Re-purposing Dalmatia, Amazon.com and dubious sources Options

[thekohser]

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

Who says I wasn't going to bind it? I've got glue and a brown paper shopping bag and scissors.

Besides, I made clear in my condition notes that the product would consist of a stack of Wikipedia print-outs. If the buyer didn't read that or care about it, why should binding be important? The Alphascript marketing doesn't promise binding. It merely says "(Paperback)". Paperback is defined as "a book with paper covers".

Anyway, my newest listings will include the following very clear condition note:

Special "unbound" manuscript, consisting of printed-out pages copied from Wikipedia, just like the original product from Alphascript Publishing.

If I've violated Amazon TOS, then they can remove me from their Seller's list. Thus far, I have a 5-star rating as a Seller. What is Alphascript's Seller rating? I'll be happy to violate Amazon's TOS, if it draws attention to a much larger marketing fraud, license violation, and trademark infringement.

Get back to work on your "proxy cabal" idea, Abd.

Caveat emptor!

This post has been edited by thekohser: Fri 16th October 2009, 1:12pm

[carbuncle]

But, you want an example of idiocy, how about the idea that what you were offering, a pile of copies of articles, would be the same as what they were selling, a bound book? Same content, but a pile of copies is far from as desirable as a bound book, particularly if the book is organized properly. Dalmatia. If I had some interest in Dalmatia, that would make a nice addition to a coffee-table, even if it is a copy of Wikipedia articles. I'd expect better thinking from you, Greg, what got you on a rant about this?

Who says I wasn't going to bind it? I've got glue and a brown paper shopping bag and scissors.

Besides, I made clear in my condition notes that the product would consist of a stack of Wikipedia print-outs. If the buyer didn't read that or care about it, why should binding be important? The Alphascript marketing doesn't promise binding. It merely says "(Paperback)". Paperback is defined as "a book with paper covers".

Anyway, my newest listings will include the following very clear condition note:

Special "unbound" manuscript, consisting of printed-out pages copied from Wikipedia, just like the original product from Alphascript Publishing.

If I've violated Amazon TOS, then they can remove me from their Seller's list. Thus far, I have a 5-star rating as a Seller. What is Alphascript's Seller rating? I'll be happy to violate Amazon's TOS, if it draws attention to a much larger marketing fraud, license violation, and trademark infringement.

Get back to work on your "proxy cabal" idea, Abd.

Caveat emptor!

If Amazon tosses you for violating their TOS, then whatever good you are doing protecting people from this scam will come to an end. Your disclaimer can be interpreted to mean that Alphascript's offering is also unbound.

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

[thekohser]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

The proposition in bold above has not been proven. In fact, I have yet to encounter one person who has bought an Alphascript "book" copied from Wikipedia who knew that the content was from Wikipedia before their purchase. However, I have encountered several people who had no idea, and they feel duped by a marketing scam.

Therefore, were I to underprice Alphascript, and fairly and clearly market that the content is copied from Wikipedia, I would have very little to no sales.

It's astounding to me that so few seem to "get" this conundrum.

[CharlotteWebb]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles...

Could be some of the same people who buy bottled water.

[carbuncle]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles, why not just beat Alphascript at their own game? Make it clear what you (and Alphascript) are selling and have the books printed on demand, just like they do. This lets people know what Alphascript is doing, and it undercuts them so they're less likely to make a sale if that's what people really want. Plus, you make a little money.

The proposition in bold above has not been proven. In fact, I have yet to encounter one person who has bought an Alphascript "book" copied from Wikipedia who knew that the content was from Wikipedia before their purchase. However, I have encountered several people who had no idea, and they feel duped by a marketing scam.

Therefore, were I to underprice Alphascript, and fairly and clearly market that the content is copied from Wikipedia, I would have very little to no sales.

It's astounding to me that so few seem to "get" this conundrum.

I phrased that poorly. I didn't mean that people are necessarily knowingly buying WP articles, although there may be a small market as was suggested earlier.

I think what you're trying to do is alert people that Alphascript is simply publishing WP articles at what seem to be very high prices. I presume your ultimate goal in this is to get Amazon to see this practice as a problem and deal with it. If you undercut Alphascript on a particular topic, say Skanderbeg, you can make clear in your description what you are selling and what Alphascript is selling. You may not sell many (or any) but if people click your listing based on price, they get a chance to see the information. Of course, Amazon is likely to ban you for this.

[Milton Roe]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles...

Could be some of the same people who buy bottled water.

But in fairness, some of what you "buy" in such a product is exactly what WP does not do, to "finish off" its "product." Namely, a tasteful and wise article-selection job, with good final copy-edit.

I've seen a popular science book on the chemical elements, sold at Barnes and Noble right NOW, which frankly is not nearly as good as what you'd get if you simply selected out the hundred-odd WP articles on the chemical elements, with photos and databoxes, did a final copyedit, and printed it up with a nice cover. I'm sure there are a number of topics this is true for. The trick is knowing what they are. And that's the whole point, no?

Cla68, I will bet, could edit a couple of very nice volumes of WP's military history which would be an excellent read.

It's all about somebody actually doing the job Sanger wanted to do, and finally selling the product in dead tree form. There's no substitute for good-taste, expertise, and that final 5% that finishes off any job. All the things that WMF and Jimbo never were able to do, or could bring themselves to do.

[CharlotteWebb]

Here's an idea - if people are willing to buy paperbacks of WP articles...

Could be some of the same people who buy bottled water.

But in fairness, some of what you "buy" in such a product is exactly what WP does not do, to "finish off" its "product." Namely, a tasteful and wise article-selection job, with good final copy-edit.

[...]

It's all about somebody actually doing the job Sanger wanted to do, and finally selling the product in dead tree form. There's no substitute for good-taste, expertise, and that final 5% that finishes off any job. All the things that WMF and Jimbo never were able to do, or could bring themselves to do.

And apparently neither could these people (?):

A lot of the books on sale contain wiki mark-up that hasn't been removed. And the image on the front of the book about Georgia, the country, is of Georgia, the US state!

It is one thing to make a silk purse out of a horse's ass, but making a thousand photocopies of your butt and marketing it as a silk purse is quite another (and tends to be poorly received unless one is Linda Ronstadt).

[thekohser]

Of course, Amazon is likely to ban you for this.

I'm prepared for that. It's the same company that invested $10 million in Jimbo's Wikia and its trampoline, so doing something stupid would not be a new thing for Amazon.

If Amazon bans me from its Seller's list (from which I've made about $26, lifetime), what will I ever do with myself? I have so much of my self-worth and reputation riding on Amazon's opinion of me.



One thing I haven't pointed out, but I'll also bet is a TOS violation is the fact that a co-owner of Alphascript is waltzing around Amazon, rating their products "5 stars". Are you allowed to rate your own publications?

[thekohser]

Thing is, Bibles and Shakespeare aren't typically marketed as being "by" John McBrewster.

It lists him as an editor. I'm not thrilled by the marketing, which strikes me as misleading, but my guess is that there is no license violation here, at least if they have been careful. On the other hand, Kohs, seems to me that you may have violated the Amazon TOS.

The basic idea is sound. No comment on the price, but people will pay for those books. They may not get filthy rich, but they will make money if they do it right. Actually, it's a cool way to make a buck from being an editor.

I finally noticed that my Google spam filter trapped the October 15th reply from my would-be "buyer". She said to me:

Hi there...Please cancel my order! I had no idea...I, too, will forward this to amazon and my attorney! Thank you for your honesty...It is rare these days!

Allison

[thekohser]

Just received this e-mail today:

I was getting ready to purchase a book on the apocrypha from Amazon and noted your tags... did my own due diligence to discover the Alphascript scam... Thank you for your attention to this... just think of how many people buy that crap because of the low price, without regard to what the purchase is promoting.

Thanks again.

David M. Brewer

Funny, neither Amazon Legal nor the Wikimedia Foundation's Michael Snow ever took any action (that I could detect) to limit the Alphascript scam and misuse of the Wikipedia trademark.

[A User]

Just received this e-mail today:

I was getting ready to purchase a book on the apocrypha from Amazon and noted your tags... did my own due diligence to discover the Alphascript scam... Thank you for your attention to this... just think of how many people buy that crap because of the low price, without regard to what the purchase is promoting.

Thanks again.

David M. Brewer

Funny, neither Amazon Legal nor the Wikimedia Foundation's Michael Snow ever took any action (that I could detect) to limit the Alphascript scam and misuse of the Wikipedia trademark.

Four months later and still no legal action has been taken. The number of Alphascript 'titles' have expanded in the meantime. This is a good reason why people shouldn't contribute to WP. There are unscrupulous scammers who are quite willing to profit from contributions made under the pretext of 'free' knowledge.

This post has been edited by WikiWatch: Tue 9th March 2010, 6:45am

[thekohser]

Four months later and still no legal action has been taken. The number of Alphascript 'titles' have expanded in the meantime. This is a good reason why people shouldn't contribute to WP. There are unscrupulous scammers who are quite willing to profit from contributions made under the pretext of 'free' knowledge.

I don't know if that's a good reason for people not to contribute to Wikipedia, but it's certainly a good reason not to contribute money to the Wikimedia Foundation. If they won't actively work on a "cease and desist" response to something as fraudulent as this, what exactly are donors paying Mike Godwin for?

[thekohser]

Alphascript Publishing is now nearing 40,000 titles on Amazon.com.

You would think that Amazon itself would want to shut them down, just on the basis of clogging their servers with this garbage. But, then again, if they're making one sale a day off of any of these 40,000 pages, I guess the Amazon commission cut would pay for the storage space.

[cookiehead]

Some deutschefellow has a boner against Amazon for it's "collaboration" in selling "books" from some probably scammy publisher. Apparently taking WikiPedia articles and publishing them as books.

As if there already aren't enough crappy "books" around with lousy proof-reading and lack of editorial judgement.

Well, the person in question is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Playmobilonhishorse


Get a load of that user page. Can you say "My sole purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate for a legal case brought against "Dr. Wolfgang Philipp Müller." I knew you could.

So this person posts a blog, user submitted type entry on a German equivalent of "hot e-deals.com". Then uses the German-American gray area of laziness in verifying sources to use it as a "reliable source" about this "controversy" on the Amazon page. Yet there are no WP:RS anywhere reporting on this "controversy".

Matter discussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rel...d#Preisgenau.de

[thekohser]

Edit: post made irrelevant, thanks to mods helpfully moving the errant thread into this one.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 22nd September 2010, 7:24pm

[lilburne]

Just a thought but most wikipedia articles are built up from a couple of paragraphs copied from elsewhere followed by a load of minor edits. I can't see that changing 'Famous' to 'Notable', or adding a punctuation is actually copyrightable. Also being an encyclopaedia most of it is supposedly facts, which aren't copyrightable either. IMO the only copyrightable content on there exists in the trolls, the talk pages, and the images.

[milowent]

Some deutschefellow has a boner against Amazon for it's "collaboration" in selling "books" from some probably scammy publisher. Apparently taking WikiPedia articles and publishing them as books.

yes, this comes up from time to time. my avatar is the badge that the company added to the front cover of their new "publications" after the last round of outcries against them.

[thekohser]

Looks like SlimVirgin just discovered this scam for the first time. I thought she was a reader and participant here?

Welcome to 2009, Slim!

[Milton Roe]

Looks like SlimVirgin just discovered this scam for the first time. I thought she was a reader and participant here?

Welcome to 2009, Slim!

I don't know what's funnier, the fact that she said "her" FA article was being sold by Amazon for $49, or the fact that Amazon indeed not only does that, but says it's available too on Kindle.

For a couple of years I've pointed out that WMF could actually take the text of all the FA articles (indeed, all the articles on WP, leaving out only stubs and porn for quality not space purposes) and stick it all on one 32 GB micro-SD card. Even 64 GB, which you could put in any cellphone with a STI-MICROSD/64 port. That's GIGA, not megabytes. (No, not in the iPhone, but that's due to Apple and Jobs prejudice against plug-in anything).

So now the palpable irony. The WMF has millions which they could be using to get all print WP, or some selection of all FA articles, pics and all, on microSD for all cell phones, and even Kindle readers themselves (which now cost $150). It isn't happening. Instead, their articles are being scraped one-by-one and sold by Amazon/Kindle for thousands of times the cost.

I don't know how long WMF can take this, but I suspect some kind of direct deal with Kindle will be too tempting to pass up. With the profit of course going to the foundation. And then used from there for anybody's wild projects, including the usual ones that benefit Wikia in some clever and non-direct way.

But meanwhile, still no WP on micro-SDs. It's obvious, efficient, could be very cheap, and yet due to market forces, it's not going to happen soon.

Argghhhh.

[thekohser]

But meanwhile, still no WP on micro-SDs. It's obvious, efficient, could be very cheap, and yet due to market forces, it's not going to happen soon.

Argghhhh.

Is there anyone selling porn on micro-SDs? If not, then I don't see a market for Wikipedia on micro-SDs, either. If a medium hasn't already been exploited profitably for porn, then that medium is not going to be exploited at all for Wikipedia.

I'm not saying the two are related, of course, but it's sort of like another rule of thumb that I've never had disproved to me:

You will never find an Olive Garden that is not within 3 miles of McDonald's. (And usually, it's less than 1 mile away.) In this case, there actually is a relationship between the two. Darden Restaurants, when selecting potential locations for a new Olive Garden, examines whether or not there is a successful McDonald's franchise nearby. If so, they contend that the market would be able to sustain an Olive Garden, too. They let McDonald's do the dirty work of site selection, in other words.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 22nd September 2010, 7:38pm