The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> PediaPress, VDM Publishing, Making money off Wikipedians' work?
Rating  5
HRIP7
post Sun 14th November 2010, 6:45am
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Interesting thread on the Foundation list.

What with about 150,000 Wikipedia books out by the Alphascript and Betasricpt imprints of VDM Publishing (nudging towards 10% of the 2 million book titles that amazon offers), Pediapress keeping 90% of the proceeds they make off the Wikipedia book feature in the left sidebar, the issue of who makes money off Wikipedians' work (while the Foundation asks the public for donations) will no doubt gain in importance over the coming years.

Isn't it funny that all these companies are German? I wonder who in Wikimedia Germany has a finger in those pies.

This issue has a greater potential for killing Wikipedia than poor administration, porn scandals and BLP disasters taken together. The moment "teh community" realises they work their butts off to make some fat cat fatter, the air will go out of the balloon.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Sun 14th November 2010, 2:39pm
Post #2


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



So, should every good Wikipedia Reviewer go now and buy two or three Alphascript books? Can you assure me that this will bring down the Wikimedia Foundation?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Sun 14th November 2010, 3:08pm
Post #3


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 14th November 2010, 1:45am) *

This issue has a greater potential for killing Wikipedia than poor administration, porn scandals and BLP disasters taken together. The moment "teh community" realises they work their butts off to make some fat cat fatter, the air will go out of the balloon.


Wikipedia has actually been pretty open about this. Everyone knows that the content there can be used for almost any purpose, even commercial.

You might have some more luck if you show how the license terms have not been honored, i.e. the authors were not acknowledged properly.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post Sun 14th November 2010, 7:30pm
Post #4


Chameleon
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am
Member No.: 21,803

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Emperor @ Sun 14th November 2010, 3:08pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 14th November 2010, 1:45am) *

This issue has a greater potential for killing Wikipedia than poor administration, porn scandals and BLP disasters taken together. The moment "teh community" realises they work their butts off to make some fat cat fatter, the air will go out of the balloon.


Wikipedia has actually been pretty open about this. Everyone knows that the content there can be used for almost any purpose, even commercial.

You might have some more luck if you show how the license terms have not been honored, i.e. the authors were not acknowledged properly.


As a German company will they be printing the Pr0n and the neo-nazi stuff?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
BelovedFox
post Sun 14th November 2010, 9:14pm
Post #5


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 6:54pm
Member No.: 16,616

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 14th November 2010, 6:45am) *

Interesting thread on the Foundation list.

What with about 150,000 Wikipedia books out by the Alphascript and Betasricpt imprints of VDM Publishing (nudging towards 10% of the 2 million book titles that amazon offers), Pediapress keeping 90% of the proceeds they make off the Wikipedia book feature in the left sidebar, the issue of who makes money off Wikipedians' work (while the Foundation asks the public for donations) will no doubt gain in importance over the coming years.

Isn't it funny that all these companies are German? I wonder who in Wikimedia Germany has a finger in those pies.

This issue has a greater potential for killing Wikipedia than poor administration, porn scandals and BLP disasters taken together. The moment "teh community" realises they work their butts off to make some fat cat fatter, the air will go out of the balloon.


Given that these are essentially computer-generated books with obviously poor production values, I seriously doubt they are making anyone seriously rich.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sun 14th November 2010, 9:40pm
Post #6


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



As SlimVirgin asked:
QUOTE
Wikipedians who have been paid for writing articles (including policy-compliant ones) have been
blocked or ostracized. They've not been offered sidebar access by the Foundation.

Can the Foundation please explain how Brainbot/Pediapress was chosen?

I, too, would like to hear the answer to those little questions........

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 14th November 2010, 9:41pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Milton Roe
post Sun 14th November 2010, 9:51pm
Post #7


Known alias of J. Random Troll
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined: Thu 28th Feb 2008, 1:03am
Member No.: 5,156

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 14th November 2010, 2:40pm) *

As SlimVirgin asked:
QUOTE
Wikipedians who have been paid for writing articles (including policy-compliant ones) have been
blocked or ostracized. They've not been offered sidebar access by the Foundation.

Can the Foundation please explain how Brainbot/Pediapress was chosen?

I, too, would like to hear the answer to those little questions........

ohmy.gif Slim is vaguely alluding to the mistreatment of the Unkohser One Who Must Not Be Named. wtf.gif

If she actually names Kohs, and pushes his case, my head may explode.

Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Mon 15th November 2010, 1:53am
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(BelovedFox @ Sun 14th November 2010, 9:14pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 14th November 2010, 6:45am) *

Interesting thread on the Foundation list.

What with about 150,000 Wikipedia books out by the Alphascript and Betasricpt imprints of VDM Publishing (nudging towards 10% of the 2 million book titles that amazon offers), Pediapress keeping 90% of the proceeds they make off the Wikipedia book feature in the left sidebar, the issue of who makes money off Wikipedians' work (while the Foundation asks the public for donations) will no doubt gain in importance over the coming years.

Isn't it funny that all these companies are German? I wonder who in Wikimedia Germany has a finger in those pies.

This issue has a greater potential for killing Wikipedia than poor administration, porn scandals and BLP disasters taken together. The moment "teh community" realises they work their butts off to make some fat cat fatter, the air will go out of the balloon.


Given that these are essentially computer-generated books with obviously poor production values, I seriously doubt they are making anyone seriously rich.

Oh, I don't know. If you leaf through the European Union one, for example, it looks like it might be kind of useful.

Current catalog of books available.

Of course, there is also the vanity market for Wikipedians. tongue.gif Written a few FAs? Hey, you can have a book of them. In colour and all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
NuclearWarfare
post Mon 15th November 2010, 3:13am
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue 23rd Dec 2008, 10:24pm
Member No.: 9,506

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 15th November 2010, 1:53am) *
Oh, I don't know. If you leaf through the European Union one, for example, it looks like it might be kind of useful.

Current catalog of books available.

Would you spend $100 on that?

I would be interested to know how many people have actually bought something off of PediaPress, as opposed to just making a Book.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 15th November 2010, 3:40am
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 14th November 2010, 4:51pm) *

ohmy.gif Slim is vaguely alluding to the mistreatment of the Unkohser One Who Must Not Be Named. wtf.gif

If she actually names Kohs, and pushes his case, my head may explode.


If Slim keeps going on like this, we may one day see a sidebar link for "Ask Wikipedia Review to create this article" whenever you land on a red-link page.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jon Awbrey
post Mon 15th November 2010, 4:00am
Post #11


τὰ δέ μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined: Sun 6th Apr 2008, 4:52am
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 14th November 2010, 10:40pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 14th November 2010, 4:51pm) *

ohmy.gif Slim is vaguely alluding to the mistreatment of the Unkohser One Who Must Not Be Named. wtf.gif

If she actually names Kohs, and pushes his case, my head may explode.


If Slim keeps going on like this, we may one day see a sidebar link for “Ask Wikipedia Review to create this article” whenever you land on a red-link page.


No doubt they'll sent out a RFP and take competitive bids.

Jon tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Mon 15th November 2010, 12:05pm
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(NuclearWarfare @ Mon 15th November 2010, 3:13am) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Mon 15th November 2010, 1:53am) *
Oh, I don't know. If you leaf through the European Union one, for example, it looks like it might be kind of useful.

Current catalog of books available.

Would you spend $100 on that?

I would be interested to know how many people have actually bought something off of PediaPress, as opposed to just making a Book.

No, I wouldn't. Erik Möller sez PediaPress sell about 8,000 books per annum. Assuming an average price of $50, that would make $400,000, and (at most) $40,000 for the Foundation, which I guess is small change.

The pdf feature is used to create 85,000 PDF files per day.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A User
post Thu 9th December 2010, 12:44pm
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed 23rd Apr 2008, 2:37am
Member No.: 5,813



They're being sold on eBay for up to US$139. Sucks to be the unwary person that buys it. They have a no returns accepted policy.

Anyone found out who is Lambert M. Surhone? Possibly a pseudonym?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 9th December 2010, 3:00pm
Post #14


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(WikiWatch @ Thu 9th December 2010, 7:44am) *

They're being sold on eBay for up to US$139. Sucks to be the unwary person that buys it. They have a no returns accepted policy.

Anyone found out who is Lambert M. Surhone? Possibly a pseudonym?


The eBay seller isn't getting very good marks lately.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Thu 9th December 2010, 5:23pm
Post #15


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



Another publisher of repackaged WP material is coming under the hot glare of the media frenzy surrounding Wikileaks. I suspect that the attention may cause Amazon to tighten things up, particularly after the recent incident with "The Pedophile's Guide To Love and Pleasure".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Mon 9th April 2012, 1:22pm
Post #16


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



I'm resurrecting this thread.

Does anyone else have a firm opinion about PediaPress? Are they legit? Would you install the extension in your own encyclopedia-like MediaWiki?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Text
post Mon 9th April 2012, 2:32pm
Post #17


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107



QUOTE
I'm resurrecting this thread.




QUOTE
Does anyone else have a firm opinion about PediaPress?


Printed books from wiki content? Looks bad. What if "Nadezhda consorted with animals" is in a page?

QUOTE
Are they legit?


Not more legit than the Wikimedia Foundation. Take the cash and run away.

QUOTE
Would you install the extension in your own encyclopedia-like MediaWiki?


yecch.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Mon 9th April 2012, 9:26pm
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 9th April 2012, 2:22pm) *

Would you install the extension in your own encyclopedia-like MediaWiki?

Only if I had a wiki with some decent articles on it that people might actually want. I myself have no such.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th 9 14, 3:34pm