It's not screwing anyone over to provide a platform for people to share their knowledge with the world. Most people who contribute to Wikipedia are aware of its purpose, and everyone who does significant and regular contribution understands its mission. You just can't spend hours a day working on an encyclopedia and not know what it's all about.

Commercial entities have been using Wikipedia content for years -- as they should! That's what it's for: to be used. Those commercial entities who donate part of the money they collect from selling a book back to the Wikimedia Foundation to support the continued work of the project should be applauded, not derided.

IF you think about Wikipedia in the same way you think about, say, Facebook, sure, it's easy to understand getting mad. People who write on a web forum think their contributions will stay on that forum, period. But people who use a Web interface to edit a Free Content database should and do understand that that contribution will be used for lots of purposes by lots of people. That's what "making a contribution" is all about.

I don't know much about publishing, but I would have expected a writer of a comparable book to get at least 3EUR per copy.

Even assuming they take out a third of that for the cleanup they probably had to perform on the articles, I think Bertelsmann could give at least 2EUR to the WMF.

But then Sony-BMG is probably screwing over their music artists too, so I suppose its to be expected.

Freelancers -- and if this book gets published, that's what everyone who contributed will be -- will have writer's unions itching to get to them. They have to. If content is created for free -- and then sold by someone else -- writers will have to protect their domain.

The New York Times and others faced a backlash when content created in one medium was repurposed in another. They would have a much better chance at monetizing the site -- the same medium -- than pulling off a printed version with no legal ramifications, I would think.

I do have several questions maybe someone could answer. Since none of the work in the book is really going to be the authors, and all of it is freely available, would it be illegal to download pirated copies of the book?

Whats stopping someone from just compiling the exact same articles and releasing them for free?

You could also sell your own printed copies or modify the work and sell copies of that.

In much the same way you can legal sell linux.

The fact is anyone can do this based on the Wikipedia license. Read sections 2 and 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. There are some interesting requirements in there for publication.

If someone pays $32US for a book of "free" information, that's too bad for them.

If you're *really* upset...why not do the same but sell it for $10US and give half of it back to the foundation? :)

The fact is anyone can do this based on the Wikipedia license. Read sections 2 and 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. There are some interesting requirements in there for publication.

If someone pays $32US for a book of "free" information, that's too bad for them.

If you're *really* upset...why not do the same but sell it for $10US and give half of it back to the foundation? :)

But I still think that this issue around Wikipedia is interesting as it will likely show that even when someone makes money from free content without giving back to individual content creators it doesn't stop the content creation. It happened already with free software (Linux-based businesses like Red Hat and many other companies building their business around free software products not necessarily giving anything back) and there's no reason why it won't happen with free user-generated content.

To me it does not matter what any license says....There is not high ground to take when you sell someone else content and make a profit from it without asking the original content creator if they would like to have some of the revenue from the sale of their content....

I applaud the audacity of the publishers of this new book, and I hope they make tons of money. I hope they inspire thousands of copycats. I hope it grows into a movement, creates a bubble, leads to a crash, and forces even more innovation as people debate what went right and what went wrong.

I know you hope the same. Just think how much more there will be to write about here.

I applaud the audacity of the publishers of this new book, and I hope they make tons of money. I hope they inspire thousands of copycats. I hope it grows into a movement, creates a bubble, leads to a crash, and forces even more innovation as people debate what went right and what went wrong.

I know you hope the same. Just think how much more there will be to write about here.

It doesn't work for everyone. Especially the writers that won't be getting paid.

The reason this is a royal ripoff is because none of the writers in their wildest imaginations concieved that wikepedia would sell their content.

But even in the weird world of the internet a few truths hold true:

Don't trust anyone
Money Talks
The Only Peson Watching Your Backside Is You
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

People will think twice before they write for free again.

Live From Las Vegas
(Where everything is free and nothing is free)
The Masked Millionaire

Better would be if Bertelsmann, in the copyright clearance process they will inevitably undertake, would help wikipedia identify articles that already do a good job not plagarising existing materials, and where one is found that does re-use existing copyright infringing content (as some inevitably do), help produce non-infringing versions of the content.

REALLY?

We all know how the license works, Wikipedia is a commons, not property, etc.

(apologies to Yochai Benkler...)

Get real!

Again, I'm really disappointed RW decided to publish this FUD.

This assumes, though, that the commercial publisher will indeed "make a buck." This begs the question: how many people will willingly pay for this information which is, by its very nature, available for free online at wikipedia.org?

Let them make a buck...I'm fed up with the wiki and it's ability to have up to date and honest information changed or removed and someones whim.

The shaft...guess what comes around goes around no...

Wikipedia writers usualy write in such a way (they give their knowladge and time freely) as do charity organizations, well they give essential materials to people around the globe who need it to survive. So in a way this would repay ALL writers.

It can happen to you.

For the vast majority of us, Wikipedia is only a hobby. Personally I'm delighted that some company somewhere in the world can use things I did in my free time to make money for themselves. We should only worry about getting paid when Wikipedia becomes like a job, complete with obligations and time requirements - but those people are already getting paid (i.e. the members of the Wikimedia Foundation board, the developers of the MediaWiki software, etc.). But as it stands - why should I complain about not being paid for something I do 100% for fun?

But on the bright side of this - at least Wiki will be getting more money and can hopefully expand even more. It's still free and this doesn't harm anyone - in any way really. I just would like the profits, and maybe not all of them because I understand the incentives needed for this type of investment, but some or a good portion of the profits to go to charitable organizations dedicated to the improvement of human life. Simply put, I hope that Bertelsmann decides to give out more than just "one euro" per book sold.

This isn't a good or a bad thing - I just think it's something that if you are going to pursue - you should be true to origins of that which you are capitalizing on.

The sad thing is that there a lot of serious contributors who have put a lot of time and effort in writing Wikipedia articles, and as a constant user, I gotta tell you, sometimes it beats Britannica. They must me mad as hell.

I personally do not care, as long as it is still free, and people continue making it better. A book cannot replace the real Wikipedia on line, so I am not sure who is going to buy it. But then again, I can be surprised.

I would also urge people to boycott it altogether. Next they'll be making money on the clicks to view our content.

A great way to make money.

They have every right to do this and if the people that take the time to edit wiki don't like it they'll just have to grin and bear it because there ain't jack they can do about it other than piss and moan(which I fully expect them to do regardless of what happens).

In summary. Boo. Freakin. Hoo.

In our "instant everything" culture, I see it quoted all the time, and often in error.

I suggest we all go back to Britannica. I would much rather "pay" and know that I am getting accurate information, overseen by editors and most of all, a reputation at stake for accuracy.

Truth be told, I loath Wikipedia.

Karrin

I did not contribute anything to Wikipedia, but this is my most favorite online dictionary. I hate to see it is being abused and will be shut down someday due to this blood-sucker act. Thanks for reading.

We mustn't confuse what's ethically wrong with what's legally wrong. I would argue that selling a book of Wikipedia articles runs counter to the premise behind Wikipedia and that I imagine most contributors wouldn't have bothered to write much if they knew it would eventually be farmed for profit.

But when do ethics get in the way of anything anymore? Especially anything capitalistic?

I suggest the following for those who don't like it: Rather than spend your time whining about it not being fair, do something creative like, say, vandalizing the site. That's right. Make it wortheless. Log on and go to town. Edit crazily. Edit stupidly. Make stuff up. Make it so the site is so erroneous that an army of thousands of editors would need to be hired to sort it all out. Then, when you're done wreaking havoc on the site, apply for one of those editorial positions. Win-Win!!!

In fact, Poetry.com does the same thing. They have these poetry contests and people from all over are enticed into sending in their own personal work thinking they will be made famous and receive a big prize if they win, etc. But that doesn't happen at all. Poetry.com keeps the poems, they publish the poems in books and the authors never get anything for it. In fact, Poetry.com doesn't even give their authors a copy of the books. They jack the price way up there and then want the authors to pay to receive a copy of a book that they helped to write.

Now does that sound right to you?

I know this for a fact because my daughters entered their contests when they were teenagers. They both got published in the books, one daughter was even said to have been one of the top writers of that year. But my daughters only received a notice that they could BUY the book their poems were published in at an outrageous price.

If some hypothetical publishing company published a "book" with adaptive pages that displayed information from the internet, we'd scarcely consider it copyright infringement. This particular book has pages simply stuck on Wikipedia pages. No problem, never mind GNU-DFL.

My only concern is the amount that is being contributed by Bertelsmann. I think it should be higher, around 5-10 euros per copy, sort of a good faith donation to them. Anyway, that's my two cents.

When we become too caught up in the cynical perspective that the only purpose the publisher could have is to rip of writers and make money, we lose sight of the more innocent side of things. This is a prime example.

The article is not only making the publisher look greedy, but also the people who donated the information willingly without expectations of receiving checks for it.

Yes it is legally right to do what the publisher proposes, but is it the right thing to do in regards to the spirit in which the "wiki" was created? Will such an act hinder or help the "free information" movement? All this, among many other questions could be raised in relation to this story.

Personally, I believe that the publishing company is in the "wrong" for many reasons, without even discussing the legal ramifications. I also believe that had the original or "editing" authors of the articles on Wikipedia known that a company would turn around and attempt to profit from it, they would have been far less inclined to submit their (or other's) work.

I sincerely hope that the project doesn't work out, that the book fails to sell well, if at all. As a previous poster pointed out, "...[why would someone buy something they can get for free]...". Perhaps that will show the "Corporate Machine" that not every good intention and free thought can be used to make a buck.

Sorry to beak it to you, but it's the truth.

I doubt something like this will happen, because it sounds like someone wants to make a quick buck, and so many people are so money motivated and greedy that it is disgusting, but it could be a good alternative to one person or group of people keeping the profit for their own personal benefit.

Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri, Advocate, CFE

Now, they did it for free so why the hell not.

They clearly wanted people to know, now more people will know.

I dont see the problem.

from a literary stand point this is plagiarism. and i am pretty sure the GNU license agreement is only good for software and cannot apply to published written works.

i havent contributed to wikipedia so i am not sure about this but the contributors do not operate under any license agreement. the GNU license is for wikipedia itself, not the content.

whether or not there is small print that says anything contributed to wikipedia is owned by wikipedia i do not know. but if wikipedia has no legal claim to the content on their website other than the GNU the contributors are getting ripped off.

this is a major story and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Contribute online, view online. Keep it free and add your input into its diversity, period!

imo :)

1. Old people who still don't know the internet exists yet or just plain don't know how to use computers. This demographic should dissapear within 10-15 years anyway.

2. People who don't have internet. WTF seriously though, who in this day and age in Capitalist America doesn't have access to the internet? This demographic should dissapear within the decade.

3. Idiots. Unfortunately, that probably means over 90% of the human population, so I guess a Wikipedia book does have selling potential after all. Too bad this demographic isn't going away anytime soon.

For those who contributed, they did so with no expectation of financial gain (supposedly), so their efforts were not in vain. If they truly contributed to benefit others, nothing they've done has been undermined. If they want to print a Wikipedia excerpt book and profit from their work, they're apparently free to do so under the same license.

Why would anyone pay for something that's freely available?!

I think that the book shouldn't be charged so expensively - perhaps only for the printing cost.

Wikipedia articles are for anyone to use for whatever purpose. its the whole point!

Sarah Perez is not the brightest bulb in the socket, She obviously doesn't know anything about Wikipedia

Mark O'Neill is an Idiot.

Wikipedia is not ripping anyone off.

Wikipedia isn't publishing the book.

People who write on Wikipedia know how it works.

Wikipedia contributors are not ignorant.
Ecept for maybe Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri, Advocate, CFE,
And any other contributer that is bothered by this)

maybe I shouldnt read all those emls, or prehaps I should put a free ad on for viagara, or do you all want to find out where to get a gold rolex for $200?

First, fact. This has been stated; contributors did their writing for free, they signed off on it. Consider that once you do that it is no longer yours. Anyone has the right to use it in any way they see fit. This is certainly nothing new. (And, if people think this publisher is the first to make money from freely contributed material, think again...)

The argument "had they known..." only shows that there are people ignorant of intellectual property law.

When intellectual property rights expire or are given away (by signing such an agreement) anyone has the right to do anything they wish with the material, including investing their money to try and sell it. That is the nature of the world we live in. (And, not just the modern world...read your history.)

Next, opinion. Bertelsmann should contribute between 10 and 15 percent of the retail price to Wiki (