you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 23 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    It doesn't actually include all the media, and -- I think -- edit history. It does give you a decent offline copy of the articles with at least the thumbnails of images though.

    Edit: If you want all the media from Wikimedia Commons (which may also include files that are not in Wikipedia articles directly) the stats for that are:

    Total file size for all 126,598,734 files: 745,450,666,761,889 bytes (677.98 TB).

    according to their media statistics page.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nice stats. I always wondered. I get the feeling that ~678 TB is little bit more than ~111 GB.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Dear god, are we still using base 2 for file sizes? At least use TiB like a reasonable person.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It doesn't matter in this case, as long as it is documented (and it is by the unit).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    To be clear, I'm fine with RAM being base 2 -- it's rather difficult for it not to be given the structure -- but for fixed storage, this is an old-school measurement that only gets worse with each order of magnitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I don't remember which is the stupid "1024 bytes in a kilobyte" one but
    745,450,666,761,889 byte is 745 terabytes, that should be 745 TB and that 678 should be what TiB is for
    And also that entire 677.98 is a useless value, there's nothing that is "677" about this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment