Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Offers a Book Creator

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the select-all-then-print dept.

Wikipedia 89

Kilrah_il writes "Wikipedia recently added an option to create a book from your chosen entries: 'That's it, the book creator has gone live in the English Wikipedia! A few hours ago, the book creator has been made available to all users of the English Wikipedia. This feature, which allows all readers to create books from Wikipedia articles, has been until now only available to logged-in users. It has been available in other Wikipedias for a longer time, it's now available on the English Wikipedia, for all, without restrictions.' You can either download the book in PDF format for free or have it printed and sent to you via PediaPress with 10% of the total going to the Wikimedia Foundation."

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

DON'T PANIC (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32136730)

It was inevitable.

Re:DON'T PANIC (0, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137722)

It was inevitable.

What is this "book" they speak of? Is that the old thing where each page is printed on one side of its own sheet of paper? What an enormous waste.

I think I've got one holding the basement window open.

Re:DON'T PANIC (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137726)

It was inevitable.

What is this "book" they speak of?

Is that the smelly old thing where each page is printed on one side of its own sheet of paper and then stuck together with glue from horse hoofs?

I've got one holding open the basement window.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32136768)

Who'd want a Wikipedia book if it doesn't contain porn?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136912)

(all contains graphic images)
Not porn, but close enough
Page 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina [wikipedia.org]
Page 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_anus [wikipedia.org]
Page 3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hentai [wikipedia.org]
Page 4:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137112)

Well thanks for that, now we have another topic going on about Wikipedia being sexist ;-)

Why is only the female genitals "depilated" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_anus [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32139142)

wax your asshole and take a picture.

Re:Why? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32139828)

Dear Larry Bagina, you wrote:

> wax your asshole and take a picture.

So it would more like the one in the bagina picture on wikipedia ? ;-)

Re:Why? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137162)

This whole thing is kind of ridiculous. I remember as a kid looking at images in women underwear catalogs and in anatomy books at the school library and things were much more restrictive back then. Note that this was before ARPANET (~1971).

So, should Wikipedia be more restrictive than those library school books from back then ?

Granted, Wikipedia might cover topics not covered in my early day school books but either censor the topic entirely or let it be documented like any other topic.

Re:Why? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137464)

"...images in women underwear catalogs..."

The word you're looking for is "Christian Porn"

PDF Books (1)

Bman21212 (1067680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136770)

PDF books would be very useful. I could "print" them and put them on my phone for offline viewing, since I don't have a data plan. I'm not sure the point of books though, it seems to usually be cheaper to print it out yourself, though maybe a math reference book to always carry around might be useful.

Re:PDF Books (2, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136898)

Exactly what I thought.
There are a number of Wikipedia pages I reference a lot while working. Having them printed would be more convenient.
It would be nice if you had expert-compiled article lists on specific topics, to make it easier to compile such a book.

Re:PDF Books (4, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137114)

I can see it now...

To complete the circuit, the next (and most important) step is KYLE STANLEY RULES JIM O'TOOLE IS A COCKSUCKER or else the entire unit will overlord and likely start an electrical fire.

Re:PDF Books (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138246)

...or else the entire unit will overlord...

Well, I for one most certainly welcome... Nah. Not going there.

Re:PDF Books (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137402)

What if the experts not only compiled the articles, but wrote them? Imagine some sort of multi-volume book filled with nothing but overview articles of various subjects, written by people who were experts in those subjects...

Non-free (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137560)

If you're referring to traditional encyclopedias, they exist, but they're not free [freedomdefined.org] .

Re:Non-free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137780)

And they are not any more accurate, so they point is lost. http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

Re:Non-free (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137810)

Citizendium follows that model and is free, but has a lot less content than Wikipedia.

Re:Non-free (0, Offtopic)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138048)

True, but mostly I was hoping for a +1, Funny moderation. I've been told that once I hit 1,000 "funny" mods I'm allowed to retire.

Re:PDF Books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32138990)

See Featured topics [wikipedia.org] and Good topics [wikipedia.org] . These are lists of good articles which have been verified by the community as comprehensive and pertaining to a well-defined topic. (The featured/good topic initiative actually had nothing to do with books originally, but now every single one of these topics includes a working "book" link).

If your favorite topic is not yet in the list, feel free to help! [wikipedia.org]

Now all we need is an implementation of the "flagged revisions" extension, so that the article revisions which end up in a printed book can be guaranteed to be OK at all times. Sadly, it's not rare for a formerly featured/good article to degrade in quality as it is edited.

Re:PDF Books (0, Redundant)

Kashell (896893) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136922)

Funny, I was looking at wikipedia on my iPad. It's a pretty awesome form factor, and there's nothing else required.

Re:PDF Books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137002)

Yeah, real awesome form factor right there. Since nothing else is required, I'll just leave my phone at home and shove an iPad in my jeans pocket.

Besides, any decent smartphone (by decent I mean VGA or better screen and real web browser) can also deal with Wikipedia with "nothing else required", if you have a data plan. Since GP doesn't have one for his phone, I doubt he'd want one for a netbook or tablet, either.

In short, while your iPad is a perfectly decent way of browsing wikipedia for some people in some situations, it seems completely irrelevant to GP's situation.

Re:PDF Books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137386)

Funny, I was looking at wikipedia on my iPad. It's a pretty awesome form factor, and there's nothing else required.

Hey there, Apple fanboy! Do you ever wonder why people deride you just because you like apple products?

It's comments like this that make you and other apple fans (by association) look like a complete douches, not because you like some product.

Re:PDF Books (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137442)

I'm kind of suprised the only options available are PDF and ODT... would have been nice to see MOBI or EPUB formats, too, to make this more appealing to ebook users. Of course it's not hard to convert them yourself, just adds an extra step, and I'm not sure how well formatting will be preserved.

Re:PDF Books (1)

Civil_Disobedient (261825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32139396)

Maybe if you'd bought an e-book reader that supported PDF or ODT you wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

Oh snap! You told me! (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32139956)

Oh Snap! You told me!

I have an ebook reader that supports PDFs, it's just that PDFs make crappy ebooks.

Maybe there's some ebook reader that supports ODT, but I haven't heard of it. ODT isn't even on this table [wikipedia.org] that describes file format support of various ebook readers.

Epub, on the other hand, is a free and open standard. In any case, people interested in this topic should look into calibre, [calibre-ebook.com] a cross-platform, open-source program that can convert practically anything to any ebook format (this would include, for example, ODT to EPUB or MOBI).

Re:PDF Books (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137472)

"it seems to usually be cheaper to print it out yourself"

It's not the printing that sucks, it's the binding.

This could be handy while travelling (3, Interesting)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136776)

Should be a good way to kill 3 hours on a plane, don't you think? Just need some sort of script where all articles linked from some random topic up to a set depth (let's say 6, for traditional sake) are downloaded into the PDF.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32136872)

6 might be a tad high.

Say each article links to 10 other articles, and for simplicity we'll assume there are no circular link cycles (a very big assumption, but I reduced the expected number of links to help accommodate this).

Then a depth of 6 means that you'll end up with 10^6 or a million articles, almost a third of the English wikipedia...

Though you could probably develop a heuristic to reduce that a huge amount.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (4, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137120)

You could just filter out the Dragonball Z articles, and then that cuts the total down to around 250,000.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32139502)

You had a great opportunity for a compound joke and you missed it!

You could just filter out the Dragonball Z articles, and then that cuts the total down by over 9,000.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32146758)

Waste of time. You could easily kill 3 hours on a plane with an actual book. Some of them are even fun to read.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137026)

The "Add Whole Categories" feature might be a better way to go.

Slightly OT: knew these people who owned a second hand book shop. One day this guy turns up in a Mercedes convertible. He is outfitting a new holiday house with impressive books and can they help him out? Of course they said yes, to the tune of thousands of dollars.

So I wonder if there is a niche for printing and binding mass quantities of the wikipedia so you can line a wall.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137068)

That's kind of sad...:(

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137314)

The book shop owners retired right after that so I am sure they were happy.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137888)

There are actually companies that exist solely to satisfy that niche. You can buy small sets of impressive-looking books for a bit of small shelf space, an entire library, or anything in between. They print public domain books in impressive bindings - basically an upmarket version of Penguin Classics.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138502)

So I wonder if there is a niche for printing and binding mass quantities of the wikipedia so you can line a wall.

Probably not. The folks who want a wall of 'impressive' books want hardbacks, leathers, fashionable/notable authors &/or titles, etc..., etc...

Not cheap paperbacks.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137262)

Should be a good way to kill 3 hours on a plane, don't you think?

Good? I'd say it's excellent.

The other alternatives were peeling my skin off with tweezers and eating my shoes, right?

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137606)

The other alternatives were peeling my skin off with tweezers and eating my shoes, right?

Nah, you're not allowed to have tweezers. Someone might take apart a plane with 'em.

Re:This could be handy while travelling (1)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137958)

You're not allowed to try to eat your own shoes, either - you might be the next shoe bomber!

PediaPress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32136790)

With a name like that you have to wonder what kinds of content they're publishing....

Re:PediaPress? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137010)

With a name like that you have to wonder what kinds of content they're publishing....

You haven't seen the book creator for 4chan yet?

Hasn't this been done before? (3, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136860)

Wikipedia is just following in the footsteps of Alphascript [amazon.com]

Re:Hasn't this been done before? (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136930)

Has this been done before? From the "samplebook.pdf" (page 6) provided:

[citation needed]

I'd say it's never been done, at least not in any of the books I've owned. ;-)

link (4, Informative)

dnwq (910646) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136862)

the book creator [wikipedia.org] .

the Wikimedia press release [wikimediafoundation.org]

(note the date - yes, december 2007!)

Re:link (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137080)

Yes, December 2007, but then it was a first public beta, for registered users only. According TFA, now it's out of beta and open to all.

Re:link (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137240)

So, are there any interesting books already made? It may be a good idea if people start sharing pre-made books with coherent chapters.

Also, I always wondered how difficult could it be to get an article wiki source, translate it to Latex and compile it into a PDF... If someone made a program that performed the 3 steps it would be easy to create a book from any wiki article in any language. Is there anything like that?

Re:link (1)

elgaard (81259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32150904)

Well it is not that hard to translate normal wiki markup to Latex. Parsewiki is old but does the trick.
http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~villate/parsewiki/README.html [fe.up.pt]

The problem is that Mediawiki has a lot of templates, tables, tags, special pages, permitted HTML, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wiki_markup [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_in_wikitext [wikipedia.org]

I once tried to do it for Wikitravel but end up going via HTML.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32138806)

I can now carry around all the mis-information, politically slanted articles, and a lot of just plain bullshit with me in convenient book form!

But what about the links! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32136882)

Half the fun of wikipedia is jumping from hyperlink to hyperlink going from ketchup to quantum physics. Losing the functionality makes it feel...not so wikipedia anymore.

WHY ARE WE MOVING BACKWARDS WITH OUR MEDIA? FUCK, WE MADE E-MAIL AND TEXT MESSAGING AFTER THE TELEPHONE WHAT THE HELL?

Re:But what about the links! (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136998)

Besides your annoying drunken all-caps, you raise a good point:

Wikipedia and Google are implicitly dependent on each other. Google something you don't know about and the wikipedia article is always in the top 3. Become engorged in the Wikipedia article, drift, and your trail of links represents your stream of consciousness -- your thought processes, which are a lot easier to quantifiy(and exploit) when you stay in the Wikipedia instead of jumping from site-to-site.

Putting on the tinfoil hat, that's probably the reason why Wikipedia dosen't charge for the "free" PDFs as passes off the printed versions as an Ubuntu-style charity.

Re:But what about the links! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137282)

Well, both the software and the data are openly licensed, so you can just download the whole set and browse locally.

Re:But what about the links! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32138020)

Because just like email and telephone are very different (each better than the other in specific circumstances), WEB AND BOOKS ARE DIFFERENT FORMS OF MEDIA ISNT THIS OBVIOUS?

Ooh, ooh! (0, Redundant)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136926)

I'm gonna make ones of all the porn articles! No problem with that, right?

Re:Ooh, ooh! (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137094)

yes, you could. If you like.

But i suggest you to visit a porn website instead. It is as easy as visiting wikipedia. BTW you need to install a PDF creator extension on your PC which is as smallas 2Mb.

Re:Ooh, ooh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137508)

The books are printed in Germany, and according to the FAQ there are restrictions on the printing of porn.

Re:Ooh, ooh! (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137636)

Exactly!

I have absolutely no use for this service... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32136988)

But I'll defend to minor inconvenience their right to offer it.

Pointless (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137044)

Before you had to have a valid e-mail address to use this feature. Now you don't?

Nice (1)

nephridium (928664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137074)

With the current proliferation of handheld computers (i.e. book replacements) this comes in real handy. I kept most of my books already as PDFs on my tablet. For webpages where previously I usually kept the Firefox tabs open with interesting Wikipedia articles (e.g. to read later during a flight) I can now save them (without worrying about thousands of little files clogging up my harddrive), which simplifies things quite a bit.

Another advantage is that you instantly know how it will look like when printed. Not to mention that PDF is an open standard, so there are free tools (at least on Linux) that let you easily add images/pages or otherwise modify it any way you like.

The whole point of IT is making information accessible, this is another step in the right direction.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137212)

Rather than dick around with PDF editors, if you want to add to or modify anything you can click the edit button on any Wikipedia page.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137390)

But they'd revert it before you know. No, this way you can make your own improved version of the articles, e. g. a porn book containing all the porn articles from wikipedia INCLUDING many, many illustrative pictures, all in a nice easy to handle PDF.

Ob (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137138)

It has been available in other Wikipedias for a longer time, it's now available on the English Wikipedia, for all, without restrictions.'

Run-on sentences at no extra charge, what happens if somebody writes "cuntbugger" in all the articles just before you print it?

Re:Ob (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137192)

You wear out the 'u' and 'g' letters on your daisywheel printer?

Re:Just before you print it. (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#32147598)

I know this one!

"By sending benign text to your proposed ebook and then replacing it at the last minute, someone can exploit your creation!"

PediaPress (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137156)

I am the only one that thinks the PediaPress name is unfortunate and am I the only one that misread it at first?

Re:PediaPress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32139322)

Yes.

Previous Slashdot article (2, Informative)

alanw (1822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137176)

A month ago is was mentioned here that parasites were advertising on Amazon print-on-demand articles from Wikipedia

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/2112203/Print-On-Demand-Publisher-VDM-Infects-Amazon [slashdot.org]

Re:Previous Slashdot article (2, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138670)

A month ago is was mentioned here that parasites were advertising on Amazon print-on-demand articles from Wikipedia

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/04/03/2112203/Print-On-Demand-Publisher-VDM-Infects-Amazon [slashdot.org]

Oh, now you're being unfair. Surely a book called "Vreni Schneider: Annemarie Moser-Pröll, FIS Alpine Ski World Cup, Winter Olympic Games, Slalom Skiing, Giant Slalom Skiing, Half Man Half Biscuit." couldn't be all bad, could it?

Books (1)

anarche (1525323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137178)

hmmmm, books hey?

So what do you guys think, are these "books" gonna be the next big thing? should I put my money into some form of book-com

Already done (4, Interesting)

identity0 (77976) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137228)

Sadly, this is already being done as fraud by These guys [amazon.com] , who have over 39,000 separate titles printed, all apparently just wikipedia articles bound with stock photos. It seems to be done by machine, given the amount of books and the odd titles and stock photos.

And they're selling them for over $50 each, with no notice that they are just wikipedia articles!! I only noticed because I was searching for books on an obscure topic and found multiple books by this "author".

tl;dr: DO NOT BUY BOOKS FROM Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster

Re:Already done (1)

dr_canak (593415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137592)

I'm not necessarily condoning their business model,

But in two of the first four links from what you posted, there is a direct mention in the "Editorial Reviews" specifically stating that the content is from Wikipedia articles. Of course, the value of this "disclaimer" is predicated on the purchaser seeing that and still making a choice to purchase one of these titles, which may or may not be happening. And it doesn't appear to be there for all titles. But it is there for some.

jeff

Re:Already done (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137698)

DO NOT BUY BOOKS FROM Frederic P. Miller, Agnes F. Vandome, and John McBrewster

What about Art Vandalay? Are his books OK?

Re:Already done (1)

jonnat (1168035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138804)

Although questionable, what they are doing seems not to be fraud if they inform the buyers that they are editors compiling Wikipedia articles.

From Wikipedia:
"All text in Wikipedia was covered by GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a copyleft license permitting the redistribution, creation of derivative works, and commercial use of content while authors retain copyright of their work, up until June 2009, when the site switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-by-SA) 3.0."

It appears to be just like burning Linux copies into CDs and selling them for outrageous prices, something you can legally do without problems.

Writing a paper for school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137338)

I wish I was still in school. This would be perfect when the teacher demands that I need to cite X "non-internet" sources.

Re:Writing a paper for school (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137570)

This would be perfect when the teacher demands that I need to cite X "non-internet" sources.

If you need reliable sources, that's what each article's "References" section is for.

no epub? (2, Insightful)

cas2000 (148703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137624)

PDF is crap for ebook readers. why not epub?

Wikipedia should publish to iTunes, iBook (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137790)

Wikipedia should make books on specific subjects, with an editor who knows the area, and then sell them on iTunes or iBook. The money would be a good way to support Wikipedia and their might be enough to even hire an expert to contribute to that subject or edit it.

Re:Wikipedia should publish to iTunes, iBook (1)

jonnat (1168035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138976)

Good point! Because that's exactly what Wikipedia has been waiting for an opportunity to do: get their hands on some money so they can completely subvert their creation system and ultimately prove that their model is flawed, or at least limited.

Joking aside, people have to start understanding that the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is not a transition phase to success that will allow them to morph into a traditional publisher. It is the core of Wikipedia and, frankly, I'm one who believes they've gone beyond proving that their system is much more effective than having hired experts as content creators.

The fascinating issue is that the Wikipedia model is still so counter intuitive to so many people. For a nice analysis of the topic and a parallel to Darwinian Evolution and prediction markets, see this article:
http://karmatics.com/docs/evolution-and-wisdom-of-crowds.html [karmatics.com]

Re:Wikipedia should publish to iTunes, iBook (1)

mattr (78516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254422)

Hello, thank you for the reply. I looked at the link. Yes, I'm familiar with the idea however when Wikipedia assembles a subject area into a book you get somewhat less than Wales' "sausage". Whereas evolution might work in a single page, evolution does not seem to replace an editor who can bring together multiple pages to make an understandable book. Perhaps there are not enough people willing to do it or who yet see the issue, and possibly they will appear once it becomes a more obvious problem.

Algorithms, algorithms, algorithms! (1)

gwappo (612511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32137808)

Could someone make an algorithm book please and then share with the rest of us?

Just grab the Algorithm category and all its subcategories - unfortunately it does not recursively descent to grab all pages by itself nor does it categorize into chapters so this will be a bit of work:-(

When done, please share and post a PDF here, or if possible (even better) share the book so it can be printed and wikipedia can get its dues!

Thanks!

Re:Algorithms, algorithms, algorithms! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32138428)

Is your Google broken?

More books [freebookcentre.net] than you can read about algorithms.

Re:Algorithms, algorithms, algorithms! (1)

gwappo (612511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32139576)

You do realise that wikipedia is a very complete collection of algorithms? Show me eg. Tarjan's strongly connected components algorithm in your freebookcentre - infact, clicking a few links, show me a book in your freebookcentre!

For ****'s sake (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32137892)

The contents page in the .pdf does not even have clickable pdf-links. What irony.

A great opportunity (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138040)

Well, my Christmas and birthday present shopping just got a whole lot easier. I can give everyone I know a customized encyclopedia about where they're from, their ancestry, their interests, etc.

Wikitravel does something similar (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32138196)

Periodically they take a snapshot of content from their site, on a particular region, clean it up, and then make a book.

Then customers can buy the book (getting both printed and eBook) and take it with them on their trip.

I would be interested in something similar from Wikipedia. For those of us who like to read non-fiction, a book of Wikipedia content (edited and cleaned up) would be worth something.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32138450)

so i can backup interesting articles before wikipedia deletes them as "not noteworthy"?

this is outsourcing to the media wikipedia wanted to obsolete..

Textbooks? (1)

Slur (61510) | more than 4 years ago | (#32142922)

Ha! Now we can just make our own school textbooks on any subject we want. Take that Texas school board!

Sounds useful (1)

SandwichINK (1807500) | more than 4 years ago | (#32143938)

Sounds like a useful tool for teachers and homeschoolers. Not to useful for most school kids though. I know my grandchildren's school won't let them use Wikipedia for resources for their papers. :)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>