[Foundation-l] PediaPress

[SlimVirgin]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 00:53, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hello Sarah,
>
> I would put it somehow differently. If Virgin Ventures has a tool with
> which a newbie (or also an oldbie) can in a very intuitive way construct
> a well formatted article from the scrap, so something like that magic
> editor we had talked about for long time and never realized until now,
> and it is open source, I would certainly consider a button in the
> toolbox like "Use the wizard to start an article".
>
> On 12.11.2010 07:44, wrote SlimVirgin:
>> If I were to set up Virgin Ventures to write high-quality,
>> policy-compliant articles for companies and people that needed them --
>> benefiting the subjects, the readers, and Wikipedia -- might I be
>> given a button in the toolbox too? "Red link? Click here for the
>> Virgin!"

Hello Ting,

The concern is this: the argument is that because the people behind
[[PediaPress]] in Germany -- who I assume were Wikipedians -- put
their time into creating the "create book" software, they should be
allowed a return on their investment, unlike Wikipedia's writers who
are expected to donate their skills for free. Therefore, the
Foundation gave them access to some of cyberspace's most expensive
real estate in the sidebar, and the company is allowed to keep 90
percent of the profit by printing articles in book form.

And I believe it's not actually PediaPress doing the printing. They
have a contract with yet another company for that -- [[Lightning
Source]] -- a print-on-demand subsidiary of Ingram Industries Inc.
http://mickrooney.blogspot.com/2010/06/lsi-expandpartnership-with-pediapress.html

PediaPress is owned by Brainbot Technologies, which says on its
website that it aims to exploit Wikipedia content commercially, and it
was to this end that PediaPress was set up.
http://brainbot.com/services/wikis/

Google translate -- http://translate.google.com/#de|en|

It raises lots of questions, but two big ones:

1. How was PediaPress/Brainbot chosen to do this, out of all the
companies in the world that would have paid the Foundation for access
to a "create book" function in the sidebar?

and

2. It presupposes that technical know-how can be monetized, but
editorial input on Wikipedia -- the material Brainbot/PediaPress wants
to sell -- should be done without payment. 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?

Also, can it reassure us that in future all Wikipedians (or everyone
in general) will have the chance to compete for openings like this,
whether using technical or editorial skills?

Sarah