Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

sebmol at gmail

Apr 22, 2008, 2:22 AM

Post #1 of 61 (5389 views)
Permalink

Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"

Hi,

2008 has started as the year of old school encyclopedias permanently
relocating to the internet when Brockhaus announced that the current 30
volume edition would be the last one available in print. It may end as the
year when trees can yet again wither in the hope that they will end as
repositories of human knowledge. In a few hours, a well-known publishing
house will announce the production of a single-volume Wikipedia to be
available in stores this fall. Prior to this announcement, we wanted to
provide you with some background and details on this project.

There have been a number of approaches to publish Wikipedia content in print
such as the community-developed WikiReaders of a few years ago or the
WikiPress series of paperbacks produced by DirectMedia in Berlin. Now a new
project has started with the goal to produce a general encyclopedia based on
Wikipedia articles. First ideas for a single volume edition were formulated
some years ago but it wasn't until this year that a publisher was found who
would turn this vision into reality: this fall, the Bertelsmann Lexikon
Institut (Wissen Media) will publish the "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one
volume" in German language.

The first edition will contain 50,000 articles consisting of the
introductory paragraphs taken from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The
paragraphs usually provide a compact overview of the topic and its
significance so they are well-suited for being published separately. They
are comparable in depth and structure to full entries in other single-volume
encyclopedias. At a price of €19.95 and its size of about 1,000 pages, it
will be a pretty good value in comparison to similar works. The volume will
be printed in full color and published as a hardcover with about 100
pictures taken from Wikipedia as well.

Topic selection for the first edition was based on page hits collected for
German Wikipedia. The data was taken from Domas Miuzas' Wikistats (
http://dammit.lt/wikistats/) and adjusted to reduce the impact of current
but short-lived events in favor of lastingly popular topics. The list of
authors for each article will be included in the finished volume and the
GFDL will be observed as would be expected.

There are a number of ways in which we see Wikipedia profiting from this
project:

1) The Bertelsmann editors working on the first edition will submit parts of
their work--such as improvements to article introductions--to Wikipedia
under the GFDL.

2) The accessibility of Wikipedia content will be broadened to a wider range
of readers. We may even recruit some new authors as a side effect.

3) For every copy sold, one Euro goes back to Wikimedia.

We're looking forward to the response of this forthcoming announcement as
well as the public availability of the first edition later this year.

Sebastian Moleski
Board of Directors
Wikimedia Deutschland
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

zvandijk at googlemail

Apr 22, 2008, 3:16 PM

Post #2 of 61 (5379 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

I was curious how the German press will react. Up to now, Google news
reports about 103 newspaper on-line articles. Most of them simply tell by
their own words what they learned from the news agency dpa. Frankfurter
Allgemeine, the most important newspaper (center-right), has even two
commentaries about the Bertelsmann edition, both somewhat mocking. One of
them said that the ideals of Wikipedia have been betrayed, because Wikipedia
now trusts more to the literary editors of a big business group than to the
Wikipedia contributors, who were not asked whether they want to become
unpaid Bertelsmann collaborators.
But most of the papers were neutral or slightly positive.
By the way, I myself consider to buy a copy for my parents to christmas.
Ziko

A little press review:
Two authors of Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany's most important daily paper,
make a mockery of the Bertelsmann edition.

Netzzeitung

2008/4/22 Sebastian Moleski <sebmol [at] gmail>:

> Hi,
>
> 2008 has started as the year of old school encyclopedias permanently
> relocating to the internet when Brockhaus announced that the current 30
> volume edition would be the last one available in print. It may end as the
> year when trees can yet again wither in the hope that they will end as
> repositories of human knowledge. In a few hours, a well-known publishing
> house will announce the production of a single-volume Wikipedia to be
> available in stores this fall. Prior to this announcement, we wanted to
> provide you with some background and details on this project.
>
> There have been a number of approaches to publish Wikipedia content in
> print
> such as the community-developed WikiReaders of a few years ago or the
> WikiPress series of paperbacks produced by DirectMedia in Berlin. Now a
> new
> project has started with the goal to produce a general encyclopedia based
> on
> Wikipedia articles. First ideas for a single volume edition were
> formulated
> some years ago but it wasn't until this year that a publisher was found
> who
> would turn this vision into reality: this fall, the Bertelsmann Lexikon
> Institut (Wissen Media) will publish the "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one
> volume" in German language.
>
> The first edition will contain 50,000 articles consisting of the
> introductory paragraphs taken from the corresponding Wikipedia articles.
> The
> paragraphs usually provide a compact overview of the topic and its
> significance so they are well-suited for being published separately. They
> are comparable in depth and structure to full entries in other
> single-volume
> encyclopedias. At a price of €19.95 and its size of about 1,000 pages, it
> will be a pretty good value in comparison to similar works. The volume
> will
> be printed in full color and published as a hardcover with about 100
> pictures taken from Wikipedia as well.
>
> Topic selection for the first edition was based on page hits collected for
> German Wikipedia. The data was taken from Domas Miuzas' Wikistats (
> http://dammit.lt/wikistats/) and adjusted to reduce the impact of current
> but short-lived events in favor of lastingly popular topics. The list of
> authors for each article will be included in the finished volume and the
> GFDL will be observed as would be expected.
>
> There are a number of ways in which we see Wikipedia profiting from this
> project:
>
> 1) The Bertelsmann editors working on the first edition will submit parts
> of
> their work--such as improvements to article introductions--to Wikipedia
> under the GFDL.
>
> 2) The accessibility of Wikipedia content will be broadened to a wider
> range
> of readers. We may even recruit some new authors as a side effect.
>
> 3) For every copy sold, one Euro goes back to Wikimedia.
>
> We're looking forward to the response of this forthcoming announcement as
> well as the public availability of the first edition later this year.
>
>
> Sebastian Moleski
> Board of Directors
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
Roomberg 30
NL-7064 BN Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mary_murrell at yahoo

Apr 22, 2008, 4:29 PM

Post #3 of 61 (5328 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

This is interesting, but it raises a lot of questions:

1. So much for "free," I guess.

2. How will this "make wikipedia material accessible to a wider range of readers" than wikipedia on-line? Can you be more specific about that?

3. Is it really right to call this "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one volume" -- it's not really Wikipedia. It's some version of Wikipedia but it's certainly not Wikipedia.

4. Only one dollar to Wikimedia per copy? That's a measly 5% royalty. Who gets the rest?

5. Who's listed as "author" or "editor" or whatever .... according to the print way of doing things? Who signed the contract with Bertelsmann?

Sebastian Moleski <sebmol [at] gmail> wrote: Hi,

2008 has started as the year of old school encyclopedias permanently
relocating to the internet when Brockhaus announced that the current 30
volume edition would be the last one available in print. It may end as the
year when trees can yet again wither in the hope that they will end as
repositories of human knowledge. In a few hours, a well-known publishing
house will announce the production of a single-volume Wikipedia to be
available in stores this fall. Prior to this announcement, we wanted to
provide you with some background and details on this project.

There have been a number of approaches to publish Wikipedia content in print
such as the community-developed WikiReaders of a few years ago or the
WikiPress series of paperbacks produced by DirectMedia in Berlin. Now a new
project has started with the goal to produce a general encyclopedia based on
Wikipedia articles. First ideas for a single volume edition were formulated
some years ago but it wasn't until this year that a publisher was found who
would turn this vision into reality: this fall, the Bertelsmann Lexikon
Institut (Wissen Media) will publish the "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one
volume" in German language.

The first edition will contain 50,000 articles consisting of the
introductory paragraphs taken from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. The
paragraphs usually provide a compact overview of the topic and its
significance so they are well-suited for being published separately. They
are comparable in depth and structure to full entries in other single-volume
encyclopedias. At a price of €19.95 and its size of about 1,000 pages, it
will be a pretty good value in comparison to similar works. The volume will
be printed in full color and published as a hardcover with about 100
pictures taken from Wikipedia as well.

Topic selection for the first edition was based on page hits collected for
German Wikipedia. The data was taken from Domas Miuzas' Wikistats (
http://dammit.lt/wikistats/) and adjusted to reduce the impact of current
but short-lived events in favor of lastingly popular topics. The list of
authors for each article will be included in the finished volume and the
GFDL will be observed as would be expected.

There are a number of ways in which we see Wikipedia profiting from this
project:

1) The Bertelsmann editors working on the first edition will submit parts of
their work--such as improvements to article introductions--to Wikipedia
under the GFDL.

2) The accessibility of Wikipedia content will be broadened to a wider range
of readers. We may even recruit some new authors as a side effect.

3) For every copy sold, one Euro goes back to Wikimedia.

We're looking forward to the response of this forthcoming announcement as
well as the public availability of the first edition later this year.

Sebastian Moleski
Board of Directors
Wikimedia Deutschland
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

daniwo59 at aol

Apr 22, 2008, 4:33 PM

Post #4 of 61 (5324 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

In a message dated 4/22/2008 7:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mary_murrell [at] yahoo writes:

4. Only one dollar to Wikimedia per copy? That's a measly 5% royalty. Who
gets the rest?

While no one has commented on the initial print run, there are certainly
initial production costs that have to be covered, and these can be steep
(copyediting, fact checking, plates, separations, printing, etc.). For a first run
book which they can ostensibly grab for free, this is actually pretty generous.

Danny

**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

brianna.laugher at gmail

Apr 22, 2008, 6:56 PM

Post #5 of 61 (5301 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On 23/04/2008, Mary Murrell <mary_murrell [at] yahoo> wrote:
> This is interesting, but it raises a lot of questions:
>
> 1. So much for "free," I guess.

In what sense?
For free as in beer:
de.wikipedia.org isn't going anywhere.

For free as in speech:
The Free Encyclopedia is about free content, free licenses. Freedom
for the reader to use, adapt and distribute. Free cultural works are
not anti-commercial. So a commercial product does not in any way
encroach on the freedom of the works -- any more than offering
pre-compiled software for convenience means that software is not "open
source".

> 2. How will this "make wikipedia material accessible to a wider range of readers" than wikipedia on-line? Can you be more specific about that?

Our mission is to "disseminate [our content] effectively and
globally". I'm not speaking on behalf of WMDE, but it's clear to me
that there are many people (and institutions) around the world who are
not comfortable with purely internet-based things. Books, they can
grok.

Congrats WMDE, I think this is really exciting and I look forward to
seeing the German reaction.

cheers
Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mary_murrell at yahoo

Apr 22, 2008, 9:23 PM

Post #6 of 61 (5306 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher [at] gmail> wrote:

> 2. How will this "make wikipedia material accessible to a wider range of readers" than wikipedia on-line? Can you be more specific about that?

Our mission is to "disseminate [our content] effectively and
globally". I'm not speaking on behalf of WMDE, but it's clear to me
that there are many people (and institutions) around the world who are
not comfortable with purely internet-based things. Books, they can
grok.

1. Free as in $19.95-a-pop beer, yeah.

2. And free as in anyone can use and re-use it? I hope so. However, can, say, Indian printers make even cheaper editions and sell them wherever they want in all parts of the world, even Europe?

It's not a silly question. Books, publishers, and the structure of that business come with a lot of old traditions that aren't so easy to get around.

3. This is German encyclopedia--an important but hardly global language. It is a commercial endeavor by a publishing behemoth for a prosperous European audience. Ideals of global distribution to those underserved by the Internet hardly seem to apply here.

Perhaps the real value to wikipedians is the increased "branding" of wikipedia? I don't know, but I think this print projects feels like a diminution of wikipedia. ButI respect people's labor, always, and I don't want to denigrate that. I just wonder why this is any sort of priority to wikipedians.

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

teun.spaans at gmail

Apr 22, 2008, 10:45 PM

Post #7 of 61 (5331 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

Congratulations to everyone involved in this project.

5% royalty is a good rate as B. could theoretically grab the stuff for free
and will probbaly do additional copy-edting.

For the free culture this is an important step as I think this is one of the
first great cooperations with a commercial giant.

That this project will be criticized by some need not surprise or deter you.

I wish you happiness and health

teun spaans

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Sebastian Moleski <sebmol [at] gmail>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 2008 has started as the year of old school encyclopedias permanently
> relocating to the internet when Brockhaus announced that the current 30
> volume edition would be the last one available in print. It may end as the
> year when trees can yet again wither in the hope that they will end as
> repositories of human knowledge. In a few hours, a well-known publishing
> house will announce the production of a single-volume Wikipedia to be
> available in stores this fall. Prior to this announcement, we wanted to
> provide you with some background and details on this project.
>
> There have been a number of approaches to publish Wikipedia content in
> print
> such as the community-developed WikiReaders of a few years ago or the
> WikiPress series of paperbacks produced by DirectMedia in Berlin. Now a new
> project has started with the goal to produce a general encyclopedia based
> on
> Wikipedia articles. First ideas for a single volume edition were formulated
> some years ago but it wasn't until this year that a publisher was found who
> would turn this vision into reality: this fall, the Bertelsmann Lexikon
> Institut (Wissen Media) will publish the "Wikipedia encyclopedia in one
> volume" in German language.
>
> The first edition will contain 50,000 articles consisting of the
> introductory paragraphs taken from the corresponding Wikipedia articles.
> The
> paragraphs usually provide a compact overview of the topic and its
> significance so they are well-suited for being published separately. They
> are comparable in depth and structure to full entries in other
> single-volume
> encyclopedias. At a price of â‚¬19.95 and its size of about 1,000 pages, it
> will be a pretty good value in comparison to similar works. The volume will
> be printed in full color and published as a hardcover with about 100
> pictures taken from Wikipedia as well.
>
> Topic selection for the first edition was based on page hits collected for
> German Wikipedia. The data was taken from Domas Miuzas' Wikistats (
> http://dammit.lt/wikistats/) and adjusted to reduce the impact of current
> but short-lived events in favor of lastingly popular topics. The list of
> authors for each article will be included in the finished volume and the
> GFDL will be observed as would be expected.
>
> There are a number of ways in which we see Wikipedia profiting from this
> project:
>
> 1) The Bertelsmann editors working on the first edition will submit parts
> of
> their work--such as improvements to article introductions--to Wikipedia
> under the GFDL.
>
> 2) The accessibility of Wikipedia content will be broadened to a wider
> range
> of readers. We may even recruit some new authors as a side effect.
>
> 3) For every copy sold, one Euro goes back to Wikimedia.
>
> We're looking forward to the response of this forthcoming announcement as
> well as the public availability of the first edition later this year.
>
>
> Sebastian Moleski
> Board of Directors
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

putevod at mccme

Apr 23, 2008, 1:10 AM

Post #8 of 61 (5303 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

I have no experience with the encyclopaedias, but for academic press 5 to
10 percent royalty is standard. The rest goes to the publishing house and
covers all the publication and prepublication (editiung, typesetting,
publicity) costs.

Cheers
Yaroslav

>
> In a message dated 4/22/2008 7:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mary_murrell [at] yahoo writes:
>
> 4. Only one dollar to Wikimedia per copy? That's a measly 5% royalty. Who
> gets the rest?
>
>
>
> While no one has commented on the initial print run, there are certainly
> initial production costs that have to be covered, and these can be steep
> (copyediting, fact checking, plates, separations, printing, etc.). For a
> first run
> book which they can ostensibly grab for free, this is actually pretty
> generous.
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used
> car
> listings at AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

huskyr at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 1:17 AM

Post #9 of 61 (5297 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

I think this is a very important step for Wikipedia to be taken
seriously by a more academic public, and maybe also for people who
aren't that tech-savy (i'm especially talking about the elderly). I
would love to give this to my grandmother and be able to say that i
contributed to it (even though i'm not that active on de.wikipedia :).

Are there any pictures online somewhere on how it will look like?

-- Hay / Husky

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod [at] mccme> wrote:
> I have no experience with the encyclopaedias, but for academic press 5 to
> 10 percent royalty is standard. The rest goes to the publishing house and
> covers all the publication and prepublication (editiung, typesetting,
> publicity) costs.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
>
> >
> > In a message dated 4/22/2008 7:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > mary_murrell [at] yahoo writes:
> >
> > 4. Only one dollar to Wikimedia per copy? That's a measly 5% royalty. Who
> > gets the rest?
> >
> >
> >
> > While no one has commented on the initial print run, there are certainly
> > initial production costs that have to be covered, and these can be steep
> > (copyediting, fact checking, plates, separations, printing, etc.). For a
> > first run
> > book which they can ostensibly grab for free, this is actually pretty
> > generous.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> > **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used
> > car
> > listings at AOL Autos.
> > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gordon.joly at pobox

Apr 23, 2008, 1:44 AM

Post #10 of 61 (5302 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

At 07:45 +0200 23/4/08, teun spaans wrote:
>Congratulations to everyone involved in this project.
>
>5% royalty is a good rate as B. could theoretically grab the stuff for free
>and will probbaly do additional copy-edting.
>
>For the free culture this is an important step as I think this is one of the
>first great cooperations with a commercial giant.
>
>That this project will be criticized by some need not surprise or deter you.
>
>
>I wish you happiness and health
>
>teun spaans

It is a great experiment. I have a German WikiReader (of 75 pages or
so) that I picked up in Frankfurt at the first Wikimania . It is
about time somebody tried a "cut" of Wikipedia in print. The
publisher will take the risk and the Foundation (or German Chapter?)
will take the putative gain.

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly [at] pobox///

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 2:26 AM

Post #11 of 61 (5289 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly [at] pobox> wrote:
> At 07:45 +0200 23/4/08, teun spaans wrote:
> >Congratulations to everyone involved in this project.
> >
> >

> >
> >I wish you happiness and health
> >
> >teun spaans
>
>
> It is a great experiment. I have a German WikiReader (of 75 pages or
> so) that I picked up in Frankfurt at the first Wikimania . It is
> about time somebody tried a "cut" of Wikipedia in print. The
> publisher will take the risk and the Foundation (or German Chapter?)
> will take the putative gain.

I wonder if I am the only one whose first thought is that someone
might buy this book and then spend the rest of their life finding
all the people who contributed, and ask them for an autograph.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 2:48 AM

Post #12 of 61 (5343 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On 23/04/2008, Mary Murrell <mary_murrell [at] yahoo> wrote:

> 1. Free as in $19.95-a-pop beer, yeah.

Not bad for a 1000-page lump of dead tree, I'd say.

> 2. And free as in anyone can use and re-use it? I hope so. However, can, say, Indian printers make even cheaper editions and sell them wherever they want in all parts of the world, even Europe?

Yep - except possibly the Wikipedia trademark, which is a trademark
matter and not a copyright matter.

(An analogy: you can buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or you can download
the same thing free from centos.org minus the Red Hat trademarked
graphics.)

> 3. This is German encyclopedia--an important but hardly global language. It is a commercial endeavor by a publishing behemoth for a prosperous European audience. Ideals of global distribution to those underserved by the Internet hardly seem to apply here.

It's a very important proof of concept for the idea of open source
content production. Wikipedia DVDs in German have already sold very
nicely (as commercial products). A book further demonstrates the
viability of the model for producing a "real" encyclopedia.

> Perhaps the real value to wikipedians is the increased "branding" of wikipedia? I don't know, but I think this print projects feels like a diminution of wikipedia. ButI respect people's labor, always, and I don't want to denigrate that. I just wonder why this is any sort of priority to wikipedians.

Ever since the wikipedia.com days, producing printed final editions
has been a goal. This involves crass commerciality to make it a
happener, because dead trees with ink on cost money to make and
distribute.

See Erik Moller's essay "NC Licenses Considered Harmful" for a
detailed opinion of why commerciality is good for free culture, as it
provably has been for free software:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/11/16331/0655

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

oldakquill at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 3:01 AM

Post #13 of 61 (5299 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

2008/4/22 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk [at] googlemail>:
> I was curious how the German press will react. Up to now, Google news
> reports about 103 newspaper on-line articles. Most of them simply tell by
> their own words what they learned from the news agency dpa. Frankfurter
> Allgemeine, the most important newspaper (center-right), has even two
> commentaries about the Bertelsmann edition, both somewhat mocking. One of
> them said that the ideals of Wikipedia have been betrayed, because Wikipedia
> now trusts more to the literary editors of a big business group than to the
> Wikipedia contributors, who were not asked whether they want to become
> unpaid Bertelsmann collaborators.
> But most of the papers were neutral or slightly positive.
> By the way, I myself consider to buy a copy for my parents to christmas.
> Ziko

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Frankfurter
Allgemeine of what Wikipedia is. Is it not commonly understood that
Wikipedia content is free to reuse by whomever wishes to use it (under
the terms of the GFDL), even for commercial purposes?

Why does a particular reuse of Wikipedia content (which we can't, and
wouldn't want to, control) reflect anything on Wikipedia?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill [at] gmail)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 3:05 AM

Post #14 of 61 (5303 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On 23/04/2008, Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:

> This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Frankfurter
> Allgemeine of what Wikipedia is. Is it not commonly understood that
> Wikipedia content is free to reuse by whomever wishes to use it (under
> the terms of the GFDL), even for commercial purposes?

This is where we try to gently educate as we go :-)

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

oldakquill at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 3:28 AM

Post #15 of 61 (5301 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

2008/4/23 Mary Murrell <mary_murrell [at] yahoo>:
>
>
>
>
> Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > 2. How will this "make wikipedia material accessible to a wider range of readers" than wikipedia on-line? Can you be more specific about that?
>
> Our mission is to "disseminate [our content] effectively and
> globally". I'm not speaking on behalf of WMDE, but it's clear to me
> that there are many people (and institutions) around the world who are
> not comfortable with purely internet-based things. Books, they can
> grok.
>
> 1. Free as in $19.95-a-pop beer, yeah.

You are free to take a selection of Wikipedia articles (or the whole
thing), copyedit it, format it, lay it out for print, print it, bind
it, source it to book stores, &c. This is a necessary (and intended)
consequence of the GFDL. If you did all of these things, producing a
1000 page book containing 50, 000 articles formatted and printed to a
high standard, how much would you charge?

I don't think anyone is under the impression that this is in any way a
replacement of the online, live (i.e. "real") Wikipedia. This is
merely reuse of Wikipedia content by an unrelated and independent
organisation. I would hope that the print encyclopedia clearly states
on its jacket what Wikipedia is and where the content came from.

> 2. And free as in anyone can use and re-use it? I hope so. However, can, say, Indian printers make even cheaper editions and sell them wherever they want in all parts of the world, even Europe?
>
> It's not a silly question. Books, publishers, and the structure of that business come with a lot of old traditions that aren't so easy to get around.

Absolutely anyone is free to take Wikimedia content and use it for
whatever purpose they want - including commercial use. The only
restrictions on this is that any derivative work has to be similarly
copy-left licensed (GFDL), and a few more things.

Because a big print house has decided to print Wikimedia content,
doesn't mean the license has changed. The license is inviolable - once
something is committed to the GFDL, it cannot be uncommitted. All
derivative work based on GFDL licensed content must be GFDL. It
actually says a lot about the way in which traditional print is
adapting to copy-left licenses. Many traditional print houses which
previously relied on restrictive copyright are now being forced to
cope with copy-left licensing as a consequence of the juicy fruits
borne by copy-left projects.

> 3. This is German encyclopedia--an important but hardly global language. It is a commercial endeavor by a publishing behemoth for a prosperous European audience. Ideals of global distribution to those underserved by the Internet hardly seem to apply here.

German is the most widely spoken first language in the European Union,
and is second after English in terms of the number who can speak it.
It ranks as the 10th most widely-spoken langauge in the world and has
a place in most supranational and intergovernmental organisations. I'm
not sure why I'm defending a language, no matter how large or small...

Many people do not have access to the internet and many people prefer
print publishing. To name a few, this opens up Wikipedia content to
schools, older people (who may not have internet access, or who may
prefer print - no generalisations intended :)), libraries and anywhere
not immediately connected to the internet.

> Perhaps the real value to wikipedians is the increased "branding" of wikipedia? I don't know, but I think this print projects feels like a diminution of wikipedia. ButI respect people's labor, always, and I don't want to denigrate that. I just wonder why this is any sort of priority to wikipedians.

I, personally, think the Wikipedia branding being associated with this
book is the most controversial part of the whole plan. Although the
articles may be sourced from Wikipedia, they are partial
representations of the original articles with strong copyediting. As
far as I know, Wikipedia has had no part in the process of selection,
copyediting, presentation, or preparation. My concern is that the
Wikipedia brand is associated with something that is not a Wikipedia
venture and we may bear responsibility for things we have not done to
the content. As another poster seemed to indicate, Frankfurter
Allgemeine made comments about Wikipedia betraying its ideals
associated with this project despite our lack of involvement.

Finally, you indicate that Wikipedians have laboured for the print
house - I don't think this is a case. I believe the print house has
simply taken Wikipedia content and done everything with it (hence, in
part, the price tag).

This is great for Wikipedia and can only help the project. It is
important to understand that due to the GFDL, there is (thankfully) no
need to consult Wikipedia to use its content or request permission;
and using/modifying Wikipedia content is free. That is kind of the
whole point of the entire copy-left venture. As I said, the only
potential down-side is the association of the Wikipedia brand with
something we played little part in.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill [at] gmail)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 3:32 AM

Post #16 of 61 (5293 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On 23/04/2008, Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:

> This is great for Wikipedia and can only help the project. It is
> important to understand that due to the GFDL, there is (thankfully) no
> need to consult Wikipedia to use its content or request permission;
> and using/modifying Wikipedia content is free. That is kind of the
> whole point of the entire copy-left venture. As I said, the only
> potential down-side is the association of the Wikipedia brand with
> something we played little part in.

WM.de have been closely involved at all stages, and I assume this'll
continue, so I'd be surprised if it fails to enhance our good name.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

oldakquill at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 3:37 AM

Post #17 of 61 (5279 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

2008/4/23 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> On 23/04/2008, Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Frankfurter
> > Allgemeine of what Wikipedia is. Is it not commonly understood that
> > Wikipedia content is free to reuse by whomever wishes to use it (under
> > the terms of the GFDL), even for commercial purposes?
>
>
> This is where we try to gently educate as we go :-)
>
>
> - d.

Perhaps the peeved approach is not the best way to respond =] Assuming
that I am not misinterpreting what Ziko said regarding FAZ, does the
newspaper provide an opportunity to respond?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill [at] gmail)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

shimgray at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 4:04 AM

Post #18 of 61 (5295 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

2008/4/23 David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> On 23/04/2008, Mary Murrell <mary_murrell [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
> > 1. Free as in $19.95-a-pop beer, yeah.
>
> Not bad for a 1000-page lump of dead tree, I'd say.

Yeah. 20 EUR is, what, fifteen quid? That's pretty cheap for a
hardbound general reference work, especially one run off with decent
print standards (ie, colour throughout)

Britannica Concise is £50 for 2k pp.; DK's illustrated childrens'
encyclopedia is £30 for 800pp; some random A-Z Reference Book is £25
for 1400pp; Hutchinson Encyclopedia is £40 for 1000pp.; Penguin
Concise Encyclopedia is £19 for 1000pp (but is a rather cheap-looking
paperback, probably not much in the way of colour)

Assuming the German one-volume quick-reference market is about the
same as ours, it's priced well.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray [at] dunelm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 4:15 AM

Post #19 of 61 (5301 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On 23/04/2008, Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:

> Perhaps the peeved approach is not the best way to respond =] Assuming
> that I am not misinterpreting what Ziko said regarding FAZ, does the
> newspaper provide an opportunity to respond?

Matthias does lots of .de media, I assume someone will write a
suitable editor's letter :-)

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikimail at inbox

Apr 23, 2008, 4:47 AM

Post #20 of 61 (5302 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:48 AM, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 23/04/2008, Mary Murrell <mary_murrell [at] yahoo> wrote:
>
>
> > 1. Free as in $19.95-a-pop beer, yeah.
>
>
> Not bad for a 1000-page lump of dead tree, I'd say.
>
Eh, I can get an entire encyclopedia from the thrift store for
$0.50/volume (less when there are sales). Sure, it'll be a few years
old, but the overall quality will probably still be better.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mathias.schindler at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 5:22 AM

Post #21 of 61 (5299 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:

> Perhaps the peeved approach is not the best way to respond =] Assuming
> that I am not misinterpreting what Ziko said regarding FAZ, does the
> newspaper provide an opportunity to respond?
>

FAZ wrote three articles on that news yesterday and two more today. I
spoke with two of the journalist and it was an honest exchange of
ideas and facts.

There was some irony in this conversation when they complained to me
that this news was blown out of proportion by the media and that there
are much more interesting topics at wikipedia to talk about. In
return, I gave them a list of topics they at least should be
interested in, for example Semantic MediaWiki.

All in all, it was a good thing we spoke :)

Mathias

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

nawrich at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 5:25 AM

Post #22 of 61 (5304 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23wiki.html?ref=technology

Article today by Noam Cohen in the NY Times.

Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

zvandijk at googlemail

Apr 23, 2008, 6:02 AM

Post #23 of 61 (5299 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

On WDR Teletext a popular computer journalist, Jörg Schieb, blogged about
the Bertelsmann edition. He was sceptical that the printed edition will
provide new target groups to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is online for
free, always up to date and so on.
Because of the Digital Divide, I do believe that the printed edition can
reach some people who hardly ever use the net, although they are connected.
Maybe those people get interested in the online Wikipedia having seen the
printed edition.
Actually, the printed edition already had an important effect on Wikipedia's
image: the journalists stress out how useful the internet encyclopaedia is
compared to a printed book...
Ziko

2008/4/23 Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail>:

>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23wiki.html?ref=technology
>
> Article today by Noam Cohen in the NY Times.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Ziko van Dijk
Roomberg 30
NL-7064 BN Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mgodwin at wikimedia

Apr 23, 2008, 7:42 AM

Post #24 of 61 (5345 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

David Gerard writes:

> Yep - except possibly the Wikipedia trademark, which is a trademark
> matter and not a copyright matter.
>
> (An analogy: you can buy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, or you can download
> the same thing free from centos.org minus the Red Hat trademarked
> graphics.)

David is absolutely right about this. Historically, we (by "we" I mean
the Foundation and the community both) have treated the Wikimedia
trademarks -- including the Wikipedia puzzle globe and the logotype
and the commercial use of the word "Wikipedia" -- as if they were of
little commercial value, since the content by itself is freely
licensed and of course always will remain free. In the marketplace,
however, the trademarks turn out to be much more valuable. Beginning
late last year we have been taking steps to increase the extent to
which the trademark can be used commercially to bring money in to
subsidize our operations and the projects generally.

(I often use the example of Red Hat Linux when I explain this to folks.)

Apart from the commercial value of the trademarks, they also, when
properly used, can be a strong signal that encyclopedic content with
the Wikipedia brand is free content that must remain free.

--Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

mary_murrell at yahoo

Apr 23, 2008, 9:06 AM

Post #25 of 61 (5294 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume" [In reply to]

I'd like to see a book publishing contract that is committed to GFDL. Does anyone have one they could share?

Again, I'm not try to criticize or denigrate this project. I just think it raises a lot of questions that can't so easily be answered because we love copyleft licensing. It's a cross-breeding of legal frameworks, and I'm not sure the hybrid would automatically be what we might like it to be (i.e., the best of both worlds).

Oldak Quill <oldakquill [at] gmail> wrote:

Absolutely anyone is free to take Wikimedia content and use it for
whatever purpose they want - including commercial use. The only
restrictions on this is that any derivative work has to be similarly
copy-left licensed (GFDL), and a few more things.

Because a big print house has decided to print Wikimedia content,
doesn't mean the license has changed. The license is inviolable - once
something is committed to the GFDL, it cannot be uncommitted. All
derivative work based on GFDL licensed content must be GFDL. It
actually says a lot about the way in which traditional print is
adapting to copy-left licenses. Many traditional print houses which
previously relied on restrictive copyright are now being forced to
cope with copy-left licensing as a consequence of the juicy fruits
borne by copy-left projects.

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2 3

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads