for Et ultimamente Traiano. ANTHIOCORE de Asia is actually Anthioco Re di Asia, "Antiochus, king of Asia". There are a long list of Antiocus, but don't forget Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, last of the Seleucids. PAVLO:Emilio is not Paulus Aemilius, but MARIO:Arpinate is Gaius Marius of Arpino.--Wetman (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Reference_desk/Language, where this was moved and, mostly, answered. Your opinion on PAVLO:Emilio is at odds with the current suggestion there, the rest is in line. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Medical staff, Civil War
In the context of American Civil War medical care, what was an "orderly," what did they do? If this job does not in fact exist, who did the non-surgical jobs, like moving patients, in a field hospital? Thanks. 75.11.184.53 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.184.53 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There were male nurses, as well as soldiers who were recuperating from illness or injury. Edison (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. One more question- if wounded soldiers were being kept in a civilian's home, how great was the obligation of the residents to help? 75.11.184.53 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.184.53 (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard to the North, I don't think that the third amendment was suspended or violated during the war (meaning the answer is "no obligation"), but perhaps I'm wrong. 63.17.82.46 (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The expectation and requirement would be to stay out of the way and not interfere, if the civilian did not feel called upon to help in some way. Edison (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Orderlies were used by surgeons, perhaps with more of the older definition of valet/assistant than of trained medical staff. Many descriptions of them as responsible for carrying the surgeon's kits of tools. See, , . Rmhermen (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks so much. 75.3.205.189 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldest people in Rome?
I'm wondering, are there any well documented "old age cases" in ancient Rome? As in people reliably known to have lived to X years? If so, how old were they? Did anyone reach 80? 90? TastyCakes (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno about well documented, but see Category:Ancient Roman centenarians. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah neat, I wouldn't have thought people back then could live to be so old... TastyCakes (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then an explanation is in order. The maximum human life span seems to have always been around 130-140 years.  All that has changed, even with our current technology, is to move more of us closer to achieving that maximum. StuRat (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We just had a similar question a couple of weeks ago. There's nothing different about ancient people, except the higher death rate for children/poor people (and I suppose the greater chance of dying in battle or of some kind of epidemic). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the previous question, about nonagenarians before 1900, which lists some ancient and medieval ones. Cicero's wife Terentia is a famous Roman centenarian. Eighty or ninety wouldn't have been uncommon in Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting, thanks guys, sorry for the repeat question.. TastyCakes (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

advance reading copies

 * List of used book conditions
 * http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=1161242
 * Unacceptable: Moldy, badly stained, or unclean copies are not acceptable, nor are copies with missing pages or obscured text. Books that are distributed for promotional use only are prohibited. This includes advance reading copies (ARCs) and uncorrected proof copies.

Why do they classify advance copies under "unacceptable"? I have some ARCs. They are certainly sought after if the books are popular and worth studying. -- Toytoy (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wild-assed guess (drawing on some book trade experience and decades of book collecting), but I believe that publishers usually supply advance copies (to reviewers, etc.) on the official contractual condition that they are not resold (in part, probably, to try to prevent their notional publication-date embargo being broken), so Amazon would be at risk of abetting a breach of contract (by the seller with the publisher) if they allowed such copies to be sold through them.
 * In practice, of course, reviewers often make a bit of extra money (and avoid their house becoming entirely filled up with books) by selling their review copies second hand. When this is done on an individual basis through the (geographically scattered) reviewers' local book dealers it won't show up on the radar, so the publishers turn a blind eye, but if a good proportion of the sellers instead used Amazon it would collect many 'illicit' copies in one place and become too noticeable to ignore. Presumably the "unacceptable" here doesn't therefore mean unacceptable to potential buyers (I, too, happily buy ARCs and Uncorrected Proof Copies), but legally unacceptable as items for Amazon to carry. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not always legally clear who owns advance copies, or whether the "no sale" provision of them is legally binding. Amazon want an easy life, and don't want to be referees in a three-way fight between a bookseller, a buyer, and a publisher who claims they either own the ARC outright or at least that the seller is legally prohibited from selling. This blog entry (which claims to be by a former Director of Sales and Marketing at Amazon's competitor Alibris) goes into some detail. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazon has changed it policy to allow some selling ARCs as collectibles, if the edition is out of print. Read the rest of that page: "Sellers approved to list in "Collectible" condition may sell advance reading copies and uncorrected proofs of out-of-print books as Collectible. Advance reading copies and uncorrected proofs of in-print or not-yet-published books are not permitted."John Z (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a large bookstore in New York City (literati from there probably know which store I mean) that buys and sells probably thousands of ARC's every week. A lot of book reviewers operate from NYC, and they get a ton of (unsolicited) review copies from publishers that they crate up and bring over to the store to sell or trade for other books.  The publishers whine and gnash and shed copious tears of impotent rage over this, but there's nothing they can do.  (Actually this was the situation was some years ago; I haven't been there lately so I can't be certain that it's still going on). You should also understand that publishers have even complained about Amazon selling used books (apparently the publishers think anyone who wants to read a book should buy a new copy) even though selling used books is a venerable and generally respectable industry.   So what the publishers want, and what readers and the law think are ok, don't necessarily coincide.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the publishers are just blustering and bluffing. Some textbook publishers have enormous cheek, they print a cover notice that says "keep textbook prices down, don't resell this review / promotional copy"  They appear to hail from the Bizarro World where supply and demand work differently.  Halfway down this page is a blogpost "Proof Negative" I found from following links in a link above, explaining how there is no legal obstacle to selling ARCs; as I mentioned above, Amazon now allows some to sell old ones.John Z (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How usual is it to have no friends?
How usual is it for a 17-year-old with no mental issues and who isn't a bully to have no friends? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Skimming our article Friendship, there's a section about the decline of friendships in the US claiming that 25% of Americans have "no close confidants". Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Often people having vastly different numbers of friends to each other is simply because they define "friend" differently. As Comet says, having no close confidants isn't unusual (I don't really confide in anyone). Are there people you know and like that you'll chat to if, say, you're in class waiting for your teacher? They could be called friends by a looser definition. --Tango (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Without, I hope, seeming to offer an unqualified diagnosis, I can say that in my experience, lack of friends can itself be a symptom of "mental issues". —Steve Summit (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be quite common. Edison (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Tango's onto it, by raising the question of how one defines a "friend". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. At 17 I had no 'good friends' but plenty of 'casual friends'. Vranak (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are male, try getting a girl-friend. There's plenty of girls in the same situation as you. 84.13.180.45 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can use a concordance (http://bibletab.com/) to see what the Bible says about friendship (http://bibletab.com/search--friend).
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This a reference desk, not a church. Please do not preach here. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily discount ideas found in the Bible as preaching. Wisdom is wisdom, no matter the source. Vranak (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP asked about how usual it is. I think it is obvious the OP is referring to the present day. I don't think a source that is thousands of years old is going to be much help. Cultures change and the nature of friendship changes with them. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The nature of friendship changes over time? Is that your final answer? ;) Vranak (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I was asked a question... --Tango (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tango, at least wavelength provided a refernce, something you neglected in your answer to this OP. Googlemeister (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to Meister? Vranak (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find a reference if the OP really wants me to, but don't think my assertion is fairly obviously true once it is pointed out. I don't usually provide references for such answers and very rarely get complaints. --Tango (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can see quotations about friendship from a variety of sources at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friendship. I remember seeing in a public library a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, in which quotations from the Bible had cross-references to quotations from other sources, and vice versa.  Thus, a reader can compare what different sources have said about a particular topic.  Some people believe that the Bible contains the wisdom of God (http://mlbible.com/2_thessalonians/3-2.htm), and for them the Bible probably trumps (supersedes) has priority over all other sources of wisdom in cases of disagreement.  Other people do not have that belief (http://mlbible.com/1_thessalonians/2-13.htm), and for them probably all sources are valued equally, at least at the beginning.  It is up to each reader to decide. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [I am revising the wording of my comment: "trumps (supersedes)" --> "has priority over". -- Wavelength (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)]
 * If we're venturing into philosophical discussion on friendship, I have something to add:
 * "The knight of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends." -- Nietzsche, Ecco Homo
 * Vranak (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Ecce_Homo_.281888.29. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Paul Graham wrote the essay Why Nerds are Unpopular. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how usual is it is, it's good to have some. Do you socialize much? I don't understand all this stuff about nerds being unpopular, I was the biggest nerd in the world during my youth (I still am I guess) and I was extremely popular, my football captain friend amazed at the amount of people who knew me. Heck I dn't know how a lot of people knew me as well as they did and i'd never heard of them.--92.251.191.108 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce: Friendship: A ship big enough to carry two in fair weather, but only one in foul. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Martin.