1. 7

  2. 4

    This article is full of egregious errors.

    • “The GIF, or Graphics Interchange Format, was developed by CompuServe in 1987 to allow bitmaps to be shared without data loss (although the format is limited to 256 colors per frame), while substantially reducing the file size to allow transmission over the Internet.” No, in 1987, CompuServe was not particularly concerned with transmitting files over the internet; they might have been interested in PC Pursuit or other Telenet services (I don’t remember if they supported access via Telenet), or Tymnet, but they weren’t even accessible via the internet. It almost certainly would have violated the NSFNet AUP.
    • “However, like the ZIP format, GIF is also based on the LZW algorithm.” As explained in the previous paragraph, the ZIP format is not based on LZW, although it does support some LZW-based algorithms.
    • “Although LZW took off in the early days of compression, due to Unisys’s litigious nature it has more or less died off in favor of the faster and more efficient DEFLATE algorithm.” LZW is typically about 30× faster than DEFLATE at compression and competitive at decompression. DEFLATE is not faster than LZW. Indeed, the entire reason LZW “took off in the early days of compression” was that it was so much faster.

    There are also very significant missing pieces. For example, it was possible to buy an LZW license from Unisys to legally make GIFs; a key reason for the slowness of GIF’s replacement with PNG was that PNG was still unsupported by some major browser (IE?) until shortly before the LZW patent expired; LZW was and is a major presence in hardware data compressors; and God only knows what else.

    These errors are all within a couple of paragraphs of each other. Finding such a high density of errors in one part of the article makes me wonder if the other parts of the article were equally full of errors that I simply wasn’t competent to notice.

    We should make a Wiki article on this topic so we can get it right.

    1. 3

      Perhaps you should point these errors out in the article’s discussion section instead; posting it here won’t change anything.

      1. 2

        Interesting! That means there’s a major factual error in my own critique: this is a Wiki article, already, and it’s even under a CC BY-NC-SA license. That might explain what seemed to me like very uneven quality in the article, and also means I can do more than just point errors out: I can fix them! At least, I can if they give me an account so I can edit.

        1. 2

          A day later, I have their email-address-confirming email, but they haven’t created my account yet.

          Updated: account created; now I’m going to try correcting one of the errors above and see if it sticks. I’m trying the first one. I’m not that optimistic — the page was apparently written in 2011 by Rihamichael as his/her semester project at SJSU, and has seen only minor updates since. So basically the Wiki is dead.