Jump to content

Talk:AI data center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

The article has 30+ references including links to whitehouse discussion and some of the most important companies in the world. Should the notability warning be removed?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
as they contain significant copyright violations

No they don't. There was no direct copying. And the article cited was mostly just a copy of openai's facts in their blog post. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be smart about copyright violations versus paranoid. Lets looks deeper into fair use:

  • Purpose & Character: This is for non-profit and educational use.
  • Nature of the Work: Using factual works is more acceptable than creative ones. (e.g., a news report vs. a novel).
  • Amount & Substantiality: Using a small, essential portion is better than copying the whole work.
  • Market Effect: Does your copy harm the market for the original work? (Crucial factor). No, quite the opposite. Citing a source drives content and money to original content creator.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable, self-published sources and speculative content

[edit]
16:56, 21 December 2025 TotalVibe945 talk contribs 41,235 bytes −18,440 Removed unreliable, self-published sources and speculative content that bordered on original research. Added better source for definition. Rearranged some content for other sections. undothank Tags: Reverted Visual edit

Wikipedia use to be such a nice place where people helped each other out. Now it seems so hostile, with people trying to delete relevant and noteworthy content. If you provide a lot of references people claim wp:refbomb. If you provide to few people claim self published and or not noteworthy. LOL. If you quote sources, then you get dinged for copyright violation. If you write it yourself you get dinged for speculative content that borders original research. Can't win. :) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medium posts, YouTube videos (with the exception of the one from Business Insider), Truth Social posts, and company/personal blogs are all self-published and do not fit as reliable sources.
I saw that you had sources from news articles like Reuters and a Nature paper, which is good. I had moved statements cited by those sources to other sections in the article, where they would fit better.
We both agree that this article should not be deleted. However, the article as it was did not make a very strong case. Neither does complaining when your edits are given constructive criticism by other editors. I strongly recommend giving Wikipedia:Reliable sources a read for future editing. TotalVibe945 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for medium posts and youtube in the deleted text and didn't find any. Like I already said in previous revert there are many sources for the content. Instead of deleting the content you could delete the refs you don't like. Even better you can find refs yourself. And better would be to give others a chance to fix rather than deleting with incorrect claim of links to medium. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article's current sources are unreliable and will eventually have to be removed. Please avoid social media, corporate and personal blogs, WP:FORBESCON, WP:BI, etc. Grayfell (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Difference with data center"

[edit]

I removed this section as arbitrary but it was put back. Here are the issues:

  1. While the descriptions provided are sourced, the actual "differences" and distinctions made are arbitrary. Why the focus on "purpose", "compute" etc? Why not other factors?
  2. Who says these are so important we need to create a table to highlight it? All seems WP:SYNTH.
  3. The heading and intro line are not grammatically correct.

ZimZalaBimtalk 00:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the table which was restored in this edit.
I don't think a table is a good fit here. Further, the CDW.com source doesn't appear to be reliable, and its use here appears to be WP:SYNTH. The WSJ source is sponsored by Deloitte, and we should avoid citing sponsored pseudo-journalism in almost all cases. RCR Wireless News may be broadly reliable, but this specific source reads like an AI generated summary of basic facts with a complete lack of any hard data, falsifiable claims, examples, or anything else of substance. Coresite.com also doesn't appear reliable in this context. If there are more/better sources specifically making a direct comparison, let's look at them and evaluate from there. I would expect that one or two sentences would be a better starting point than a table. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's no response, I've removed the table. There's no consensus, and too many problems. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into data center but keep separate "controversies"

[edit]

I think the technical aspects of this article should simply be merged into data center. While the size and types of chips might be unique for AI-related processing, the core nature of data centers aren't that different. What we could keep as a separate article are the unique controversies/issues that have emerged given the rapid expansion of the creation of data centers for AI. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBimtalk 19:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Geographies of Energy and Sustainability

[edit]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2026 and 20 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Slothie732 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Slothie732 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]