Slow day news wise, I guess.

The guy bound it into one book, so it will be impossible to read. Hasn't he heard of breaking an encyclopedia into, you know, volumes?

Exactly. But that wouldn't be lulzy, and thus definitely wouldn't make the news... even on such as slow day as today.

I'm not sure The Sun really qualifies as "news".

Good point.

What about The Telegraph?

The guy bound it into one book, so it will be impossible to read. Hasn't he heard of breaking an encyclopedia into, you know, volumes?

The artist did this to make people question Wikipedia's use as a reference work. I think that the images found on his site speak for themselves.

Reproducing Wikipedia in a dysfunctional physical form helps to question its use as an internet resource. Articles in the book: Wikipedia's featured articles.

I'm comparing the internet Wikipedia to a traditional encyclopedia by putting it in the same format, therefor suggesting that Wikipedia is dysfunctional compared to a normal encyclopedia. This is suggested by how I've conveyed Wikipedia physically. compared to a normal encyclopedia the information is a lot less reliable. I wanted to make a comment on how everyone goes to the internet these days for information, yet it is unreliable compared to what it has replaced.

It's interesting watching this incredibly meagre news story propagate. Minor and "alternative" media sources were reporting it at least a week ago, and only now is it hitting such publications as The Times.

As an aside, that thick accordion-like tome looks more than 5k pages to me. I'm holding a 1,000 page book in my hand right now, and it doesn't add up.

I just don't get what he's trying to prove. What does printing out a load of articles and making them into a stupid book say about the reliability of wikipedia?