Jump to content

Talk:Anna's Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Another source

[edit]

tarnkappe.info/artikel/e-books/z-library-annas-archive-macht-schattenbibliothek-durchsuchbar-259286.html - tarnkappe.info has a page on German Wikipedia - de:tarnkappe.info VintageVernacular (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at 20 November by Drbogdan – reported by 83.28.217.24 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Possibly relevant (and useful?) reference from Gigazine News (10 October 2023)[1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at 10 January by Drbogdan – reported by 83.28.217.24 (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff (10 October 2023). "Pirated search engine 'Anna's Archive' acquires data from the world's largest library catalog, aiming to 'preserve all the books in the world'". Gigazine News. Archived from the original on 10 January 2024. Retrieved 10 January 2024.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anna's Archive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BruschettaFan (talk · contribs) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kovcszaln6 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I will be reviewing this article within the next few days. This is my first time reviewing a GAN, so please excuse my mistakes. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) an injunction to curtail the site's operations One might interpret this as an injunction against the operation of the entire site (not just the scraping of WorldCat), however, the injunction is only against the scraping of WorldCat.
    Fixed. BruschettaFan (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No issues found here. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Passed. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The article uses the word "censorship", however, the sources do not seem to explicitly state this.
    I thought that internet censorship ("the legal control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet") was an appropriate page to link to with regards to the site being blocked in various countries. The only similar page I can find is internet filter, but that isn't explicitly referenced in the sources either. Is there another wording you would prefer? BruschettaFan (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest "blocked". Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "government blocks". BruschettaFan (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    		 Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Nothing found. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) No issues here. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) No problems here. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    See 2(c). Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    No signs of edit warring. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No issues here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) They're good. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass The article passed. Thank you for your work and cooperation.

Discussion

[edit]

Potential book source

[edit]

Noting this for future reference - the German "Lexikon der Informatik, Datenverarbeitung und Kryptographie (HC)" has an entry on AA on pg. 33-34. I'm not sure whether it would be worth citing because it doesn't mention anything not covered here but it could demonstrate notability. BruschettaFan (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 11:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by BruschettaFan (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

BruschettaFan (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - For Hook 1; by naming illegal in the hook it makes it no wonder that it is blocked. IMHO, you should go for Anna's Archive search engine. Hook 2 IMHO doesn't look interesting, as AI models are trained with all the internet (copyrighted or not).
  • Other problems: No - I think the title of the article should appear in the hook.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: C messier (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about ALT2: ... that the search engine Anna's Archive has been blocked in several countries for copyright infringement? BruschettaFan (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was think more of twinking a bit the main hook; that the search engine Anna's Archive for books and scholarly articles has been blocked in some countries? C messier (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option ALT3: ... that the illegal search engine Anna's Archive has said it aims to "catalog all the books in existence"? (from https://www.laweekly.com/free-z-library-e-book-download-search-engine-annas-archive-launches-amid-arrests)
ALT3 Hook looks good to go. C messier (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C messier and BruschettaFan: Where is ALT3 written and cited in the article? Also, does ALT3 need quotation marks? Rjjiii (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii: Written in the lead section - it's a direct quote from the LA Weekly article linked above. BruschettaFan (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Characterization of Books3 may be incorrect

[edit]

It seems like this Ars Technica article is wrong to say that Anna's Archive was part of Books3 -- other reporting describes Books3 as simply derived from Bibliotik, and to the best of my knowledge, Anna's Archive was only named in the legal proceedings as an example of a "shadow library". Is it still worth mentioning that Nvidia explicitly defended Anna's Archive alongside other shadow libraries or should the section be removed altogether? BruschettaFan (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Anna's Archive

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


Listed for peer review because I'm considering attempting to bring it to FAC (first time!). I'm fairly confident in the sourcing and comprehensiveness but feedback on organization, prose etc. would be especially appreciated.

Thanks, BruschettaFan (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

The hot topic these days is sourcing so (despite the request to concentrate on the prose), I'll mostly stick to sourcing. Since this will be your first FAC, starting here at PR was a good move, and I recommend that after this you move onto WP:GAN to get another round of review.

  • TorrentFreak is a blog, and thus unlikely to be accepted as a WP:RS. You've used them for almost half of your citations. I'm afraid that's going to exceptionally hard to sell at WP:FAC.
  • It's not clear to me where TNW falls. I see [Next Web for ProProfs] which is mostly positive, but I suspect you will still get some pushback at FAC about the quality of that source.
  • London Review of Books appears to be a WP:RS in general, but you are using something from a blog they run, so that's probably not a RS.
  • Per WP:VICE, There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. Not encouraging.
  • I don't have a good feel for walledculture.org, but my first impression is that it's more of a blog than a RS.

Well, those are the sourcing problems that stand out to me on a quick look. Overall, the elphant in the room is TorrentFreak. I just don't see any way that's going to be accepted as a WP:RS at FAC, and given that so much of your article is sourced to them, unfortunately I think you've got your work cut out for you to find better sourcing. RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Walled Culture source was also republished on Techdirt (a blog, but apparently a fairly well-respected one for tech news) and the author seems independently credible as a tech writer. If citing TorrentFreak is an issue I don't think there's really any acceptable replacement because there's no other source with an equivalent breadth of coverage. Most of the information they have isn't available anywhere else. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per perennial sources "most editors consider TorrentFreak generally reliable on topics involving file sharing". In general this is a fairly niche topic without much coverage so TorrentFreak can't be removed without excising most of the article. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the various RSN discussions, I come away with the impression that it's a bit of a grey area. I do note that this thread says "There shouldn't be a problem with using articles from TorrentFreak on a limited basis and with limited weight". You are using them as the (by far) most used source in your article. I really think you're going to have a lot of trouble with this at FAC. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in that case FA might be infeasible, at least until better sources are available. Thank you for your help! BruschettaFan (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anna%27s_Archive&oldid=1301024064"