This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Library Genesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
While Wikipedia policy is clear on not linking to specific copyrighted materials on sites that lack permission to host them, linking to the parent site is not necessarily so clear. We can generally link to the parent site for archived material, but not to individual works. This site isn't exactly an archive site and has seen trouble, but I'm not convinced it warrants total removal. An IP has removed all of the links, claiming copyvio - this isn't necessarily policy. I don't see a clear case for removal. See WP:COPYLINK. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Why mentioning libgen.is as the website url? Libgen is a website that has many different urls. It changes with time and you may or may not be able to access from a country or another. To circumvent that issue, I propose to add a link to this non-profit who does the job of collecting those urls and showing its status depending on your location: http://vertsluisants.fr/index.php?article4/where-scihub-libgen-server-down If someone disagrees, please explain why.Adrien Chopin (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The site is associated with some strange people, because it restricts the use of all languages except Russian and English British. In addition, the site can be found in the literature of many publishers, and this literature is foolishly pseudo-historical in nature. The authors of these publications indicate nonexistent people.That is, the publication of books along with real authors of clearly composed authors is necessary for them to link to some supposed real publishers.For example, there is more than a strange book called "Another Europe: Avars, Bolgars ..." The authors indicated some KOVALEV and ATTIL TURK. Such authors in the scientific world are not known to anyone and here it is clear to cling to the history of the Avar Kaganate, whose forced population was mostly Proto-Bulgarians. And why should Proto-Bulgarians be mentioned together with the Avars? The Avars of Europe have their own history in which the proto-Bulgarians played a treacherous role, as they contributed to the defeat and collapse of the Avar Kaganate. There is an obvious desire for pan-Turkic preoccupied citizens to misinterpret and fantasize, introducing themselves under other people's surnames--Wrkan (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is it written that this site was organized by supposedly "Russian scientists"? And why aren’t they indicated from the specific names and surnames? Are they hiding? No Russian scholars have anything to do with this site. Russian scholars do not engage in such pirated underground sites at all. Pan-Turkic fantasies and quacks are behind this site.It should be pointed out that this is a PIRATE UNDERGROUND website with dubious content. For example, there’s not a single book of the world-famous archaeologist Murad Magomedov (Khazarologist), but it’s full of any pseudoscientific literature with various authors such as Kovaleva and Attila Turk--Wrkan (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra: The specific page on the official site you linked does not load for me, while the plain domain does. Opencooper (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Remember Aaron Swartz! ---Dagme (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Library Genesis has been subjected to repeated reverts, each without any summary, for days now. Each time, to re-include gen.lib.rus.ec as a domain name. Please understand this domain is gone for good. Up until a few days ago, Library Genesis explicitly discouraged using it. Now they still implicitly discourage using it by listing it as superseded by libgen-dot-rs and instructing everyone to change all references to either one of libgen dot rs/is/st. The original domain does, now, function as a redirect only, and sometimes only. All of these reverts were without any explanatory summaries despite clear and obvious facts. Please stop your vandalistic edit warring, explain yourself, or accept that time moves on and things change. Including domain names. Thank you. --92.195.154.56 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed all the site links. Using a forum post to verify them is not acceptable, and it didn't even appear to mention these sites anyway. In the meantime I'd remind people that Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Are we also going to remove links of other websites that constantly change their domains (scihub, piratebay, etc) just bc there are no reliable sources? I don't agree with this. - Daveout
(talk) 18:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Daveout
(talk) 18:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The screenshot in the article seems to be taken from libgen.fun, a Library Genesis mirror, but libgen.fun itself isn't listed in the URLs section of the infobox. The screenshot is also captioned with "The project's homepage with the English interface", which might be more appropriate if libgen.fun was actually linked. CherrySoda (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Danielhythloday: Will you please explain why you continue to remove sourced content and don't take this issue to the talk page? According to the founder of Library Genesis in the reference given, libgen.fun is the only project that continues to be affiliated with Library Genesis. Rather it is a site with no real contents made to mock Library Genesis, and its reference to it in this article goes against the rules of wikipedia
: I don't know where this statement comes from as it is just factually false. If you have evidence that there is "no real contents" or that is "mocks" Library Genesis, please provide a reference. Soapwort (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Soapwort: Hi Soapwort. My description of libgen.fun as "mocking" LG was wrong. I stand corrected (for reference libgen.life/viewtopic.php?p=80161#p80161 ), and it is not my intention to start a feud. However, since libgen.fun is not currently much in terms of actual content, I don't see the gain in eliminating the references to sites that do provide such content. (I may be missing something, I know). Best. --Danielhythloday (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the gain in eliminating the references to sites that do provide such content: Firstly because the other sites are not Library Genesis, according to it's founder, and secondly because Wikipedia is not a link farm. The site you linked is an unofficial list of mirrors, most of which were never affiliated with Library Genesis even before libgen.fun was created (the old list of official sites can be found under the mirror section here). Soapwort (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
There are 4 forks of libgen: https://forum.mhut.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=8371&start=100#p149165
Right now the wikipedia article mentions only one of them - libgen.fun by bookwarrior. I think all of forks should be mentioned in some way, because there is no “official” libgen and almost all of them claims that their fork is better than the others. DenBkh (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed the .fun domain is not being updated as quickly as other domains like .rs. A section or a note explaining the forking and discrepancy in regards to content should probably be added. - Daveout
(talk) 05:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody know what happened to the standards section of libgen, previously available under libgen.rs/standarts/index.php (or some other libgen domain) ? It used to include DIN and ISO standards. 141.23.159.187 (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is inclusion of an external link to current libgen URLs not a clear violation of WP:COPYVIOEL? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
linking to ... material that violates the copyrights of others. The copyrighted material isn't being directly linked, and the home page probably doesn't contain infringing content itself (haven't checked). This is a bad comparison/slippery slope, but an overly broad interpretation of WP:COPYVIOEL would forbid us from linking to other sites often containing infringing content in their articles, such as YouTube, Scribd, and Twitter, although those aren't nearly as severe. Ovinus (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, except under a very limited set of circumstances,[1] there should be one official link in the infobox. Currently, there are four links in the infobox, with three explicitly marked as "unofficial" or "community website" which directly goes against the guidelines of the WP:ELOFFICIAL and the infobox template.[2] But the other issue, is that there's no indication that libgen.fun is official either and the source given in the article is a link to a webforum... It appears previous discussion on this talk page hasn't come to a consensus on this. The same issue seems to exist in the article for Z-library if anyone would like to bring it up there.
Thanks to @DFlhb for letting me know about the policy on official links in the article of a different website. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
References
It is not clear where or how exactly libgen was started. Was it started by russians? Serbians? It is not clear to me after reading the history. Could someone clarify it and restructure the article? Right now it is confusing. What does Mikhail Gorbachev have to do with libgen? File sharing wasn't that en vogue in the 1980s ... this is confusing 2A02:8388:1641:4980:0:0:0:2 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)