Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

kwadhwa at wikimedia

Apr 23, 2008, 10:23 AM

Post #1 of 14 (1631 views)
Permalink

Re: Bertelsmann publishes "Wikipedia Encyclopedia in One Volume"

Royalty rates run across the board but I can tell you that we did push
Bertelsmann because money that goes back to fund the "mission" is a good
thing. We have to look at the total package so getting a publishing
giant such as Bertelsmann behind this and agreeing to GFDL could already
be considered a win.

--Kul

Husky wrote:
> 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.ru> 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.com 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.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

saintonge at telus

Apr 23, 2008, 12:28 PM

Post #2 of 14 (1553 views)
Permalink

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

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2008/4/23 David Gerard <dgerard[at]gmail.com>:
>
>> On 23/04/2008, Mary Murrell 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 Ł50 for 2k pp.; DK's illustrated childrens'
> encyclopedia is Ł30 for 800pp; some random A-Z Reference Book is Ł25
> for 1400pp; Hutchinson Encyclopedia is Ł40 for 1000pp.; Penguin
> Concise Encyclopedia is Ł19 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.
>
>
Indeed, anyone who would put an excessive price on an open source work
runs the risk that anyone could legally reprint the same work, and
undercut the overpriced edition.

Ec
.

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

dgerard at gmail

Apr 23, 2008, 12:46 PM

Post #3 of 14 (1555 views)
Permalink

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

2008/4/23 Kul Takanao Wadhwa <kwadhwa[at]wikimedia.org>:

> Royalty rates run across the board but I can tell you that we did push
> Bertelsmann because money that goes back to fund the "mission" is a good
> thing. We have to look at the total package so getting a publishing
> giant such as Bertelsmann behind this and agreeing to GFDL could already
> be considered a win.

And I just got GFDL mentioned in the press, with its share-alike
terms. That's a big win for our mission.

- d.

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

kwadhwa at wikimedia

Apr 24, 2008, 12:21 PM

Post #4 of 14 (1563 views)
Permalink

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

>
> In the meantime, I am struggling with the details of adhering to the
> letter of the GFDL -- because there is little precedent we are having
> to work things out as we go. Someday, I would love to see a "dummy's
> guide to publishing under a free content license" -- half of the
> problem of using many licenses, even CC, is they're hard to figure out
> for the average person.
>
> best,
> Phoebe Ayers
>

Come to think of it, this is actually a good idea. At least having
some type of guide, or a condensed version, would be really helpful
to be able to educate various parties out there...and I could really
use this as well.

--Kul

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

dgerard at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 12:48 PM

Post #5 of 14 (1553 views)
Permalink

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

2008/4/24 Kul Takanao Wadhwa <kwadhwa[at]wikimedia.org>:

> > In the meantime, I am struggling with the details of adhering to the
> > letter of the GFDL -- because there is little precedent we are having
> > to work things out as we go. Someday, I would love to see a "dummy's
> > guide to publishing under a free content license" -- half of the
> > problem of using many licenses, even CC, is they're hard to figure out
> > for the average person.

> Come to think of it, this is actually a good idea. At least having
> some type of guide, or a condensed version, would be really helpful
> to be able to educate various parties out there...and I could really
> use this as well.

I started this page for the express purpose of reducing the number of
phone calls I got asking how people could reuse images from Wikipedia:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse

(Asking for clarification on the trickier bits was where I discovered
how licensing[at]fsf.org seem to use a Magic 8 Ball for GFDL questions.
The FSF don't have a clue about the license either.)

- d.

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

saintonge at telus

Apr 24, 2008, 1:07 PM

Post #6 of 14 (1547 views)
Permalink

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

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Kul Takanao Wadhwa <kwadhwa[at]wikimedia.org>
>> > In the meantime, I am struggling with the details of adhering to the
>> > letter of the GFDL -- because there is little precedent we are having
>> > to work things out as we go. Someday, I would love to see a "dummy's
>> > guide to publishing under a free content license" -- half of the
>> > problem of using many licenses, even CC, is they're hard to figure out
>> > for the average person.
>>
>> Come to think of it, this is actually a good idea. At least having
>> some type of guide, or a condensed version, would be really helpful
>> to be able to educate various parties out there...and I could really
>> use this as well.
>>
> I started this page for the express purpose of reducing the number of
> phone calls I got asking how people could reuse images from Wikipedia:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse
>
> (Asking for clarification on the trickier bits was where I discovered
> how licensing[at]fsf.org seem to use a Magic 8 Ball for GFDL questions.
> The FSF don't have a clue about the license either.)
If you really believe that such a page will inhibit the phone callers,
I'm afraid that you are suffering from pathological optimism. ;-)

Ec

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

dgerard at gmail

Apr 24, 2008, 1:28 PM

Post #7 of 14 (1550 views)
Permalink

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

2008/4/24 Ray Saintonge <saintonge[at]telus.net>:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > I started this page for the express purpose of reducing the number of
> > phone calls I got asking how people could reuse images from Wikipedia:
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Reuse

> > (Asking for clarification on the trickier bits was where I discovered
> > how licensing[at]fsf.org seem to use a Magic 8 Ball for GFDL questions.
> > The FSF don't have a clue about the license either.)
> If you really believe that such a page will inhibit the phone callers,
> I'm afraid that you are suffering from pathological optimism. ;-)

Well, yes. But it's linked from the WMF press page, and it gives me
somewhere to send them :-)

- d.

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

waerth at asianet

Apr 27, 2008, 2:44 PM

Post #8 of 14 (1531 views)
Permalink

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

Look at it from another side. A Pokemon encyclopedia might bring in a
lot more money than a serious one! Why not make a wikipedia encyclopedia
of popular youth culture? With Britney, Pokemon, Manga etc etc etc in
there. We might have a bestseller in our hands. So we can fund the
projects!!

Waerth
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> So then a english print version would have to be restricted down to absolutely essential information?
>>
>
> I wonder if we can squeeze all the Pokemon articles into 1000 pages...
>
> [ducks]
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>

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

aphaia at gmail

Apr 27, 2008, 5:35 PM

Post #9 of 14 (1534 views)
Permalink

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

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Waerth <waerth[at]asianet.co.th> wrote:
> Look at it from another side. A Pokemon encyclopedia might bring in a
> lot more money than a serious one!

But is it worth to make a deal with Nintendo, even their Seattle
headquarters (not in Kyoto), and pass their quality control check
(they are very keen to keep quality of derivatives, seeing the Atari
shock impact in '80s) and pay them loyalties? IMHO it would not the
best way of using Foundation staff's energy ... Even it may bring a
lot of money, it would better to be done with a third party.

> Why not make a wikipedia encyclopedia
> of popular youth culture? With Britney, Pokemon, Manga etc etc etc in
> there. We might have a bestseller in our hands. So we can fund the
> projects!!
>
> Waerth
>
>
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 3:31 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So then a english print version would have to be restricted down to absolutely essential information?
> >>
> >
> > I wonder if we can squeeze all the Pokemon articles into 1000 pages...
> >
> > [ducks]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

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

delirium at hackish

Apr 27, 2008, 10:14 PM

Post #10 of 14 (1521 views)
Permalink

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

David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/4/24 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki[at]gmail.com>:
>
> [What a strange attribution line Gmail has taken to.]
>
>
>> In the meantime, I am struggling with the details of adhering to the
>> letter of the GFDL -- because there is little precedent we are having
>> to work things out as we go. Someday, I would love to see a "dummy's
>> guide to publishing under a free content license" -- half of the
>> problem of using many licenses, even CC, is they're hard to figure out
>> for the average person.
>>
>
>
> Has anyone *ever* gotten an answer from licensing[at]fsf.org regarding a
> GFDL question that is more helpful than a Magic 8-Ball? "Reply hazy,
> try again later, ask your own lawyer."

Basically, no, but people have heard Richard Stallman suggest
semi-publicly that some of the worries about it are overblown (of
course, since he's largely responsible for the license he probably would
think so). In particular, it *doesn't* seem to be necessary to reprint
the full wiki editing history of an article to comply with the GFDL's
"publication history section" requirement, especially since we don't
present it in the original transparent source as such.

More importantly, since Bertelsmann are definitely not doing so
(it would take much more space than the actual stub articles to print
the full editing history for each one), and presumably their lawyers
have vetted that as okay, this provides some good precedent for other
reusers.

-Mark

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

wikimail at inbox

Apr 28, 2008, 4:23 AM

Post #11 of 14 (1536 views)
Permalink

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

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Delirium <delirium[at]hackish.org> wrote:
> In particular, it *doesn't* seem to be necessary to reprint
> the full wiki editing history of an article to comply with the GFDL's
> "publication history section" requirement, especially since we don't
> present it in the original transparent source as such.
>
> More importantly, since Bertelsmann are definitely not doing so
> (it would take much more space than the actual stub articles to print
> the full editing history for each one), and presumably their lawyers
> have vetted that as okay, this provides some good precedent for other
> reusers.
>
> -Mark
>
Violations of the law are not precedent. It's only a precedent if
Bertelsmann is sued and wins in a court within the same jurisdiction
as you.

I assume Bertelsmann is going to at least be listing the names of all
the authors in order to satisfy the basic essence of the history
requirement. The GFDL makes no requirement to "reprint the full wiki
editing history". It says "If there is no section Entitled "History"
in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and
publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

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

delirium at hackish

Apr 28, 2008, 5:21 PM

Post #12 of 14 (1518 views)
Permalink

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

Anthony wrote:
> I assume Bertelsmann is going to at least be listing the names of all
> the authors in order to satisfy the basic essence of the history
> requirement. The GFDL makes no requirement to "reprint the full wiki
> editing history". It says "If there is no section Entitled "History"
> in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and
> publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
> describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."

Listing all the authors "as given on its Title Page" is a pretty empty
requirement, since Wikipedia articles don't have any title page that
lists any authors.

-Mark

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

thedaveross at gmail

Apr 28, 2008, 5:25 PM

Post #13 of 14 (1521 views)
Permalink

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

From the very first post:
"The list of authors for each article will be included in the finished
volume and the GFDL will be observed as would be expected."

-Dave

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Delirium <delirium[at]hackish.org> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > I assume Bertelsmann is going to at least be listing the names of all
> > the authors in order to satisfy the basic essence of the history
> > requirement. The GFDL makes no requirement to "reprint the full wiki
> > editing history". It says "If there is no section Entitled "History"
> > in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and
> > publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
> > describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."
>
> Listing all the authors "as given on its Title Page" is a pretty empty
> requirement, since Wikipedia articles don't have any title page that
> lists any authors.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikimail at inbox

Apr 28, 2008, 6:11 PM

Post #14 of 14 (1521 views)
Permalink

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

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Delirium <delirium[at]hackish.org> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > I assume Bertelsmann is going to at least be listing the names of all
> > the authors in order to satisfy the basic essence of the history
> > requirement. The GFDL makes no requirement to "reprint the full wiki
> > editing history". It says "If there is no section Entitled "History"
> > in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and
> > publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
> > describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence."
>
> Listing all the authors "as given on its Title Page" is a pretty empty
> requirement, since Wikipedia articles don't have any title page that
> lists any authors.
>
I've always taken "as given on its Title Page" to only modify
"publisher of the Document".

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

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com