Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 March 6

= March 6 =

"Jane's Dilemma"
This is a purely hypothetical case. Any relation to real life events is entirely coincidental. Now, talking hypothetically, let us say there's this girl -we'll call her "Jane"- and her older brother -we'll call him "Joe"-. Now, let us say that "Joe" really likes a girl at his school -we'll call her "Jane 2"- and "Joe" doesn't have any courage. At all. "Joe" has never even taken any interest in any girl before. So, "Joe" goes to "Jane" and asks her what he should do, since "Joe" wants to ask "Jane 2" to the prom. "Jane" has no idea what to tell him to raise his confidence. "Jane" is also really angry at "Joe" since this is more a question he should ask his mother, instead of younger sister, who knows absolutely nothing about love, since she's only in the sixth grade. But, "Jane has to answer his question, because "Joe" doesn't want his mother -the only person who knows the correct answer to his question- interfering in his high-school crush. "Jane" also can't ask "Joe's" mother, because then "Joe's" mother would ask why "Jane" needs the answer to this question. I would very much like it if someone could respond, since it would make "Jane" very, very, very, happy. Remember, all this is purely hypothetical, and any relation to real life events is entirely coincidental. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hypothetically speaking, I would suggest that "Jane" tell "Joe" to just be brave and ask "Jane 2" to the prom. The worst that can happen is she says "no". Just go up to her sometime when she's on her own and say "Hi, I was wondering, would you like to go to the prom with me?" It's as simple as that! --Tango (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the worst thing that could happen is that Jane #2 could say, very loudly for others to hear, "I wouldn't go to the prom with YOU! You're just a fucking loser!", then laugh obnoxiously in his face, and then proceed to spend the next few weeks with her friends tormenting Joe for nothing more than her own amusement.  But, maybe then again she'd just politely say "no"... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case we have to consider Jane#3 through Jane#N. But there isn't really an alternative - all of the sneaking around and the machiavellian  planning doesn't really get you very far - and the well-known problems of all teens in soap operas and sappy movies revolves around not getting in there soon enough before Jane#X has agreed to go with Joe#Y (where X=2 though N and Y>1).  So - be bold - be early - be presentable - be sickeningly polite - don't do it in front of all of her snotty friends (see Jane#3..N, above).  As for the consequences predicted by Jayron#32 - c'est la vie, que sera-sera, Nec Aspera Terrent, Kaphar hunnu bhanda marnu ramro ...and so on.  I doubt that Mommy (whom I shall call "Jane#0" for completeness and consistency) would be able to help - since she probably doesn't know Jane#2 and is therefore unable to predict the consequences of the direct approach. SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your hypothetical Jane could suggest to your hypothetical Joe that he watch this how-to video.  --98.114.146.46 (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, if Janes 2 thru N all turn Joe down, he could always try asking his sister to the prom :-P Astronaut (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be worse than Jayron's scenario but not worse than taking Jane#0 to the prom! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tango was absolutely correct. "Joe" should pick some moment when "Jane 2" is alone, and just ask her. On the other hand, Jayron32 was quite wrong. If "Jane 2" behaved like that, "Joe" would be miles ahead of the game by never having to waste even one more minute thinking about a total loser. -- B00P (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - if "Jane 2" reacts like that, "Joe"'s only mistake was liking her in the first place. If she does torment his about it, he should practice his look of disdain - it's a very useful look, second only to disappointment. --Tango (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Jane should tell Joe that she's just 12 and shouldn't be giving him advice about high school romance. And that maybe he should go see Wikipedia's reference desk because they seem to give that sort of advice.  Otherwise, yeah, chicks dig confidence.  I heard that in a movie but Jane wouldn't be old enough to get in to see it. --JGGardiner (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. By the way, "Jane" is 11, not 12, and she probably could see that movie since she already watches and reads very, "adult" anime and manga. Another thing, "Jane #N" already has a boyfriend so "Joe" can't ask her out, go figure. I hope "Joe" stops being a big, fucking coward. Frankly, I don't know what he sees in the bitc...uh, girl. I'll tell "Jane" to tell "Joe" what you said. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to confess, I'm lost - there are far too many hypothetical people in this discussion and I've lost track of them... I hope all the Janes, Joes, Jayrons and people with terrible taste in computer games but fantastic taste in numbers live happily ever after! --Tango (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything to suggest Jane 2 is a 'bitc' and personally I'm more dubious of people who use such labels then the people they are labelling. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope that, too. <(^_^)> 76.188.37.208 (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me if Joe really can't ask for help from his father or mother, he should be asking another trusted adult, e.g. a teacher, a school counsellor, a uncle/aunt or even some sort of helpline but not his little sister. If he refuses, well frankly I would suggest Jane politely tell him to sod off since it's not her problem nor something she is able to help him with. It's one thing to ask for help from a sibling, it's another thing to expect it when the sibling is unable to. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How widespread was World War II
I was watching the film Destination Gobi earlier today. The film, supposedly based on a true story, featured a group of US Navy sailors in the Gobi desert, trying to return to the sea while evading Japanese spotter planes and horse-mounted patrols. I was quite surprised by the idea that the Japanese army would have any interest in the Gobi desert and it got me thinking... Was there anywhere in the world that was unaffected by World War II? Astronaut (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect Antarctica had nothing going on. Areas of South America as well.  12.216.168.198 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You'd think, right? But alas. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there wasn't any actual fighting in Antartica. BTW, I forget the details but there are some pretty nice conspiracy theories that the Third Reich still exists because New Swabia was not conquered, and that Hitler will return some day from his secret base on the Moon. Or something like that. :) And of course there's my own OR that because the Soviet Union and Japan never signed a peace treaty, the war never really ended, and if fighting breaks out, the Axis powers can still win. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because nobody traded bullets there doesn't mean it didn't play a part in the war... if the Germans expended time and resources on it for military purposes, then I'd say it was part of the war, in the same way that, say, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was part of the war, even though nobody was actually fighting there... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Antarctica is a landing pad for alien space ships, and with his interstellar alliance, Hitler now rules the Inner Earth. Or possibly the outer earth, if you believe space travel is a conspiracy. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Prompted by 98.217's link to New Swabia, I found Participants in World War II and the interesting animation File:Ww2 allied axis.gif. Thanks for your help.  Astronaut (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While there were of course neutral countries even in Europe during the second world war (Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland etc), I think most all countries were effected at least economically by World War 2. Possible exceptions are those that had very little trade or contact with the wars participants.  Perhaps Bhutan or somewhere...  TastyCakes (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bhutan was not fully independent at the time; its foreign affairs were in British hands, and Britain was at war. Further, it was bordered by British territory on one side (namely India) and China on the other, and China was also at war.  Still, I suspect Bhutan was a lot less affected than many other places. --Anonymous, 06:01 UTC, March 6, 2009.


 * You might be interested in the Undiscovered Tribes question above. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Many neutral countries had no armed forces fighting, and were the scenes of no battles, but were likely affected by attacks on commerce (oops, didn't see the neutral flag). They were also the scenes of espionage and foreign intrigue to win them over or to use them as transit routes, or as places of refuge. Edison (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really copyright infringement
I was watching the film Be Kind Rewind earlier today (I know, two films in one day!). Towards the end the shop is visited by bailiffs claiming the amateur reenactments are a massive copyright infringement. Under the threat of a $3bn fine and a ridiculously long prison sentence, the entire stock of tapes is seized and crushed under a steam roller just moments later. To what extent does copyright extend, and could the copyright infringing material be crushed moments later? If I was to reenact my favourite film starring my friends and using my video camera and not-so-special effects, would the result be a copyright infringement, a parody, a fan-fiction or what? Astronaut (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A (complete) fan-made re-enactment of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark recieved approval from the writers, but I don't know if there would have been a possible copyright challenge on it. Steewi (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think that a shot-for-shot restaging of a film could be considered a copyright violation. It might be possible to seek protection as a parody under fair use, but of course the more faithful the adaptation, the harder it might be to claim parody. That said, Gus Van Sant reshot Psycho (1998 film) almost frame for frame to match Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 original. IANAL, but I believe that the original would still be in copyright after 38 years; it would be interesting to find out if Van Sant had to pay for the rights. - EronTalk 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did notice in the credits at the end of Be Kind Rewind, it has a section like "Reenactment approvals and rights" followed by a list of the films they reenacted. Seems they sought approval when making the film, but I assumed that was because they were actually making another hollywood film, with professional actors playing amateur filmmakers.  Astronaut (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the Psycho remake goes, Gus Van Sant didn't pay a cent. Quite the contrary, he was paid for the job. If anyone paid any money for the rights, it was Universal, but since Universal owns the original film, I'm pretty sure they were free to do what they wanted with the property. (Robert Bloch, as the author of the original novel -- or rather, his estate -- possibly got paid, though, depending on what kind of a deal he made when he sold the film rights.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a really murky aspect of copyright law. The standard mantra is that you can copyright expressions, not ideas. (You can patent ideas, but that is different.) But in practice, "expression" often covers a LOT more than the exact frame-by-frame shots, and such things would probably be seen as a court as a derivative work.
 * Whether they qualify as "parody" is a totally different aspect of copyright/fair use law. It's more specific than most people understand the term "parody" to mean — you have to be parodying the original work, not something else. (So you couldn't parody George Bush with a send-up of King Kong, if that makes sense. You can parody King Kong with a send-up King Kong, and that's it, under the legal definition of "parody.")
 * Ages ago I heard a whole paper on the various copyright debates about "fan fiction" going back to the 19th century... for the life of me though I can't recall what the punch-line is, other than, "yet again, very murky, not easy to define from legislation alone."
 * Not very helpful, eh? Welcome to copyright and fair use law... where the courts are basically just making it up as they go along, and nobody really wants to start trying to come up with hard and fast rules... browse through some of the key fair use cases hosted by Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use center and you can see how fairly arbitrary it can be. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aside from the law about copyright - what doesn't ring true is the bailiff's just showing up and doing these bizarre things. In most countries, bailiffs act to enforce decisions of the courts.  So in order for this to have happened - there would have had to have been a court case - the outcome of which would have been some kind of ruling.   Seizing of the offending material is a possible result - and failing to turn it over might get you in contempt - but I don't think the bailiff is empowered to say "do this or pay that".  As for the fate of the tapes - they might be destroyed in due course - but I can't imagine them doing it on the spot - and certainly not with a road roller!  But this couldn't possibly happen as a surprise - they would have to have served the store owners with the court papers, held the trial, etc, etc.  So nothing here really rings true.


 * As for the legality or otherwise of your own movie - we're not allowed to give you legal advice here at the WP:RD. SteveBaker (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I realise, of course, the film was in part a parody of the whole MPAA vs pirates thing and reports such as this one about pirate DVDs being crushed. The world is safe though: I have no intention of making my own copy of - I'm just no good in front of camera.  Astronaut (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Various films have been re-made, sometimes with identical shot-for-shot treatment. How the authorities of the day treated them I have no idea, but if you need examples for comparative purposes, you might consider The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 film), the classic of many adapatations of the novel, remade as The Prisoner of Zenda (1952 film), which was judged no match for the original. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

General
On which date the 'world Population day' is celebrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.56.18 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to our cunningly-named article World Population Day, it's the eleventh of July. Algebraist 01:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
On the bank of which river is Patna located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.89.56.18 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Patna. Algebraist 01:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...which says "The modern city of Patna lies on the southern bank of the Ganges. The city also straddles the rivers Kosi, Sone and Gandak.". SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and your geography homework will really help you get better grades if you try doing it yourself. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Music in new Star Trek trailer
I just watched the new trailer for Star Trek (film) and there was some background music. (The link, on YouTube, is here which will probably be deleted soon.) I've searched adtunes and used Google but have been unsuccessful. What is the music? --Blue387 (talk) 07:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't been able to find it, chances are that it's gonna be music that was created just for this movie. BTW, the trailer does not look very promising. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be somewhat unusual. Movie trailers are often produced before the score for actual movie is ready, so they tend to use music from other similar movies. Or so I've read. --Anonymous, 09:05 UTC, March 6, 2009.
 * That's my impression as well, however I couldn't recognise the music, too, and the original poster couldn't find a title, so I believe my suggestion is warranted, even if the case would be unusual. And Star Trek adventures usually deal with a lot of unusual... ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 09:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's apparently "Freedom Fighters" by Two Steps From Hell, which is indeed basically just trailer music. It reminded me a lot of the The Da Vinci Code (soundtrack). ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons of Greek Language and Icelandic Language Wikipedias
Icelandic Wikipedia - 24,000 articles. Icelandic language - 320,000 speakers. 0.075 articles per speaker Greek Wikipedia - 36,343 articles. Greek language - 15,000,000 speakers. 0.00242287 articles per speaker

Icelandic has a ratio of articles to speaker that is more than 30 times than that of Greek.

Now if there's anything that makes me believe in Madison Grant's anthropological theories, it's this sort of thing. Whilst the ancient Greeks may have possessed more Nordic admixture, over the centuries following, they interbred with people from the east and south (such as during the time they were a part of the Ottoman Empire), and gradually became more mongrelised. As such, there are fewer people with the drive to write Wikipedia articles, something requiring a level of academic intelligence. Books such as IQ and Global Inequality lend weight to this idea.

Is my theory worth anything? Should I stop thinking like this? How do I stop thinking like this? Am I paranoid?--UB891UB (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my bluntness, but what??? You're deriving Wikipedia growth ratio inequalities from genetics? We're not a forum. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tremble, mere mortals, before the intellectual titans known as Manx speakers. While numbering only in the hundreds, they have created over 2,000 articles. Anyhoo, hasn't the theory that the ancient Greeks were all called Olaf been discredited long ago? Fribbler (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's nothing to do with genetics. My own OR suggests that it's more to do the the higher levels of internet usage amongst Icelanders compared to the Greeks.  Astronaut (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The ratio of Latin articles to native Latin speakers is infinite. How do you like that? Also, UB891UB, you can stop thinking like by that ceasing to read terrible books, and by recognizing that IQ is objectively meaningless. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd also suggest that any anthropological theory that uses words such as "mongrelised" to refer to human beings can be safely discarded as crypto-racist garbage. - EronTalk 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not even all that crypto, in this instance. Yes, original poster, since you ask, you should stop thinking like that. You stop thinking like that by recognizing and accepting that it's ignorant and stupid, and it's in your best interests to be neither. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you're not paranoid; you're a moron. Assuming your numbers are correct, Greek Wikipedia is 50% larger than the Icelandic version already, but given the relative sizes of the populations, each time one new Icelandic article was written fifty new Greek ones would have to be posted just to keep up. --- And "mongrelized?" Disgusting. B00P (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Moron? Whatever happened to "no personal attacks"? --  JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're all wrong. A very large number of articles are written automatically. For example, the articles about nearly every town and city in the USA started off in the English language Wikipedia being automatically generated by a 'bot from USGS and US Census data. That's why so many articles about tiny, boring places are almost identically worded. Of course the auto-generated articles for many places have gradually been hand-edited - and now are quite diverse and interesting.

If just ONE enthusiastic Icelander took the trouble to dig out that bot (and a mere handful of others just like it) - changed it to generate Icelandic instead of English and then set it running - then the icelandic Wikipedia could easily have hundreds of thousands of bot-generated articles. If nobody in Greece could be bothered to do the same thing - then the Greek Wikipedia is going to be missing a bunch of that kind of article. Similar things happened with elements in the periodic table, all manner of simple largely-numerically-based articles. Look at this article on the little city of Cedar Hill in Texas. Do you seriously imagine that a Haitian Creole author took the trouble to write this? Not a chance. It's a 'bot.

Hence, our OP's reasoning is bogus. There is NOTHING that the WP article count has to tell you here.

SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * SteveBaker has a very good point. My first thought was the difference in climates.  Iceland (62.7% is tundra. Lakes and glaciers cover 14.3%; only 23% is vegetated),1,2,3. Compare with Greece,1,2,3,.  It is easy to imagine most people spending more time indoors in Iceland, and most people spending more time outdoors in Greece.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * List of Wikipedias is a useful thing. The depth of both wikis is resonably high which suggests neither is primarily bot created articles. (Haitan on the other hand has a depth of 0.) But while depth may in some instances give an idea of how many articles are bot create, it's far from a great measure (you may find my complaints about its use in the talk page) and it's easily possible either one has a large number of bot created articles. But there are many reasons why the number of articles vary, number of people with internet access, number of people who feel the need to write an article in 'their' language, development status of the country, popularity of wikipedias in their country et al. There are so many variables coming up with crazy theories to explain it is, to be frank, absolutely dumb. To use an example, there are currently 35k articles for the Malay wiki and 100k for the Indonesian. The population difference several times that. But it's unlikely the difference has anything to do with differences in the IQ of Malaysians and Indonesians, but much more to do with the fact Malaysia is more developed with a large percentage of the population with access to the internet (and likely a larger percentage able to donate their time to writing articles). Iceland I suspect has a high internet penetration, as with most nordic countries and they were also I believe quite properous before the total collapse of their economy so you have two reasons right there. And perhaps 152 has a point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
But what came first and why??

what was the first article published to wikipedia and was it through pure chance or some logic?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia did not arise by chance. It was deliberately founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The details are at History of Wikipedia. The oldest surviving edits are listed at Wikipedia's oldest articles. Algebraist 11:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

with all due respect, a truely microsoft answer - factually correct but not answering the question, i understand that wikipedia was a deliberate act, and that link does lead me to beleive that on 17th jan 2001 the first article was 'standard poodle' however i was under the impression that wikipedia was founded 2 days earlier. if that is the case was 'standard poodle' 2 days after founding the first article published. If so that answers the what but not the why. Why, one wonders, when attempting to capture all human knowledge would you start with a poodle?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you start with? Aardvark? Big Bang? Cogito ergo sum? Genesis? Phil Collins? If you're actually planning on compiling the sum of human knowledge, it couldn't matter less what your first article is. But, to give you an actual answer, I don't know; nor do any other editors, seemingly, or it probably would have been added to the History of Wikipedia article. There could be an interview out there somewhere that answers this question, though I for one am too pooped to look for it. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the order doesn't matter if you intend to cover everything. Since it takes years to cover everything, the first item will be there for a long time before the last item (especially since there is no last item, since human knowledge is always expanding).  So, the first item will have far more impact on setting the reputation of Wikipedia, and human knowledge of that topic would likely be enhanced in the meantime. StuRat (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The earliest edits are lost to the mists of time - the software didn't store everything permanently back then. There are some clues about early articles and some people remember the first few days, but most is gone for good. But basically, people wrote articles on whatever they felt like, pretty similar to how it is now. --Tango (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the firstarticle was probably published by one of the founders, who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomath (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To Monomath, who knows, we know - read the article linked above. Specifically at Wikipedia's oldest articles which quotes Jimbo as saying it was literally "Hello world". And to the OP the oldest known surviving edit is the index page for the letter U, not an article for standard poodle. If you don't count that as an article the article for United States is claimed to have preceeded the U entry. Rmhermen (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean "the article for United States is claimed to have preceded the standard poodle entry", right? –  7 4   14:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the claim is that the United States article preceeded the article for U which preceeded the poodle article. See UuU. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem to me that, if you were talking about the oldest article, you'd lead with "United States" then. Perhaps it confused only me, but saying that "United States" is older than UuU *if* you don't count UuU as an article seems to be a roundabout way of stating the order. To summarize: "United States" has a good claim but little evidence, followed by UuU with a good claim and evidence, and "Standard poodle" is further behind those two. –  7 4   21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the original edits would have been tests of the software. Over time, that evolved into well-written articles. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress ( extermination requests here ) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If God had done her job properly she would have arranged for each child to be born with the sum total of its parents knowledge pre-installed as it were.--(Why has this come out in bold I wonder?)Artjo (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you used semicolons instead of colons. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, learned something then!--Artjo (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can imagine that world, but it then moves us on to what would all those people do with the sum of all human knowledge? Richard Avery (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominate things for deletion?  j/k   –   7 4   00:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If everybody came pre-programmed with their parent's knowledge we would all be believing that the sun went round the earth. Among other outdated things. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless Information
What makes information useless? Is there such a thing as useless information? What i'm getting at is that you hear people being described as 'full of useless information'. But is their actually any PROVEN fact which is not of any use to anyone??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomath (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think it's meant to be taken that literally. But, generally, it refers to trivia, which can often be quite useful. Tomdobb (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is normally means useless with respect to their lifestyle and employment. For example a farmer who knew all about vintage computers would be described as full of useless information, but a curator of a museum of computing would not. The same museum curator might be described as full of useless information by his colleagues if it turned out he knew a lot about crop pests. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

i understand the concept of the phrase, and may have worded the question badly. I am asking is there actually any truly useless information. I may even be answering myself when i ask: does anyone NEED to know the sky is blue, for example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomath (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Very few people probably NEED to know why the sky is blue, but that doesn't mean there's no use for the information. There's a substantial difference between information that is necessary and information that is useful. Tomdobb (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes - exactly. This is a good case in point: Back when I was learning this stuff - I absolutely NEEDED to know why the sky is blue (and more interestingly - why it's not ALWAYS blue).  I'm a computer graphics guy and when rendering pictures of the sky (particularly near sunrise and sunset - and when doing bizarre things like viewing it in infra-red or when using night-vision devices) - you need to understand the underlying physics of raleigh scattering and mei scattering or you'll have a very hard time trying to make things look convincing.  SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends, the Useless Information Society of Great Britain (who publish The Book of Useless Information) define it as any interesting information that will not be used by the general community in an everyday situation - citing for example that Hull City was in 2002 the only team in the English league whose name couldn't be shaded in on a pools coupon whilst idly waiting for the results. Nanonic (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

very few is not the same as no-one, the hull city thing is possibly useless as i cannot envisage any situation where it is needed unless you were compiling a list of the useless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can't envisage such a situation, you need to work on improving your imagination. I myself have encountered that factoid as a quiz question on several occasions. Anything that improves your chances of free beer is certainly useful. Algebraist 14:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose there is information so trivial that it would never appear in any trivia quiz. For example, the name of the pet of a non-notable family, chosen at random.  I can't imagine that being of any use. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's certainly useful to some people, though not to most. Algebraist 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, then make the pet from 1000 years ago. That wouldn't be useful info to anyone still living. StuRat (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What if someone was researching pet-naming conventions of 1,000 years ago? To that person, it might be "useful information." Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. In my experience, this kind of trivial information about societies is something historians can't get enough of. Algebraist 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very little information gets passed down over a period of time such as 1,000 years. That alone magnifies the value of any little tidbit. Bus stop (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that some names of pets of nonnotable people who lived more than 1,000 years ago may indeed be useful information. Deor (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Using a staple proof from mathematics: Assume some information is strictly useless. That information would then be the perfect answer to this question, thus it would have a use. The contradiction indicates our assumption (that some information is strictly useless) must be false. So no information can be strictly useless in the sense that it would never be of any use. –  7 4   14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "People" being "full of useless information" is being used figuratively. In other words -- its meaning is not nailed down. Sure, there can be "proven" facts that are not of any use to anyone -- why not? Therefore there is such a thing as "useless information," that is, if that is your definition of useless information. As far as "what makes information useless," I think the questioner is defining that in his or her subsequent comments and questions. The questioner is defining "useless information" as that information that is "not of any use to anyone." My own personal definition of useless information, is information that can't be easily accessed when needed. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your definition confuses me busstop. perhaps useless information is information that is only useful in the context of knowing it for the sake of knowing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.138.179 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think knowing something for the sake of knowing it is very useful. You might disagree. I think any information is potentially useful. But I don't think we experience any incentive to store information that we perceive no use for -- potential or otherwise. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * People who say that someone is full of useless information typically mean that the information is useless to them. It's a pejorative, aimed at cutting down someone who is perceived to be better (or to believe they are better) than the speaker. I.e., "You may have three advanced degrees, but it's not like you really know anything useful." - EronTalk 15:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All information that's available has been recorded, somewhere, at some time. There must have been a reason to record it, otherwise it wouldn't have been recorded.  But sometimes, people take existing information and extrapolate other information from it.  For example, it's common for genealogists to connect living notable people with notable people from the past, such as discovering that GWB was the 17th cousin 9 times removed of Queen Elizabeth I (that's just made up).  That would interest some people, so it's useful for them.  But if they discovered that GWB was the 19th cousin 15 times removed of some utter nonentity in France in the 12th century, I can't imagine anyone having a use for that fact, by itself.  Unless it's to use that connection to trace him further back and discover he's related to Charlemagne, for example.  So, even then, that apparently useless information might prove to have that use.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More closely related than your guess. GWB is the Queen's 13th cousin only twice removed! Rmhermen (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From a lawyers' magazine a few years ago: A new lawyer opened a sole practice and had no clients whatsoever. So he placed his desk facing out the window, and recorded the number of cars going east and west on the street by his office every hour.(This was before the days of the internet, so he could not just websurf or edit Wikipedia to while away the hours). There was a traffic accident on the street, and he was called and paid as an expert witness on traffic density on that street. So you never can tell. Edison (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there is useless information. The location of each of the hydrogen atoms in the drop of beer that I just swallowed - to a precision of 1mm - at three minutes past midnight on April the 20th in the year 1234 BC.  That is useless.  Come on - I can come up with information so utterly trivial that of COURSE there is no use for it. SteveBaker (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it just coincidence that you chose Hitler's birthday, Steve? See, we trivia-adepts can find connections anywhere, and then use that information for ... whatever we use it for.  Some knowledge is useful simply to know it but not use it for some particular purpose. I have a lot of such information filed away.  I rarely share it with anyone, or even tell people I collect it.  I just like knowing it.  That's a use, because making Jack happy is a very valuable and noble thing.  A lot of pure mathematics has absolutely no known practical application.  Until such time as an application is discovered - which may be never in some cases - it's apparently useless except as something teachers of pure mathematics require their pupils to know.  And it also turns up in text books, thus creating employment for many people.  So it has a use after all.  The bottom line is: if something is known, some use for that knowledge, no matter how mind-bendingly arcane the use may be, can, or will eventually, be found. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with your analysis. You remember Hitler's birthday because you find it interesting and/or useful.  (And no - I didn't pick that date for any special reason).  You maybe have memorized dozens or even hundreds of birthdays - but I absolutely guarantee you've only memorized the birthdays of people who are notable in some way (or perhaps personal friends and relations of yours).  You haven't memorized the useless information of the birthday of the first hundred people who's biographies pop up when you keep hitting Wikipedia's "Random Page" - because even for a trivia pack-rat - some things are just TOO trivial.  If your point is that some information isn't useless - then of course I agree.  But that's not the question - the question is whether there is useless information - and you have utterly failed to demonstrate that.  What about the positions of those hydrogen atoms three millennia ago?   Assuming the information were available - would you even attempt to memorize it?   Would it ever be interesting?   Useful?   Hell no...and even if you did find one or two of those positions were interesting 'trivia' talking points - would you need to preserve millions of such positions?  Billions?   Trillions?   Of course not - because that information is useless. SteveBaker (talk)


 * But such information does NOT exist, and will almost certainly NEVER exist, so you're talking about hypotheticals. If someone did bother to spend the effort and time (not to mention money) to discover the exact positions of those molecules all those years ago, they'd be doing it for a REASON.  They couldn't do it on their own; they'd need to involve the assistance of others, who would need to be persuaded there's a glimmer of POINT in such an abstruse exercise.  The result they get would serve the PURPOSE of whatever that reason was. Not all information that could, hypothetically, exist, actually exists, so we should be talking about information that does actually exist.  Because, until it actually exists, it isn't information. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We could try and assess this philosophically here and start asking questions like what is usefuleness? What makes something useful? How can we define information in this case? If we say that if information has no use it is useless, then how to we define a "use"? What about unknown information? What about the different kinds of information? What if the information is useless in one form but useful in another, is it still considered useful?


 * There's also the linguistic assesment: something that is useful implies that it is first useable, so in other words only information that is useable can be useful. Therefore, if some information is not useable, it is not useful.


 * I also think usefulness is subjective - i.e. its usefulness is dependant on assumptions on other information. For example the information that "cows produce milk" is useful if we consider that "milk is a nutritious and viable food source", which is useful if we consider that "nutrition is important for longevity and survival", and so on. Without those other assumptions, the idea that cows produce milk is suddenly a lot less useful. Rfwoolf (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the attempt to prove that all numbers are "interesting". We agree that some numbers are "interesting" - PI, for example.  Perhaps nice round numbers in base 10 are interesting 1000 for example.  So let's separate out all of the numbers into interesting numbers and non-interesting numbers.  Now - the very first number on the "non-interesting" number list is "interesting" because it's "the first non-interesting number"...that's certainly an interesting property.  So we move it off the non-interesting list and put it onto the interesting list...now, there is a new "first uninteresting number"...and by this process we can make all numbers interesting.   Well, no - because if we move that first non-interesting numbers off of the non-interesting list - then it's not interesting anymore - so we have to move it back again.  Similar problems come about with "the 1000th uninteresting number".  We have to conclude that there is no clear test for "interestingness" with numbers - and the concept of "interestingness" must not be a simple binary thing.


 * I suspect we could construct a similar un-proof for 'usefulness' in facts. If trivia fanatics pay attention, they'll notice that the first "non-useful" fact is in fact extremely useful in answering the inevitable Trivial Pursuit question "What is the first non-useful fact?"...and off we go again.  So 'usefulness' is not a property that you can arbitarily determine - there must be a spectrum of usefulness - ranging from totally useless to utterly valuable.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to an individual that he, per doctor's orders, eats 35 grams of Cheerios for breakfast, but a log of the count of integral Cheerios eaten each day would likely be considered useless trivia. A log of the vehicle license plates seen while driving each day would likely be seen as trivial. Would the information ever be useful to anyone? Edison (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You might enjoy the story "The Sixth Sally" from Stanislaw Lem's The Cyberiad. An excerpt is here:. It's worth finding the book and reading the whole story. It is marvelous. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's very apropos. (I love that book BTW - definitely in the top 10 list of my all-time favorites). SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PRO: Maybe Tautologies are useless? An information like "Today is Tuesday or today is not Tuesday" is pretty useless. Also doubled information in the same context might be useless, too: "The empty bottle has nothing in it.". CON: My first example is useful as an example for a Tautology. My second example might be useful in Lyrics to express something emotional... CONCLUSION: I think pretty much everything _can_ be used for _something_. Even random Data is of use in Computing for example. But would you call such information, that is of very limited use, "useful"? I wouldn't. --84.57.232.87 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, one example of a tautology is useful - what about a million examples of tautologies though?  There comes a point where further such examples become useless simply because of the vast numbers of them.  You can use that sort of defense to justify the value of a few hundred otherwise useless facts - but there are an infinite number of them - and there must come a point at which their utility falls to zero. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Off tangent, but regarding HS as a container for genetic information (and cognitive data):
 * "Sure, one example of a homo sapiens is useful - what about a billion examples of homines sapientes though? There comes a point where further such individuals become useless simply because of the vast numbers of them." Of course, I am quoting SB and, of course, you may replace "tautologies" with "planets" or "galaxies".  Depending on who you are (homo sapiens) or where you live (planets / galaxies) this one additional unit may make a difference.
 * Actually, in intermittent and increasingly rare sane moments I doubt if the undersigned additional unit to the humanoid database made any difference... --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's all completely subjective, of course. Pick up a random stone from the street. Nothing special about it, it's just a stone. Ask the first million people you come across if they want it, and they all say "Thanks, but I have no use for it". It seems pretty clear that it's useless. But ask the 1,000,001st person, and they might say "Ah, that's exactly what I've been looking for". So, a use for it has been found. Thus, it has a use. Same with apparently useless information. It may not interest the vast majority, but someone, somewhere, will want to use it, somehow. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer to this question is simple, it's UNKNOWN. To scientifically know if there is useless information, you'll have to gather all the information that exists in the universe, even those that are not written but that exist in the mind of people. Then you'll have to go ask each person in the universe whether each of these information is useless to them or not. If one of all these information is useless to ALL people in the universe, then bingo, the answer to this question is yes, there is useless information. However, this is a Herculean task that is probably impossible to be accomplished. Also, the answer will vary as it can be a 'yes' today and a 'no' tommorow as people are constantly dying and being born, and information are constanly being discovered and lost all the time (for instance, if an information exists only in the mind of a person, and that person die, the information is lost and no more exists, but may be rediscovered by someone else later). Since that question is unanswerable, I would have said it's useless to continue this exaustive but interesting discussion, but then I realise that this question is self-defeating since any useless information that exists, is no more useless as it serves to answer this question itself, meaning the previously useless information is now useful in answering this question. But then, what's the point of the answer to this question? It serves to satisfy the curiosity of the OP. It also helps to make an unknown unknown to become a known unknown (remember the Donald Rumsfeld's quote) for some people. Hence, any useless information is now no more useless, isn't it? --199.198.223.106 (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally discourages trivia, we do exhibit random and unnesecary information on the main page every six hours: Did you know?. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how useless any information might seem to you or me, the Brainspawn need it for their Infosphere. Deor (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)