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.
The major difference here between this bookstore and the Wikimedia CaféPress store is that the latter is, if I'm correct, in the name of Wikimedia. Perhaps if we found a way to transfer control to Wikimedia.
On 7/3/06, Robert Scott Horning robert_horning@netzero.net wrote:
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Quick comments:
1) Both http://www.lulu.com/content/346504 and the PDF attribute the content to "Wikimedia Foundation Inc. & Contributing authors". Which of the content is actually claimed to be copyrighted by the WMF? Normally all content is under the GFDL; there is no transfer of copyright to the WMF during the editing process. If content by the WMF is used (the logos come to mind), explicit permission is necessary, but I did not see any such content. I suspect the user simply misunderstood how copyright on Wikimedia projects works, in which case the WMF should be removed from the authorship credit.
2) The problem with a proliferation of unofficial links is that the user who has control over the print on demand account also controls the markup, and can change it any time. For this reason, an official solution should be sought as quickly as possible. As James has noted, the problem parallels strongly our existing CafePress shop at:
http://www.cafepress.com/wikipedia
In fact, CafePress also offers print on demand services. The shop is controlled by the Foundation. It would seem best to me to authorize trusted users to manage print on demand services on behalf of the Foundation, and to make sure that all proceeds (if any) go directly to the organization. Perhaps the small SP subcommittee on static content
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_subcommittees/Static_content
could be expanded to deal with this problem, at least until a better organizational model that involves the projects and languages directly is found.
Erik
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 7/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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.
I'm surprised that you would consider it a matter of anyone versus anyone. However misguided and ill-considered this may be, there's no need to polarize the matter and try to set the community against a presumably well-intentioned person—let's assume good faith.
Austin
Austin Hair wrote:
On 7/3/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
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.
I'm surprised that you would consider it a matter of anyone versus anyone. However misguided and ill-considered this may be, there's no need to polarize the matter and try to set the community against a presumably well-intentioned person—let's assume good faith.
You are right and I am sorry I put it that way.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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
But you were told... here and now.... that the content is available. It didn't take a long time to put this together, and the point of even raising this issue at all is because there is much more content on Wikibooks that can be made available this way. And I for one think it should be in one form or another. Help me to find a legitimate way for Wikibooks users to accomplish this task.
As I've been trying to point out, this is just the first raindrops before the huge storm of activity is going to be coming this way, and trying to dam up the efforts is just going to make things worse. OK, you don't like how the link has been put onto the web page. Fine. Let's find a way that we can accomodate something like this, and I think a reasonable solution can be found that would also protect WMF trademarks.
BTW, I don't think you can reasonably stop publication by Lulu Press of this content. The only thing you can do is to force the person doing the publication to remove any references to the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't want this issue blowing up in the face of the WMF, and turn into an ordinary user with lawyer vs foundation lawyer legal fight that has to be settled in a courtroom. Yet this kind of stance is headed exactly in that direction if you are not more careful. Please help me to diffuse this situation.
This is also nothing new. I have raised this issue in a theoretical basis several times on this mailing list and have made quite inquiries to several others as well, knowing this is a delicate issue. Indeed, the way this user has acted is precisely what was recommened by several others on this mailing list, other than adding the link to the project page.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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.
I agree only in the very narrow case of the use of the trademarked name "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", and possibly any logos if they were used. I hope that was the complaint to Lula.
In the more general case, the entire *point* of the GFDL is that you *don't* need the permission or approval of the original author to republish in any form you see fit. It might be nice to consult with them, but we absolutely can not and should not prevent people from unilaterally printing books.
-Mark
It would seem that it is not so narrow a case, since that is precisely the problem.
On 7/5/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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.
I agree only in the very narrow case of the use of the trademarked name "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", and possibly any logos if they were used. I hope that was the complaint to Lula.
In the more general case, the entire *point* of the GFDL is that you *don't* need the permission or approval of the original author to republish in any form you see fit. It might be nice to consult with them, but we absolutely can not and should not prevent people from unilaterally printing books.
-Mark
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
On 7/5/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
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.
I agree only in the very narrow case of the use of the trademarked name "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", and possibly any logos if they were used. I hope that was the complaint to Lula.
In the more general case, the entire *point* of the GFDL is that you *don't* need the permission or approval of the original author to republish in any form you see fit. It might be nice to consult with them, but we absolutely can not and should not prevent people from unilaterally printing books.
It would seem that it is not so narrow a case, since that is precisely the problem.
Perhaps I was imprecise; I meant that I agree with his statement on the narrow *grounds* of trademark violation. I was not sure if Jimmy's statement was intended to be that narrow, or to say something broader about how people should only publish Wikimedia Foundation materials after first telling the Foundation, participating in a discussion and giving consideration to a number of important factors. That potential reading of the quoted paragraph is what I was disagreeing with.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
I agree only in the very narrow case of the use of the trademarked name "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.", and possibly any logos if they were used. I hope that was the complaint to Lula.
Of course. And there was no complaint, just a request that they put a hold on this until we get it sorted. I was told about this at 11PM, I know Bob Young (CEO of Lulu), he's a good guy.
In the more general case, the entire *point* of the GFDL is that you *don't* need the permission or approval of the original author to republish in any form you see fit. It might be nice to consult with them, but we absolutely can not and should not prevent people from unilaterally printing books.
Precisely!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org