This is an idea that has been kicked around, and I want to congratulate one of the Wikibooks contributors by being bold and actually getting a print version of Wikibooks content available for purchase from an "on-line" store. It can be found right now at:
http://www.lulu.com/content/346504
While I admire the effort that this user has put forth to get this put together, I am concerned that it might affect the tax-exempt status, especially as this link is found on a Wikimedia website and openly "advertising" that this content is available for sale. Please see this page for an example:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior
This is some outstanding content that has been fermenting on Wikibooks now for over a year and a half, and is really the first fruits of the Wikijunior sub-project on Wikibooks. This user is also not trying to make any profit from the sale of this, and is really doing this just as a public service and going through Lulu Press simply because they are available.
I am posting this to the wider Wikimedia Foundation List because I think some guidelines should be developed regarding "official" links on project pages for commercial content of this nature, and to what extent the use of the name "Wikimedia Foundation" can be on such content. I'm also hoping that the legal list will get wind of this and offer a little bit of input as well in terms of how far can we go before we start to tread on the non-profit status of the WMF.
Frankly, I'd like to encourage efforts like this, as it really can be beneficial to spread Wikimedia content beyond the close circle of internet users we currently have. Wikibooks in particular is moving strongly in this direction, as we already have a couple dozen PDF files for Wikibooks that are nearing at least major proofreading stages rather than content building. It seems logical that an on-line bookstore is going to happen in one form or another with this content, and many other users are going to be doing this. Links of this nature should remain relatively low-key and non-intrusive if you are trying to actually read the content
The question I pose then is should we push the genie back into the bottle and stop this kind of linking, or should we as a community encourage further commercial publication?
Should we allow commercial publication, but not allow links on project pages to commercial resources of this nature? Be real careful here, as it does have implications for other Wikimedia projects as well, including Wikipedia "1.0" suggestions. The GFDL does allow commercial publication, so the real point is if project pages can be used as links.
Should there be some sort of formal organization, even if just on a local project level, that should control the content that is published in this manner? Or should it just be done on an ad-hoc basis as individual users feel motivated? This is mainly to see how commercial links are used on Wikimedia project pages, not that any other person can set up their own website and advertise they have published Wikimedia content but not have links on project pages. A more formal organization can help do things like coordinate ISBN numbers and make sure that profits can be plowed back into the project.
From my understanding of non-profit laws in the USA (IANAL), as long as we can show a need for the money that is legitimate (staff salaries, equipment costs, reasonable travel expenses, etc.) fundraisers of this nature aren't really too much of a problem. Indeed several non-profit groups have on-line bookstores just for this purpose. Assuming a runaway success with this sort of sale of content, we would have to do direct fundraisers less often. I don't think too many people on this list would complain about that. The only real problem might be apparent endorsement of a commercial enterprise.
There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this kind of activity as well? That would also involve the use of Wikimedia trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
There is a control issue here that does need to be resolved, and that would be how much control does the WMF want to have directly over this kind of activity as well? That would also involve the use of Wikimedia trademarks (aka Wikijunior) and logos.
I have no particular stance on the overall issues here, other than some broad general principles that I think would be widely accepted by almost everyone.
However, in the short term, since this came as a complete surprise without any information given to the broader community, I have removed the link from wikibooks, and also asked lulu to pull the book immediately (but perhaps temporarily).
The important message I want to give here: this is not an issue of the foundation versus the community, but rather about an individual versus both the community and the foundation. We should have been told first, there should have been a discussion and some consideration given to a number of important factors.
--Jimbo
On 7/4/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
However, in the short term, since this came as a complete surprise without any information given to the broader community, I have removed the link from wikibooks, and also asked lulu to pull the book immediately (but perhaps temporarily).
Also, from Danny:
Furthermore, the content was developed as a result of a grant made to the Foundation with the stated goal of creating *free* content. After considerable discussions with them, we have made it clear that we intend to keep the books online and not take them to print.
Let's just be absolutely clear here that the content is under the GFDL, and anyone can use it commercially or in other ways if they follow the terms of the license. The only issues here are a) whether it is wise for the Wikimedia Foundation to do it at this point in time b) that the Wikimedia Foundation name was used inappropriately c) to what extent such uses should be documented on the Wikimedia projects.
Right?
Erik
Erik Moeller schrieb:
Let's just be absolutely clear here that the content is under the GFDL, and anyone can use it commercially or in other ways if they follow the terms of the license. The only issues here are a) whether it is wise for the Wikimedia Foundation to do it at this point in time b) that the Wikimedia Foundation name was used inappropriately c) to what extent such uses should be documented on the Wikimedia projects.
Right?
I am not objecting to these three points. However, I suggest also to point out "soft criteria" which in by no way are legal requirements but rather suggestions. It boils down to: "Please tell what you are doing. Give everyone a chance to make suggestions. Be part of a community, not a sole warrior."
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Erik Moeller schrieb:
Let's just be absolutely clear here that the content is under the GFDL, and anyone can use it commercially or in other ways if they follow the terms of the license. The only issues here are a) whether it is wise for the Wikimedia Foundation to do it at this point in time b) that the Wikimedia Foundation name was used inappropriately c) to what extent such uses should be documented on the Wikimedia projects.
Right?
I am not objecting to these three points. However, I suggest also to point out "soft criteria" which in by no way are legal requirements but rather suggestions. It boils down to: "Please tell what you are doing. Give everyone a chance to make suggestions. Be part of a community, not a sole warrior."
Mathias
Why do you think I brought it up at all on this list? There are some issue here, and micromanagement of individual project pages by the WMF board is not what should be happening in this situation.
I'd also like to point out that but for being a bit more timid and realizing that there would be a firestorm of controversy over this issue, I would have done the very same thing. Indeed I've even offered books for sale on the talk pages during information discussions.
Robert Scott Horning schrieb:
Why do you think I brought it up at all on this list?
My post was not meant to say that someone did not communicate. I was just trying to add to Eriks points as there is more than just a legal point of view.
My apologies if you felt offended by me.
Mathias
Mathias Schindler wrote:
Robert Scott Horning schrieb:
Why do you think I brought it up at all on this list?
My post was not meant to say that someone did not communicate. I was just trying to add to Eriks points as there is more than just a legal point of view.
My apologies if you felt offended by me.
Mathias
No offense taken. Thanks for the apology.
Let's just be absolutely clear here that the content is under the GFDL, and anyone can use it commercially or in other ways if they follow the terms of the license. The only issues here are a) whether it is wise for the Wikimedia Foundation to do it at this point in time b) that the Wikimedia Foundation name was used inappropriately c) to what extent such uses should be documented on the Wikimedia projects.
Absolutely. And to my mind, none of these things are a big deal in this case. The name was used as attribution, though in some minor details perhaps in a fashion that might indicate endorsement of the commercial project, and the "documentation" of this seemed to be uncomfortable to at least Robert, who is of course a very important wikibooks admin.
There is always time to slow down and think. :)
--Jimbo
textbook-l@lists.wikimedia.org