[To WMUK-l for local interest, and foundation-l as the issue's been discussed there at length.]
Just spoke to a researcher, Charlotte something, for BBC 5 Live Investigates, Sunday 9pm, this item likely to go out 9:45pm or so. This was just for her research, it wasn't a recorded piece.
The piece is on Books LLC and similar operations, which sell reprints of Wikipedia articles as books on Amazon. She was after the Wikipedian viewpoint.
I said that it's entirely legal - that you can use our stuff without permission, even commercially, and we like that - "Please, use our stuff!" - you just have to give credit and let other people reuse your version: "share and share alike."
So the only issue is that it isn't clear enough these books are just Wikipedia reprints. For us, the annoyance - I said that "annoyance" is probably the word - is when a Wikipedian finds one of these books, goes "aha, a source!", buys it and ... discovers it's just reprints of stuff they have. "While trademark is an issue, we'd like them or Amazon to make it a *bit* clearer that these texts are Wikipedia reprints."
She wasn't clear on the business model. I said these are print-on-demand books, where *no* copies exist until someone orders one, at which point a single copy is printed and sent. POD is *very good* these days - you can send a PDF to a machine, and the machine will produce an *absolutely beautiful* perfect-bound book for you, which previously would have been quite pricey. This is enough for them to have a tiny, tiny niche.
I also pointed out that anyone can make their own PDFs of Wikipedia articles and some of the projects have partnerships with outside companies to do nice printed books of Wikipedia reprints. But in such cases, everyone is very clear on what they're getting: a nice printed physical copy of content they already have for free on the web.
I tried to answer very descriptively, as I can't speak *for* 160,000 people, but there's been enough foundation-l and related discussion to get an idea of what people think. My apologies if I missed bits, this was off the top of my head without referring to nuances of discussion :-)
- d.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:40, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Just spoke to a researcher, Charlotte something, for BBC 5 Live Investigates, Sunday 9pm, this item likely to go out 9:45pm or so. This was just for her research, it wasn't a recorded piece.
The piece is on Books LLC and similar operations, which sell reprints of Wikipedia articles as books on Amazon. She was after the Wikipedian viewpoint.
I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being
copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear enough that they're on Wikipedia for free.
The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in fact it's lifted word for word.
Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not realizing they're in a hall of mirrors.
Sarah
On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear enough that they're on Wikipedia for free. The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in fact it's lifted word for word. Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not realizing they're in a hall of mirrors.
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. This will do that, slightly.
- d.
On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. This will do that, slightly.
I suspect that all we have to do is wait. Someone has effectively worked out how to spam Amazon. What one person can do so can others. Eventually the level of spam will rise to the point where Amazon will have to act or lose customers due to their service being degraded.
On 28 January 2011 18:44, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. This will do that, slightly.
I suspect that all we have to do is wait. Someone has effectively worked out how to spam Amazon. What one person can do so can others. Eventually the level of spam will rise to the point where Amazon will have to act or lose customers due to their service being degraded.
Yes. In the meantime, we can use publicity about this to spread awareness that we're all about reusing our stuff, and that we would only ask nicely that the books be represented accurately as curated Wikipedia reprints. (This is a breathtakingly generous way of describing them, but I'd suggest being nice to the idea of reprints as we introduce civilisation to the notion of reusability as being the normal order of things.)
- d.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:48, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 18:44, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect that all we have to do is wait. Someone has effectively worked out how to spam Amazon. What one person can do so can others. Eventually the level of spam will rise to the point where Amazon will have to act or lose customers due to their service being degraded.
Yes. In the meantime, we can use publicity about this to spread awareness that we're all about reusing our stuff, and that we would only ask nicely that the books be represented accurately as curated Wikipedia reprints. (This is a breathtakingly generous way of describing them, but I'd suggest being nice to the idea of reprints as we introduce civilisation to the notion of reusability as being the normal order of things.)
The problem with presenting it positively is that most Wikipedians who've discussed it (that I've seen) don't like them. They worry that readers are being exploited, they worry about quality, they worry about proper attribution. They don't like that Amazon is being spammed. I've seen people ask whether the Foundation can do anything to stop it.
If it were some helpful company offering to bind WP articles for a tenner, that's one thing, but charging $50 for 10,000 words that you can get free on WP is horrible. And someone seems to be buying them, because you see used copies being sold too.
Sarah
On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear enough that they're on Wikipedia for free. The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in fact it's lifted word for word. Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not realizing they're in a hall of mirrors.
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. This will do that, slightly.
- d.
From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising
Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then: http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
Amazon product descriptions almost certainly fall under "non-paid-for space online under [the marketer's] control". So a misleading description ought to lead to action. But the issue here is the misleading *lack* of any description. It could be an interesting conundrum for the ASA!
Pete / the wub
On 28 January 2011 19:04, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then: http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
Oh, I *like* that one. That and some other comments here and elsewhere, I've added to a blog post on the topic, which I hope can also raise awareness:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=506
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org