It seems a debate is brewing in the "Wikipedia-sphere" surrounding the commercialization and the soon-to-be-made profit from the voluntarily written and edited online encyclopedia web site. For the first time, a major publisher has made plans to print out and sell popular articles from the site, leaving many wondering if the content's writers are being scammed out of royalties to which they are due.
A major German publisher, Bertelsmann, has announced plans to print a book called "The One-Volume Wikipedia Encyclopedia," which goes on sale this September for 19.95 euros (around $32 U.S.). The book will feature some of the year's most popular articles. Says Dr. Varnhorn, the editor in charge of Bertelsmann's reference works, in a recent NY Times article, "We think of it as an online encyclopedic yearbook." A statement that foreshadows the possibility of this book becoming the first of many annually printed editions.
Is this legal? Yes. Apparently, the material on the Wikipedia site is free for use given that you cite Wikipedia as the source. In addition, Bertelsmann will pay the foundation one euro for every copy sold.
But where does this leave the scores of writers who voluntarily gave their time to help in the creation of an online reference, something which they had believed to be a noble effort? Mark O'Neill of Now Sourcing believes he knows exactly where this leaves those writers: ripped off. He writes:
"Wikipedia is ripping them off big-time. No, in fact, let’s not beat around the bush here. Let’s say it for what it really is. Wikipedia is SHAFTING THEM....Had they known that Wikipedia would then use their work in a commercial printed venture, I’m sure they would have had second thoughts about writing those articles. At the very least they would have demanded a contract and perhaps a guarantee of financial compensation later."
Some of the commenters on his post disagree. As one points out, there is no rip-off - Bertelsmann will be selling the content legally under the terms of the GNU-FDL license, which makes it perfectly OK.
But let's be honest here, if the writers thought that the content they were contributing was to help a commercial publisher make a buck, and not part of a movement to "let information be free," would they still have given so much of their time on a volunteer basis?
It's one thing to see Wikipedia distributed to the developing world, like when SOS Children's Village, the world's largest orphan charity, distributed Wikipedia CDs to Africa, but it's quite another to know that you're making money for someone else...for free.
To Arne Klempert, though, executive director of Wikimedia Germany, "It is not about the money. It is a very good example of the power of knowledge." That may be true, but Bertelsmann won't be making deposits of "knowledge" at the bank, will they?
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
People who are Wikipedia "true believers" are working on the project for the very reason that the content can be used by anybody, for any purpose. That's the entire point -- to make a Free Content encyclopedia.
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.
Posted by: Evan Prodromou | May 6, 2008 8:51 AM
i am willing to write on free of cost for wikipedia
Posted by: Ajay | May 6, 2008 9:11 AM
One euro per copy? On a 20EUR book?
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.
Posted by: Oli | May 6, 2008 9:12 AM
PS - petition?
Posted by: Oli | May 6, 2008 9:21 AM
This is likely going to end in a mess. It's only going to take a few folks to raise an issue over this, particularly if the funding issues at Wikipedia continue to creep out.
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.
Posted by: Brad King | May 6, 2008 9:52 AM
First off let me just say that I think the use of Wikipedia for profit is a bad move.
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?
Posted by: ryan | May 6, 2008 9:58 AM
This is retarded. Contributing to Wikipedia requires you to license your work under the GNU FDL and this is made very clear when editing. I have no sympathy for anyone whining about this.q Wikipedia is Free as in speech, not beer.
Posted by: Philip Jägenstedt | May 6, 2008 10:23 AM
Much more useful than this book by Bertelsmann will be (s.th. like) PediaPress, once it's live. And yes anyone who thinks publishing books is against the will of Wikipedians hasn't understood anything about the goal/spirit of Wikipedia.
Posted by: Sulley | May 6, 2008 10:25 AM
It would be legal to digitalise the book and offer it for free online yes. Of course then you would be trying to dirrectly compete with wikipedia which would make things tricky but nothing to stop you trying.
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.
Posted by: sdghlc | May 6, 2008 10:33 AM
If you've contributed content to Wikipedia you did it gratis, and that was well communicated by the lack of paycheck you received when you hit "Submit."
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? :)
Posted by: Justin | May 6, 2008 10:44 AM
If you've contributed content to Wikipedia you did it gratis, and that was well communicated by the lack of paycheck you received when you hit "Submit."
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? :)
Posted by: Justin | May 6, 2008 10:44 AM
The author of this post could make herself a little bit more informed about Wikipedia and its history before posting. It has its roots in Open Source / Free Software movement which in general accepts the idea that information doesn't necessarily need to be protected from copying as the original information is still available for its owner after it's copied.
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.
Posted by: Anton Mochalin | May 6, 2008 11:05 AM
I wasnt insinuating that writers should get paid, i was just curious as to what the legal implications were for publishing a book based entirely on free/open content.
Posted by: ryan | May 6, 2008 11:13 AM
What part of the GNU-FDL don't people questioning this proposed publication understand? Why is this a story? Does it presume Wikipedia contributors are ignorant? That's the message I'm getting and it doesn't sit well.
Posted by: Ron Schott | May 6, 2008 11:22 AM
The writers should have the option of being paid if there work is distributed in a book that is sold and where some of the profits go to wikipedia.
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....
Posted by: william | May 6, 2008 11:37 AM
Shit stirring? Were you short of stuff to write about?
Posted by: Me | May 6, 2008 11:38 AM
That's just how Open Source works. I'm a contributor to Open Source software products, and I've never heard of an Open Source contributor being upset by someone selling their work, so long as it complied with the terms of the license. It's not like the fact that somebody is making money off of it somehow hurts the contributors. If I wanted to make money off of a particular software idea, I wouldn't contribute it to an Open Source project in the first place. Otherwise, I don't care HOW it's used; I'm just happy that it's used!
Posted by: Avdi | May 6, 2008 12:01 PM
I think Justin made an excellent point. If you have a problem with how someone else is doing it, do it differently yourself. The people who participate in Wikipedia do so knowing that there is no specific financial upside for themselves. Anyone is free to re-publish the material, and expand the boundaries of how information is distributed and consumed around the world.
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.
Posted by: Mike Zillion | May 6, 2008 12:52 PM
I think Justin made an excellent point. If you have a problem with how someone else is doing it, do it differently yourself. The people who participate in Wikipedia do so knowing that there is no specific financial upside for themselves. Anyone is free to re-publish the material, and expand the boundaries of how information is distributed and consumed around the world.
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.
Posted by: Mike Zillion | May 6, 2008 12:53 PM
If people are upset by this, maybe the best reaction would be to publish another printed version that directly competes with BMG's offering. But instead of the net profit going to the publisher, 100% of net could be donated back to Wikipedia or to various other charities and non-profits. That way the marketplace would decide whether they wanted their money to go to BMG or to "loftier" places. Nothing is stopping BMG from publishing the book, and nothing should stop anyone else from doing so as well.
Posted by: Curdnerd | May 6, 2008 12:57 PM
The catch with this is that many Wikipedia pages contains some plagiarized material from other websites and printed publications. It's a guess as to what is and isn't original which would open a printed version (which can't be edited on the fly) up to lawsuits.
Posted by: Michael Pinto | May 6, 2008 1:01 PM
This really speaks to the whole argument that is currently raging in marketing circles about giving your product away for free. And then selling other stuff later to make up for the economic sacrifice.
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
Posted by: The Masked Millionaire | May 6, 2008 1:14 PM
Can you explain how what Bertelsmann is doing is making the online version of Wikipedia *less free*? I hope their efforts make them look like the desperate industry they are, but I defend their right to be stupid and to re-publish Wikipedia under the terms of its license. At worst, maybe a few more people access information they might not otherwise have accessed (I mean, if they are buying something they could get for free...)
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.
Posted by: Scott Leslie | May 6, 2008 1:33 PM
I can't believe RWW actually published this article. Do you really have no opinion on the lack of merit of the complaints by "writers"?
REALLY?
We all know how the license works, Wikipedia is a commons, not property, etc.
(apologies to Yochai Benkler...)
Get real!
Posted by: Ethan Bauley | May 6, 2008 5:38 PM
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading this FUD. It's very clear that you don't understand the facts of this situation and that you made nothing more than a token effort to establish the truth. Your only goal in publishing this FUD was to stir up some controversy and try to increase your pagehits. Here's an idea: take some time to dig for the truth. I am sure that you will find that the vast majority (so far, 12 of 14 by my own survey) are perfectly ok with commercial publications using Wikipedia. Many don't just feel not "ripped off" they feel proud and see this as another sign of Wikipedia's increasing meainstreaming.
Again, I'm really disappointed RW decided to publish this FUD.
Posted by: jack | May 6, 2008 7:09 PM
i don't get it... why would somebody pay cash for something they could just read on the internet for free?
Posted by: Jessica | May 6, 2008 10:02 PM
"But let's be honest here, if the writers thought that the content they were contributing was to help a commercial publisher make a buck, and not part of a movement to "let information be free," would they still have given so much of their time on a volunteer basis?"
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?
Posted by: allinformationnecessary | May 6, 2008 10:02 PM
But why would anyone buy the Book. They can get it for free of wikipedia, if all they're doing is just using the same articles. Seems like a dumb idea for a book
Posted by: Halklin | May 6, 2008 10:04 PM
This is ridiculous, it's like RDR vs JK Rowling all over again. Tis ripping off the writers in an extreme sense.
Posted by: charlotte | May 6, 2008 10:05 PM
I have been posting content, and then having it either modified or removed by other "authors" for the last couple of years. The database is so easily manipulated that the work of a certain author can and I am sure has been modified from it's original copy, making the ability to find the true source rather hard.
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...
Posted by: rob | May 6, 2008 10:05 PM
Once again, another good IDEA shot to hell in the name of capitilisim! One day people are going to wake up and realise what is truly important OR we will all die from stupidity
Posted by: John A. Kelley | May 6, 2008 10:09 PM
i dont like that wikipedia be turn into a book, its unfair for the writers who have contributed in the articles. he's an ASS for trying ti print out others hard work!
Posted by: carlo | May 6, 2008 10:11 PM
Hi, my opnion how they could repay the all the authors that have been writing in wikipedia is that they should also give 1€ or 2€ as donation for international charity organizations.
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.
Posted by: Gloomi | May 6, 2008 10:11 PM
It's a scam and for those wanting to make an extra buck off free material that others volunaraily give their free time to help develop, shame on you!!!!!!
Posted by: Chris | May 6, 2008 10:11 PM
I've been a Wikipedia editor for over 5 years, and the fact is, there are huge warnings plastered all over the site that "your work is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" - which allows companies to use Wikipedia material for commercial purposes. Any experienced editor (exactly those people who would benefit the most from any type of writers' royalties) knows this and, by continuing to make edits licensed under the GFDL, has given his implicit permission for companies to "take advantage of us".
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?
Posted by: ugen64 | May 6, 2008 10:14 PM
Umm, dont add to the articles if you dont want to release your rights to your statement. the fact that you put your statement on wikipedia is the fact that its being published in the first place. if you just starting blabbing about 18th century war vessals on your myspace no one would make a book out of it.
Posted by: yeah | May 6, 2008 10:14 PM
Bottom line is i don't believe the material on wikipedia is copyrighted, meaning it can be copied
Posted by: Sara | May 6, 2008 10:16 PM
1) You are probably upset that you did not think of it first and 2) If you are so concerned with information being free, go on Wikipedia (as I am sure the articles will still be posted) and don't buy the book. Shouldn't these volountairy writers be honored that their work is being published? I'm sure they have probably tried to have it published in the past if they are writing for free on the website.
Posted by: Brooke | May 6, 2008 10:20 PM
Who cares, 90% of Wikipedia is wrong and written by idiots! I don't know how many times I have used Wikipedia and look in an actual encyclopedia and the information is totally different.
Posted by: Zero Xavier | May 6, 2008 10:21 PM
i like Wikipedia and I have respect and admiration for the writers who volunteer their time, effort and research into making information available for Internet users like me. I think that what is happening here is a shame and should not be done. Is there any way for these writers to protect their intellectual property and rights?
Posted by: kavita | May 6, 2008 10:21 PM
umm #20, probably 95 percent should go to charity... it takes money to print the book duznt itZ?
Posted by: allie tuas | May 6, 2008 10:21 PM
To me: A college student and a person who loves to learn - profiteering off of something that is honestly a charitable source of information for the masses, by the masses - seems somewhat wrong. Don't get me wrong - I am an Economics student and am all about profit, but capitalizing on something like Wikipedia just doesn't go with what I think the creator's intent of the website was. If it were a publication that was done in order advance the spread of knowledge, information, or even help under-funded schools or areas with extreme levels of poverty - that would be a respectable and agreeable action. I would even buy a book or two for myself and friends in order to support that cause, but I would want(as an Accounting minor as well :O) ) to see that this doesn't become some type of corporate deal. I just think that too often,businesses ruin a great thing that wasn't meant to become a profit generating machine. For once I would like people to be a bit more concerned about social welfare and freedom of information and the power that that distributes amongst the masses, who have the internet, instead of their wallets or investors.
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.
Posted by: UCLA BRUIN | May 6, 2008 10:23 PM
I guess it should have been expected. Just like Napster or Google, or any Technology craze that starts selling itself as a noble cause. In the end anyone inventing something in the net, they are in for the money, and not for the democracy of cyberspace. . . let's face it guys.
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.
Posted by: David | May 6, 2008 10:24 PM
Hold on a moment. It's legal to publish and sell wiki articles? There are hundreds of articles and that's practically an untapped market. Serious.
Posted by: Wait | May 6, 2008 10:24 PM
This is just wrong. Wikepedia is not meant to be for sale. If someone go's to a church and gets the free food they give out to the homeless and then go's and sells it what would you call that?
Posted by: Tony | May 6, 2008 10:26 PM
You're lying Zero Xavier. Don't lie, it reflects poorly on you.
Posted by: Bob Somebody | May 6, 2008 10:27 PM
lol I knew it JW
Posted by: xodp | May 6, 2008 10:28 PM
I will non longer write for Wikipedia and I urge everyone else to follow suit. The whole premise was that it remain a free source. These people are just another corporation attaching their parasitic tentacles to honest people.
Posted by: Allyn | May 6, 2008 10:28 PM
Who the hell would pay money for a Wikipedia book?
Posted by: Mchan | May 6, 2008 10:29 PM
I will non longer write for Wikipedia and I urge everyone else to follow suit. The whole premise was that it remain a free source. These people are just another corporation attaching their parasitic tentacles to honest people.
I would also urge people to boycott it altogether. Next they'll be making money on the clicks to view our content.
Posted by: Allyn | May 6, 2008 10:30 PM
Why would anyone buy it?
Posted by: me | May 6, 2008 10:30 PM
"If someone go's to a church and gets the free food they give out to the homeless and then go's and sells it what would you call that?"
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.
Posted by: Anaheyla | May 6, 2008 10:30 PM
I would be just as glad to see Wikipedia "go away." Volunteer writers IMO was never a good idea; too much bias and incorrect information.
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
Posted by: Karrin | May 6, 2008 10:31 PM
WIKI IZ TEH BAD CUZ IT IZ TEH RONG AL TEH TIME LULZ!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!
Posted by: Random noob | May 6, 2008 10:33 PM
I personally think that it is a rip off. Plus we should see a decline in online contributions from now on. Sucks for a student like me who loves to surf on wikipedia. But then again, the common man loses out!
Posted by: ciiru | May 6, 2008 10:35 PM
Wow, I'm no longer editing Wikipedia. I don't wanna make money for someone else.
Posted by: A. | May 6, 2008 10:38 PM
Who cares if they're are selling the info in a book? No one says you have to go out and buy it. The same information that you would pay for in that book is the same thing you can get online and look at for free. I don't even see why anyone would waste their money on it when they can look at it for free on the internet.
Posted by: Brett | May 6, 2008 10:40 PM
This sucks big time. How could this German publisher, Bertelsmann do that? This act is no conscience for being too smart and take opportunity! This has ruined the spirit of volunteerism. This is like blood-sucker! If Bertelsmann prints and sells the copies and gives all money to the charities to help poor countries, people or children that is fine to me. But for ones' profit is really bad. This is similar to seeing someone drops his/her treasure, and you pick it and say it is yours.
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.
Posted by: Victor | May 6, 2008 10:41 PM
I strongly agree with the first comment on this board. The donation of time, energy, and knowledge to Wikipedia by the contributers is meant to help spread good information for free. This is free to all, not just for personal use. The compiler and publisher are trying to make a living and that is their right. They are not evil to the best of my knowledge and they are even being responsible by giving a significant amount of the net profit back to Wikipedia.
I ask the author of this page to think before she writes next time. This sort of stupidity and negative publicity is much more harmful to organizations like Wikipedia than the commercial publication of content within legal restrictions by a responsible publisher.
Posted by: A Student | May 6, 2008 10:41 PM
I believe that someone gaining the rights to sell information that is not credibly theirs is wrong. I believe that every article to be published should have been copyright and thus giving security to those who wrote. Is this really happening? Seriously? Someone just found a hole and is going to profit from other people's knowledge. I see no ethics or freedom in that decision.
Posted by: Andrew Adams | May 6, 2008 10:45 PM
For me it's perfectly OK, to print the book and make profit of it, Even I would like the paperback rather than always reading on the net and print out. Just don't envy they thought it before, made profit of it, when I find something I am of interest on Wikipedia I print out what is the difference?! for you
Posted by: Tamie | May 6, 2008 10:49 PM
if you are that annoyed by this go boycott Bertelsmann not wiki cuz in the end all the critics shut up anyway ohh and its called capitalism if someone wants to give away free soup and someone wants to sell it i dont care i just hope it was worth while for them
Posted by: dont care | May 6, 2008 10:50 PM
Regarding the selling of free food that was meant to be for the needy, I see it happen every week at the food bank I volunteer. Do I like it? No, because there might be families that come in later that need that food. But it's perfectly legal.
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!!!
Posted by: Dug | May 6, 2008 10:52 PM
I use Wikipedia almost everyday. It's a great and very informative website. I look there for info before I check other information websites. And I see how they can get away with this but do I think it is fair and right? Absolutely NOT.
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.
Posted by: Sandy | May 6, 2008 10:52 PM
The publishers are providing a service which isn't inherent to the information itself, sillies. As many have said, the information is still available freely - what is being sold is the option to view this information in book form.
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.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2008 10:53 PM
Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, at anytime, and all the info falls under the GNU Agreement, No one besides the book publisher should get a dime, unless they decided to publish their own book. Heck, your info might not even be on Wikipedia anymore when the start publishing the book, as most changes happen due to incorrect information, plagiarism, or simply the tone in which you're writing (certain phrasing can convey bias). Not everyone on the planet has access to the web, or even a computer for that matter, so a book would be a great way to further spread the information contained within Wikipedia.
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.
Posted by: A Wiki fan | May 6, 2008 10:54 PM
The most humorous part about this: The idiots who fall into the trap of buying free information. There are tons of other examples in our society just like this, look around.
Why are you guys getting mad at this? I mean, versus the plethora of other corporations who scam people with services they are hardly or not at all producing. This just goes to show what our society is all about in the end: money and power. It also reminds me what I will always say this world needs the most...>Education. I know that people will buy this book when they could just go online for the updated articles ...If people were more educated, this whole venture would flop because no one would buy the book! I really hope it does anyway and I'm just being pessimistic about the state of education.
Posted by: Roy Ma | May 6, 2008 10:54 PM
Everyone is acting like this book is going to be a best seller. Give me a break! First of all why would anyone spend money on something one can get for free on the Internet. Also, Wikipedia is living, breathing entity. Who is to say the content of the book will not be obsolete by the time it is even printed? The best thing to do is wait a few weeks for it to hit the 70% off bargain bin.
Posted by: Beavis | May 6, 2008 10:55 PM
First off, I bet Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, MGM, Fox, Paramount, CBS, NBC, ABC, and a host of other organizations are itching for this book to go on market! The reason why is because I have used it to get information on copyrighted materials like songs, games, movies, books, and more. So how does this publisher going to get around the copyrighted material that people have sited? Is this publisher ready to pay royalties? I see a huge lawsuit by many people and organizations and one broke publisher after the fog breaks.
Posted by: not stupid enough to write on wikipedia | May 6, 2008 10:55 PM
i think its quite cynical to suggest people wouldnt write on wikipedia if they knew that at some point they could get money for it. Its a poor view of human nature. People write on wikipedia because the subject interests them or they feel they have something worth writing about, it is nothing to do with money and why should it be not everything in thsi world has to be. As for Wikipedia itseld screwing people i dont see how you can blame them, they arent publishing the book they just recieve royalties, which in my opinion (as it would be impossible to distribute that money to the writers) should be reinvested in the site, for everybody to enjoy(remember wikipedia gains alot of its money from donations).
Posted by: pete | May 6, 2008 10:55 PM
The author's argument would be legit only if Wikipedia becomes a website that one would have to pay money to access. The information on the website was willingly donated by people who didn't do it in the first place to get monetary compensation. I don't believe it's wrong that they decided to publish printed records of the website.
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.
Posted by: Nibu | May 6, 2008 10:55 PM
What I see a lot of here is discussion and heated arguements over the legality of the proposed book. However, and much to the credit of the author, the article is far less about the legality of the sitation and more about the morality of it. Also, it reaches to the ever popular hypothetical question... "What if?"
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.
Posted by: James | May 6, 2008 10:56 PM
I totally agree with the author. This is a total rip off to the thousands of writers who contribute their time and work for a good cause. To have their work now be commercialized for profit, and not get a dime or donated to charity is a total SHAFT.
Posted by: UCI Student | May 6, 2008 10:56 PM
Why would someone pay money for a book when he can go to the website and read the content for free?
Posted by: Stephanie | May 6, 2008 10:57 PM
Sandy, everyone's kids (and some adults) get published in those books. It's called vanity publishing and it's designed specifically so proud moms and granddads can show off their family's little literary genius. The only qualifying criteria is that the submission be easy to edit.
Sorry to beak it to you, but it's the truth.
Posted by: Dug | May 6, 2008 10:57 PM
If every body volunteered their time for the benefit of others, why not use the majority or all of profit to donate to charities and helping out those in need. That would benefit people twice as people who are looking to gain the knowledge from wikipedia, are still able to aquire it (now in two ways) and the benefits from the wikipedia being published would go to making the world a better place. I'm sure that most people who donated their time and effort to writing in the wikipedia would not object to this, so long as from time to time the donations changed to different charitable acts.
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.
Posted by: Paul Schanbacher III | May 6, 2008 11:02 PM
Um, what's the big deal? For-profit websites have been lifting Wikipedia articles word-for-word for years now and nobody gave a crap, so what's the difference?
Posted by: Sheep | May 6, 2008 11:03 PM
I do not feel anyone should be paid based on the fact that it is voluntary to write said information. If anything, the publisher should be held as the bad guy for making money off of FREE information. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: justin | May 6, 2008 11:05 PM
Ha, ha, I have made a number of contributions to wikipaedia on the full understanding that the information and knowledge exchanged on th site is to be used exclusively for making the citizens of this world learn new things and get information about other people, states, countries, teritories and regions. At no time was I ever under the impression that the information and knowledge I shared on the site was going to be used for commercial purposes. If that was the case I would have demended my rightful pay-out for my contribution. The intended publication of information and knowledge on the site for commercial purposes is pure theft of intellectual property, nothing less, nothing more. Contributors reserve the right to recall their materials or file a representative suit against the proprietors and administrators of the Wikipaedia site.
Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri, Advocate, CFE
Posted by: Captain. Collins Wanderi Munyiri | May 6, 2008 11:06 PM
First of all you should make a sorry for publishing wrong image of Islamic Prophet (Peace be upon HIM)AND remove that material first of all . Then you can ask us for any problem or issue to be solved. then we can suggest u some very likely solution to any of your problems.
Posted by: ALI RAZA NOOR | May 6, 2008 11:07 PM
First of all owned.
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.
Posted by: Stormo | May 6, 2008 11:09 PM
As long as they don;t steal content from photochopz.com I am fine. Wikipedia should be shared for anyone to use for whatever purpose. its the whole point!
Posted by: twiztedtony | May 6, 2008 11:09 PM
you are HOMOS
Posted by: bob saget | May 6, 2008 11:11 PM
Oh yea, thanks for wasting the first 30 minutes of me getting on the net, I have now totally forgot what I came on to do. This article, and conversation sucked me in.
Posted by: Roy Ma | May 6, 2008 11:11 PM
Well, like some people quoted in their comments the purpose of wikipedia, and it's free/commercial usage, there are companies that use wikipedia extensively in their commercial articles, but don't care a dime donating to wikipedia for the knowledge source. Right now I can remember Frost & Sullivan, a market research company, using wikipedia extensively, copy pasting definitions and paraphrasing content for its research studies on various technologies and market, and selling them for about $6000. They do quote wikipedia as the source, but what the heck, wikipedia must get something from companies like these...
Posted by: creatorati | May 6, 2008 11:13 PM
well there is definitely a collision of ideals here.
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.
Posted by: stucker | May 6, 2008 11:13 PM
Wikipedia should have stated at some point that all info is totally inclusively voluntarily and that it is only to be viewed via the internet and that no printed or published documentation as a whole to reproduce this collection is legal for sale.
Contribute online, view online. Keep it free and add your input into its diversity, period!
Posted by: Rex | May 6, 2008 11:13 PM
Here's a comparison to think about. Thousands of people contribute their time and code to Linux Redhat. And several corporations have taken that code and re-packaged it with minor tweaks and sold it, under proper license, for a profit. I have not heard any of those redhat developers complaining or asking for compensation. I feel that wikipedia, being under a similar (same??) license is the same situation. People contribute for the love of free knowledge, and should care less how it's used if they understand the licensing...
imo :)
Posted by: Cleo Cat | May 6, 2008 11:15 PM
The writers are not being ripped off, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, the writers have not copyrighted there work, and it is subject to change,thereofore the writers are just a bunch of F'ing babies who need to go fornigate themselves with a hot iron rod, or shove the wikipedia book up their rectums, whichever the prefer
Posted by: d;fas;jas; | May 6, 2008 11:21 PM
I dont think that the contributors are being ripped off. They did volunteer their time and although someone else will be making a profit off of their hard work, the books sold will only have been a tiny fraction in comparison to all of the other views their work will have had. There is nothing that can stop any other person from printing out their own version and selling it for cheaper or giving it away for free either. Also there is a lot of valuable and updated information that can be used by everyone and by putting it in book form it makes the information more accessable to everyone. My eyes get tired after reading Wikipedia online after a while. Also, due to the nature of Wikipedia old information is constantly discarded and replaced with new knowledge. It would be fun to go back and look at the information that was relevent and useful now in a few years. We will laugh at our silly selves.
Posted by: Jenn | May 6, 2008 11:25 PM
first of all, this encyclopedia is a huge waste of paper. and it is being changed every day so i dont think this makes any sense
Posted by: bob | May 6, 2008 11:26 PM
Just wondering, who's actually STUPID enough to buy a Wikipedia book? There are only a few unfortunately ignorant demographics who I can imagine this would appeal to:
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.
Posted by: Gee-man | May 6, 2008 11:29 PM
Suckers!!!! Hey I can use some free help painting my house this weekend.... anyone interested????? The public will be able to stand on the street and view the finished work for free so you will actually be working for the public benefit. Ha, ha, ha. Suckers!!!! Who trusts the amateur wikislop online anyways?
Posted by: Jeffrey | May 6, 2008 11:30 PM
hmmm free spreading of information, i cant imagine why this would threaten anyone. Sounds like someone is trying to cause quarrels within the ranks if you know what i mean. I mean whats more threatening to a world than free access to information by everyone. Why wouldn't rich publishers or news advocates want to shut it up by causing envy. but naw, im gonna keep doing what im doing
Posted by: john | May 6, 2008 11:30 PM
If this is the case, then anyone who has contributed to Wiki, or anyone else for that matter, should feel free to use the info freely to make a buck. No copyrights for anyone, including the buckmaker.
Posted by: sandrarita | May 6, 2008 11:32 PM
I guess Wikipedia has to inform every subscriber about the print edition and ask if the volunteer wants his/her article to be published in that annual book or not. Believe that too many people would have a second thought before they start typing a single letter.
In my opinion I highly support the free information sharing website and printing its article promotes its goals but printing it for a profit then it means we are back to the commercial information world which is against the free of thoughts and info sharing.
Posted by: Maged | May 6, 2008 11:32 PM
i feel like everybody should go to wikkipedia and write everything falsely in the articles. completely faulty. this way then another website will pop up and we can all go to that one. f-ing wikkipedia
Posted by: nottomeyoudon't | May 6, 2008 11:36 PM
Look at Wikipedia. There are no ads, pop-ups, other junk. And there is no use fee like other online encyclopedias. So who pays for it? Wikipedia is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Kind of like an online school. People can donate money to support the computers, etc. Or they can donate the information that is posted. If the organization sells that donated information, it's just like a school selling baked goods, old books, other crafts. The money is used to pay for the computer servers, etc. that house all the information we are all using daily for FREE.
Posted by: Anon | May 6, 2008 11:41 PM
Look at Wikipedia. There are no ads, pop-ups, other junk. And there is no use fee like other online encyclopedias. So who pays for it? Wikipedia is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. Kind of like an online school. People can donate money to support the computers, etc. Or they can donate the information that is posted. If the organization sells that donated information, it's just like a school selling baked goods, old books, other crafts. The money is used to pay for the computer servers, etc. that house all the information we are all using daily for FREE.
Posted by: Kate | May 6, 2008 11:42 PM
Just wanted to say that if all the information that was written was voluntry and given by the person(writter) without seeking profit in the first place then why should any writter seek to benefit from it in anyother form(book/ cd). should'nt the term "voluntry" itself mean that it is done it out of the own will.
Personally I dont think anyone is being ripped off...
Posted by: shireen | May 6, 2008 11:44 PM
Why buy the book when you can access all the info on the web for free......
Posted by: Dennis Breen | May 6, 2008 11:47 PM
Wiki is a poor source for info, so I could care less.
Posted by: Daniel | May 6, 2008 11:53 PM
Don't kid yourself. Wikipedia has been making money all along. They make much, much more in donations than they'll ever see from this proposed book. Would they get as many donations if users had not contributed? No. Consider this German enterprise a donor, and find something better to do with your time than worry about who's making money from Wikipedia and who's not. They have a large staff, all of whom are drawing salaries for their work. "Non-profit" doesn't mean "We're all doing this for no pay".
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.
Posted by: sam | May 6, 2008 11:54 PM
for your on line meds go to Canadian Pharmacy
Posted by: Captain wood | May 6, 2008 11:54 PM
I don't think the book will sell well. The articles would be online for free, no need to buy anything. The thing is why they even want to publish it knowing full well that the articles are already online for free.
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.
Posted by: faith | May 6, 2008 11:54 PM
Duh
Huh?
Duh.
Why is this a story.
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)
Posted by: Nitram | May 6, 2008 11:55 PM
i love globalization....don't you?
Posted by: thesundancekid | May 6, 2008 11:59 PM
doesnt anyone pay attention, not even one of you noticed the little bit of spam listed above, maybe you should spend less time on wiki and more time away from your computers,
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?
Posted by: make your girl happy | May 7, 2008 12:03 AM
I agree with those guys . # 26 28 49 57
Unless the rest of the money is somehow donated to a non-profit organization or to a charity, who would be stupid enough to pay for information that is ALREADY FREE all over the internet.
Posted by: David M. | May 7, 2008 12:05 AM
Wow. Quite a mixed bag of opinions here.
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 (or other charitible causes) as that is what they would typically pay an author. That they are paying only 5 percent shows they are not too philanthropic.
Do I agree with what they are doing? Not really. But it is their right.
Will I buy one? No. As has been pointed out, why buy what you can get for free.
Will I ever buy books published by Bertelsmann again? Probably as they are the world's largest book/music/etc publisher, hard to get away from them.
Will I still use and refer to Wiki? Yep.
Posted by: Scott | May 7, 2008 12:08 AM
it is unfair to the writers that one plans to make money through their voluntery efforts. they should be compensated.
i suppose also, there are contracts that were sighned in the beginning.do they include that at some point in time, the wikipedia will commercialised? if so, fine.but if not, the compony has bridged a contract unlawfully and it should be held accountable!it is good to make money, but everyone should agree and benefit.
thanks
Posted by: bhekani | May 7, 2008 12:10 AM
www.gaylords.com
Posted by: Scott | May 7, 2008 12:11 AM
It's irrelevant about how wikipedia info is used. i've seen numerous errors on various subjects. it's not like a real researcher wrote the articles. often info is fabricated on the various subjects, so if someone is stupid enough to buy the published works, more power to the seller!
Posted by: theolonius edgars | May 7, 2008 12:12 AM
I agree with Mike Zillion. The people who write for Wikipedia are doing it on a voluntary basis. They know this ahead of time, and they're aware that their article can be changed or updated. The reason for Wikipedia originally was so that people could research stuff submitted by other people. It became huge, but the concept remained the same. The volunteer s kept writing with an understanding that their articles could be changed. Some people just got more into it than others, and put more work into it. If they think they should get paid for that, I'm sorry but it was their choice to put time and effort into it. That's their fault. And it's a bit greedy, but welcome to the world. There are people that bust their butts for minimum wage in this country to feed their families, and there are people that sit in a chair all day looking out a window, and think that they deserve to get paid for it. It's interesting if you ask me.
Wikipedia writers should not get paid. It's a volunteer website. If you want to write to help other people and do it selflessly, good for you.
Posted by: Ben Koz | May 7, 2008 12:16 AM
Everything regarding FREE KNOWLEDGE is running smooth and these MONEYMAKERS came in with the "MASK OF 1 EURO PER COPY"! It's clear, Money! Money! Money! They don't care about starving minds! They just focus on how to stitch their pockets!
Could you just leave Wikipedia and find another dreamland! We don't need add-ons here, 'DAMNIT!!
Posted by: reNeGade | May 7, 2008 12:17 AM
More power to the print version of Wikipedia.
Everyday, on the web, user generated content is used,
in one way or another, to make a profit. Take, for
instance: FaceBook, MySpace, Ning, etc.; if their
creators didn't have financial gain in mind, then
these social networking sites probably would not even
exist.
Yes, their creators may have had the "public good" in
mind, but even dreams have to be fueled with cold, hard
cash. The contributors to Wikipedia are being treated
fairly. Some of the world's best contemporary writers
started out freely contributing their work to similar
types of entities (poetry orgainzations, ect) in hopes
that this practice would someday elevate them to fame.
The Wikipedia contributors that feel "ripped-off" could
take heart in the fact that their work would be spread
even wider with a printed edition of Wikipedia. If they
feel the need for compensation, then they should realize
that having their work now spread even wider around the
globe is a priceless marketing opportunity that could
earn them a lifetime of revenue as opposed to having
recieved a one-time stipend for making a contribution
to the Wikipedia website.
I wonder, how many of the "complainers" have actually
contributed to the Wikipedia? Surely, the actual contri-
butors can realize the golden opportunity as I have
explained above and choose not to make too much of a fuss.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Tommy | May 7, 2008 12:19 AM
As a writer, professionally, I would be FURIOUS. I sign on to do little cheap or free articles for exposure, for a good cause, to make a quick buck, knowing how and where that article information will be used. If those writers signed away their rights then there should have been a clause stating that the information was to be used specifically on the Internet, ONLY. If they didn't, then that material is still theirs, by law, and he can't use it. If the contract said anything else about how it was used (i.e. it was SHADY) then I hope they band together and sue him because it wouldn't exist but for them, the writers, and judges love that "but for" stuff (I am also a lawyer). This may be technically legal in many ways, but since I can't see what the writers signed when they came aboard I don't know. However, courts do look beyond that when something is blatantly a slap in the face of the intent of the law.
Posted by: Wendi | May 7, 2008 12:20 AM
i think another important aspect about the online version is the fact that it'll be updated more frequently compared to a printed version, which will most likely be updated only annually. yes, reliability online is a little if-y, but who really only uses one source? if you are doing serious researching, i doubt wikipedia is your primary source. hell, i use wikipedia as more of a summary source to brief me on topics i may not know, which i usually follow up with a less-likely-to-be-unreliable source.
as for making a buck, those who contributed to wikipedia voluntarily shouldn't care, you were selflessly (allegedly) providing information so that it could be free (fly away information, you're free!). If this prevents you from volunteering, then go ahead, we don't want snobbish, whiny little babies giving us knowledge, it's tainted.
Posted by: ilyearer | May 7, 2008 12:21 AM
I am not sure why this is even an issue. This has been
happening in the open-source software world for quite
some time. For example, when RedHat ships Linux and makes
a profit out of it, Linus Torvalds or the scores of Linux
contributors don't make a penny out of it.
Sure, Linus sits on many boards and makes money through
that but the bottomline is that he does not make money
out of Linux. And I am sure that is the case with the
JBoss or MySQL too.
Most people contribute to open source software (or in this
case knowledge) out of passion and their beliefs and with
the knowledge that somebody can make money out of their
contributions - that is the beauty of open source or free
software.
Cheers,
A open-source proponent
Posted by: Kartick Suriamoorthy | May 7, 2008 12:26 AM
I thought Wikipedia doesn't always have the correct information. (I seem to remember several news stories about various people who have checked their bios to discover all kinds of falsehoods.)
That's one (big) point: how reliable is information on Wikipedia?
Secondly, why would I want to pay money for something I can get for free on-line?
And, accuracy -- or INaccuracy notwithstanding, on-line information is up to the minute. Print becomes dated even before it's actually published.
Posted by: Zzzzz | May 7, 2008 12:27 AM
ghey
Posted by: poop | May 7, 2008 12:27 AM
Wow...Wik online will still be free and available. Someone stupid enough to buy this same info deserves to give away their money. It will STILL be online for free...The Free Source will still be there. Why all the complaints?!? Unfair? Come on people...there are much better things to argue (ahem...debate) about!
Posted by: L. Osborne | May 7, 2008 12:27 AM
Dear Wikipedia writers:
There is no explicit or implied indication at the Wikipedia site that contributed information submitted by global writers would result in economic revenue for a 3rd party publisher and seems to be a valid argument for a lawsuit for 'unjust enrichment' on the part of the 3rd party publisher and Wikipedia if they receive remuneration from the publisher in any form. It can be assumed by the submissions that the intent of the writers was to introduce free information to the world audience, and not blindly put a benefit in the hands of a self-serving 3rd party. This is new 3rd party criminal scam of creating so-called lexicons (as in the Harry Potter situation) and encyclopedias with words, phrases, and articles based on the sweat and hard work of original writers (and artists) is nothing less than another facet of industrial espionage and an obvious attempt to exploit and maliciously compromise the integrity of copyright and patent laws created to protect intellectual property of writers, artists, and other global creators of arts and technology. Some of the greatest artistic and technological creations in the world never would have existed but for the creative talents of artists and technologically skilled inventors. However, if criminal and civil action are not taken against lazy individuals and nations who intentionally and negligently violate copyright and patent laws it is extremely doubtful if inventors and artists are economically cheated of rewards for their life's hard work and achievement. What if out there is an future inventor of an antidote, vaccine, or medical solution for dangerous viral diseases that could ultimately save mankind, but the medical doctor or scientist refuses to risk wasting or sacrificing his or her family's time developing vaccines without compensation? If scientists and educators had been stifled into not sharing information there would be no Internet today.
The rule is simple, if you did not 'create' the written information, you should be prohibited from receiving any form of compensation. An 'honest' day of work can be compensated for by an honest day of pay, but copying Wikipedia and introducing it as an ‘another’ online source of encyclopedic information is basically redundant (as Wikipedia has already done this) and theft of another person’s work product and any violator should be held civilly and criminally liable by international law enforcement and at the very least by a class action (civil) lawsuit. If a lazy company or individual can inure a benefit from the hard work and sweat of another uncompensated altruistic writer, then what motivation would a writer have for continuing to do so in the future?
A 3rd party publisher should not be compensated for the work of Wikipedia writers without a legally binding contract between the publisher, writer, and Wikipedia or it would cause a chilling effect that would be counterproductive to society. The needs of many writers and readers outweigh the greedy needs of the lazy few or the lazy one company attempting to inure profit by deception after the fact.
To test this theory of the intent of the contributing writers, all Wikipedia has to do is to publicly state in bold red letters that any and all contributions by writers will be copied and sold by 3rd party publishers with no compensation going to writers and it will not be long (perhaps as little as one month) before writers completely stop contributing so much as one sentence to Wikipedia. Let that German company use some of that German ingenuity that they so often brag about to ‘create’ a work product that they can sell, instead of trying to rip off contributions made by altruistic writers. When was the last time that anyone in the world was able to get a brand new German car for free? Never. The notion is just as absurd as their attempting to profit from another’s work product without reasonable compensation going to the contributing writers. German companies demand from the world top dollar for everything they stamp their country’s name on, so it is quite ironic, perhaps even hypocritically insulting that one of their company’s would try to sleaze their way into making a fast buck on the back of someone else’s hard work….If they did not ‘create’ the work product (i.e.’ the Wikipedia concept, artwork, photographs, the articles, footnotes, etc.) then without explicit permission from the writer/artists…it is not theirs to sell regardless of how much money they pay to Wikipedia and mask it in the form of a donation…..
Posted by: Ozzie Mitchell | May 7, 2008 12:32 AM
I read this story because it was on my homepage and was bored.... and I realized that there would be a bunch of retards posting comments about this...
Guess What.... It doesn't matter what I type or you type....
They are GOING TO MAKE THE BOOK...
They are going to get rich...
and who gives a **** about you or what you feel.
This is simple....
Someone has a good idea for a book.... makes book legally.... gets rich....
What is there for you people to complain about...
I am making a book too....
People who post stupid comments on forums....
I am using a lot of these page entries... so don't be surprised if you see your words in my book.... this is an open forum and I plan on using all this in my book....
Ya!!! more money for me....
Stop complaining people... and head on over to WIKIPEDIA and type a few more bucks for them.... Wish I would have though of the idea first... but good for the people that did...
Can't wait to buy my copy...
Oh and don't forget...
***holes and the words they write (thats the name of my book) will be on shelves on October 17th so mark your calendars... who knows.... YOU MIGHT BE FEATURED.... sorry no checks will be coming your way tho. :)
-Billy
Posted by: Billy Madison | May 7, 2008 12:35 AM
The solution to the problem is to have them use the profits for charity and to better the website.
Posted by: P.T. | May 7, 2008 12:35 AM
i think the use of wikipedia articles for prifit is just outrageous.that means the contributors,spent endless hours wasting their time
Posted by: ralph | May 7, 2008 12:35 AM
This is simply unethical. I don't believe its wrong nor illegal. Things change over time, one gotta be smart enough to read/predict the future....
Posted by: Amornchai | May 7, 2008 12:36 AM
what a perfectly ludicrous example of a manufactured controversy. so you would have done differently if you had understood the ramifications, would you? welcome to the frigging human condition. now quit your whining.
Posted by: misanthropope | May 7, 2008 12:37 AM
i think the use of wikipedia articles for prifit is just outrageous.that means the contributors,spent endless hours wasting their time
Posted by: ralph | May 7, 2008 12:37 AM
for the sad person who has wiki as their homepage,# 123, and for Ozzie,
here is another page you can set as your hompages
http://www.fart.com/links.html
Posted by: Captain Methane | May 7, 2008 12:40 AM
Money hungry fools like Bertelsmann is what has the world so corrupt! It's people like this that will end us all.
That's the point of the Internet in the first place. To improve communication, to bring the world closer through sharing it's ideas free of charge... the way it's meant to be.
Would you charge someone that asked you for directions?!?! would you charge someone if they asked you a question?!?!
Posted by: superrsp001 | May 7, 2008 12:42 AM
I have edited on wikipedia for a few years now. I am totally against this. I have no wish for compensation for myself, but it's pretty screwed up that wikipedia is supposed to be about sharing knowledge and keeping it free (both monetarily and legally) and then they turn around and let a publisher profit from this awesome fount of free knowledge.(?!) The idea of a printed "yearbook" is a good idea, don't get me wrong; but the proceeds should be either donated to charity or rolled back into running wikipedia. I am a capitalist to the core, but this is egregious! - highonhendrix
Posted by: Jerry Holloway | May 7, 2008 12:43 AM
Can we say Class Action Lawsuit? Some lawyer will find a way and they'll wish they never published the damn thing.
Posted by: Big Zig | May 7, 2008 12:46 AM
"The book will feature some of the year's most popular articles."
Quite possible, after the book's published, that some folks will go online later to edit (vandalize?) those "most popular articles" beyond recognition. What then?
Posted by: csi | May 7, 2008 12:56 AM
Why would buy a book about stuff you can access online.
On one hand but a book and get info....
On the other hand get free info online.
I dont want to think about writers being ripped-off it's a
stupid idea in the first place.
Posted by: Fenil | May 7, 2008 1:04 AM
Where I believe this is wrong for him to do this, I also have to say, it was the writers own consent to post and write all of the information they provided to a free site, where it is publicly shows worldwide for all to read/take. This was bound to happen sometime, and all he has to do is take all your hard work, cite it, and sell it.
Posted by: Patrick | May 7, 2008 1:09 AM
If you shift the focus away from the fact that the publisher is making a quick buck out of this venture, and look at how this information/knowledge is being spread to more people around the world (or Germany), then it would be perfectly alright, and not morally unjust.
Furthermore, addressing the point regarding the "let information be free" movement, the fact still stands that this information is indeed still free - all one needs to do is to go online and he or she would be able to access this information, and more. But if there are people out there, aware of this fact and yet still willing to fork out 20 euros for a compilation of quite possibly outdated articles, I don't see why it is anyone else's business to stop them from doing so, considering it is afterall the consumer's sovereign choice.
Posted by: Wong Renjie | May 7, 2008 1:09 AM
BEWARE OF THE BARTELBOMB.
Posted by: howard cobb | May 7, 2008 1:10 AM
Authors need not be paid but the profit earned should be used for charity. =)
Posted by: Kiki | May 7, 2008 1:15 AM
Yes of course but after correction.
Athar Ahmad, Frankfurt
Posted by: Athar Ahmad | May