Talk:Amazon Kindle

Table to replace infobox

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

Model	Operating System	Power	CPU	Memory	Storage	Display	Dimensions	Weight
Kindle Original	1.2	1540mAh, 3.7V	Marvell Xscale PXA255 400 MHz, ARMv5	64MB	256/180MB	6 in (152 mm) diagonal, 167 PPI density, 4-level grayscale	8.0 in (203 mm) H 5.3 in (135 mm) W 0.8 in (20 mm) D	10.2 oz (290 g)
Kindle 2	2.5.8		Freescale i.MX31 532 MHz, ARM11	32MB	2/1.4GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	8.0 in (203 mm) H 5.3 in (135 mm) W 0.36 in (9 mm) D	10.2 oz (290 g)
Kindle 3	3.4	1750mAh 3.7V	Freescale i.MX35 532 MHz, ARM11	256MB	4/3GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	7.5 in (191 mm) H 4.8 in (122 mm) W 0.34 in (9 mm) D	8.7 oz (247 g) (3G)/8.5 oz (241 g) (WiFi)
Kindle 4	4.1.1	3.7 V, 890 mAh	Freescale i.MX50 800 MHz	256MB	2/1.25GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	6.5 in (165 mm) H 4.5 in (114 mm) W 0.34 in (9 mm) D	5.98 oz (170 g)
Kindle 5		3.7 V, 890 mAh	Freescale i.MX50 800 MHz	256MB	2/1.25GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	6.5 in (165 mm) H 4.5 in (114 mm) W 0.34 in (9 mm) D	5.98 oz (170 g)
Kindle 6					4/3GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	6.7 in (170 mm) H 4.8 in (122 mm) W 0.40 in (10 mm) D	6.7 oz (191 g)
Kindle DX	2.5.8			128MB	4/3.3GB	9.7 in (246 mm) diagonal, 824 × 1200 pixels (0.99 megapixels), 150 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	10.4 in (264 mm) H 7.2 in (183 mm) W 0.38 in (10 mm) D	18.9 oz (540 g)
Kindle Touch	5.3.7.2	3.7V 1420mAh	Freescale i.MX50 800 MHz	256MB	4/3GB	6 in diagonal, 600 × 800 pixels (0.48 megapixels), 167 PPI density, 16-level grayscale	6.8 in (173 mm) H 4.7 in (119 mm) W 0.40 in (10 mm) D	7.8 oz (220 g) (3G)/7.5 oz (213 g) (WiFi)
Kindle Paperwhite	5.4.4.2	3.7V, 1470mAh	Freescale i.MX50 800 MHz	256MB	2/1.25GB	6 in diagonal, 768 × 1024 pixels (0.78 megapixels), 212 PPI density, 16-level grayscale, LED frontlit	6.7 in (170 mm) H 4.6 in (117 mm) W 0.36 in (9 mm) D	7.8 oz (222 g) (3G)/7.5 oz (213 g) (WiFi)
Kindle Paperwhite 2	5.4.5.1	3.7V, 1470mAh	1GHz				6.7 in (170 mm) H 4.6 in (117 mm) W 0.36 in (9 mm) D	7.6 oz (215 g) (3G)/7.3 oz (206 g) (WiFi)
Kindle Voyage					4/3GB	6 in diagonal, 300 PPI density, 16-level grayscale, LED frontlit	6.4 in (163 mm) H 4.5 in (114 mm) W 0.30 in (8 mm) D	6.6 oz (188 g) (3G)/6.3 oz (180 g) (WiFi)

130.102.158.22 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

obscure criticism?

Why is this note about "Linn Nygaard, an IT consultant living in Norway" included in the criticism? This is surely just a one-off individual trivium? This kind of thing devalues WikiP and should be deleted. No?

The matter serves as a reminder to Kindle users that even though you click buy, you only hold a license to view ebooks that can be revoked by Amazon anytime for violating the Terms of Service. Frmorrison (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Aftermarket section

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

Thanks for the comment. I removed the first two paragraphs. I think the title is fine. Frmorrison (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Browser unable to establish secure connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone here who has read the forum have any doubts as to whether there was a problem with the Kindle?

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

In any case the actual rule, see ..., is 'Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable', not that they are never acceptable.

Did you read the examples of when they are acceptable? Taking a cue from when blogs are acceptable an internet forum would be acceptable if it is populated by reliable sources discussing the area of expertise that makes them reliable sources in the first place.

I'd just like to add that I (personally) find it absurd to describe reading the article and deciding that the fact these people are all claiming they can no longer access Facebook probably means that people actually could not access Facebook as 'original research'.

That's not exactly what I said. The original research is determining that the complaints are significant enough to include in Wikipedia.

Things are a little circular here. Saying this is OR depends on asserting that the content is not reliable, and it is not reliable because generally statements in fora are not reliable.

This is not circular. I am claiming that what you are doing is OR because you are not a reliable source working in the field that establishes that you are a reliable source. This is the Wikipedia definition of what is original research and what a reliable source is. That particular forum is not considered a reliable source in this instance because it is an internet forum -- again, by Wikipedia definition.

You have to think a little to decide, and that makes it OR, even though anyone who thinks about it would decide the same.

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

I have edited this article a lot, so I want to be sure there is no OR in it. The source quoted is a forum, not an independent news source so it can be considered OR. Also, the issue with Facebook access was only with the nearly five-year-old Kindle Keyboard and only for three months. I believe there are hardly people still using the Keyboard that also use its browser to look at Facebook. It loads slowly and can crash the browser because of the small amount of memory, so it is a poor experience. Frmorrison (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not just the keyboard version that had the experimental browser -- for example the Kindle 5, 'announced by Amazon on September 6, 2012', as the article says, which I have, has the problem also. Amazon must have thought the issue serious enough that they updated the software for it (eventually).

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

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

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

Article picture

This article's picture is of a Kindle Keyboard. I'm thinking it's about time to change that, since that model has been discontinued. A picture of a Kindle Paperwhite would probably be best, since it's Amazon's best-selling and arguably most iconic current Kindle, although a Kindle Voyage or a regular Kindle would be fine as well. --Spug (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the Keyboard's appearance when compared to the newer Kindles. However, if you think one of the newer models should be in the infobox instead there are images of the newer Kindles in the article that can be copied. --Frmorrison (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I do too, but I think the picture in the infobox should be of a current model and not a discontinued one. I'll swap it out for one of the Paperwhite images. --Spug (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)