Hello,
Why would anybody want to buy it if it is possible to download it for free?
Make a page on the wmf site where people can "buy" a hd with wikimedia content and donated it to a school or something like that sounds more like a nice idea.
Best regards,
Huib
2010/1/21, sterten@aol.com sterten@aol.com:
store it on memory chip or HD and sell it _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 01/21/2010 12:20 AM, Huib Laurens wrote:
Why would anybody want to buy it if it is possible to download it for free?
This is a topic that's getting a lot of attention. For example, Kevin Kelly lists 8 things that are better than free:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/better_than_fre.php
In our case, some of them don't apply. But I could see us making use of personalization, interpretation, embodiment, and patronage. I also think we could sell a sense of association if we wanted to. Social status is another good along these lines (think premium members and first-class tickets) but I don't immediately see a way Wikipedia could make use of that.
I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD. Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set. I would never buy the DVD, but I might buy the physical set. And I already own a reproduction of the 3-volume 1768 edition.
Any practical reason I'd come up with for purchases like that, or my Addams Family pinball machine, would be tenuous justifications. I buy those things not for the things themselves, but because I love the idea of those things. It seems reasonable to me that people love the idea of Wikipedia just as much.
William
William Pietri wrote:
I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD. Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set. I would never buy the DVD, but I might buy the physical set. And I already own a reproduction of the 3-volume 1768 edition.
Out of curiosity, how does the three volume edition measure up?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On 01/23/2010 02:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD. Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set. I would never buy the DVD, but I might buy the physical set. And I already own a reproduction of the 3-volume 1768 edition.
Out of curiosity, how does the three volume edition measure up?
I'm not quite sure how to answer that. Is there something you wanted me to measure it against?
Personally, I find it a delight, and am prone to flipping through it when I'm wondering what exactly an encyclopedia is. More for inspiration than knowledge, of course. But it's nice to see the familiar features: articles, large and small; redirects, see-alsos, illustrations, references; even a proto-NPOV, where on topics of dispute, both sides are explained.
My second-favorite thing about it is that the three volumes, which were published serially, are A-B, C-L, M-Z. I've always suspected they started out with a surplus of ambition and then realized what they were up against. And my favorite thing is the preface, which starts out, "Utility ought to be the principle intention of every publication." Reading through it never fails to remind me what a great enterprise an encyclopedia is, both theirs and ours.
If there isn't a copy in the WMF office, I'm glad to leave mine there upon request for a while.
William
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:09 AM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On 01/23/2010 02:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD. Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set. I would never buy the DVD, but I might buy the physical set. And I already own a reproduction of the 3-volume 1768 edition.
Out of curiosity, how does the three volume edition measure up?
I'm not quite sure how to answer that. Is there something you wanted me to measure it against?
Personally, I find it a delight, and am prone to flipping through it when I'm wondering what exactly an encyclopedia is. More for inspiration than knowledge, of course. But it's nice to see the familiar features: articles, large and small; redirects, see-alsos, illustrations, references; even a proto-NPOV, where on topics of dispute, both sides are explained.
My second-favorite thing about it is that the three volumes, which were published serially, are A-B, C-L, M-Z. I've always suspected they started out with a surplus of ambition and then realized what they were up against. And my favorite thing is the preface, which starts out, "Utility ought to be the principle intention of every publication." Reading through it never fails to remind me what a great enterprise an encyclopedia is, both theirs and ours.
If there isn't a copy in the WMF office, I'm glad to leave mine there upon request for a while.
In terms of "started out with a surplus of ambition and then realized what
they were up against." I think nothing surpasses the preface statement to Samuel Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language 1775, which was a remarkable (and solo) attempt to make a complete dictionary. I think it rings true for the efforts we make on-wiki today - still "chasing the sun":
"...the writer of dictionaries; whom mankind have considered, not as the pupil, but the slave of science, the pioneer of literature, doomed only to remove rubbish and clear obstructions from the paths of Learning and Genius, who press forward to conquest and glory, without bestowing a smile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progress. Every other author may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompense has been yet granted to very few….
When first I engaged in this work, I resolved to leave neither words nor things unexamined, and pleased myself with a prospect of the hours which I should revel away in feasts of literature, the obscure recesses of northern learning, which I should enter and ransack, the treasures with which I expected every search into those neglected mines to reward my labour, and the triumph with which I should display my acquisitions to mankind…
But these were the dreams of a poet doomed at last to wake a lexicographer. I soon found that it is too late to look for instruments, when the work calls for execution, and that whatever abilities I had brought to my task, with those I must finally perform it. To deliberate whenever I doubted, to enquire whenever I was ignorant, would have protracted the undertaking without end, and, perhaps, without much improvement; for I did not find by my first experiments, that what I had not of my own was easily to be obtained: I saw that one enquiry only gave occasion to another, that book referred to book, that to search was not always to find, and to find was not always to be informed; and that thus to pursue perfection, was, like the first inhabitants of Arcadia, to chase the sun, which, when they had reached the hill where he seemed to rest, was still beheld at the same distance from them."
Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language 1775
-Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
William
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
William Pietri wrote:
On 01/23/2010 02:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD. Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set. I would never buy the DVD, but I might buy the physical set. And I already own a reproduction of the 3-volume 1768 edition.
Out of curiosity, how does the three volume edition measure up?
I'm not quite sure how to answer that. Is there something you wanted me to measure it against?
Perhaps that's what's wrong with the question. If we judge those volumes strictly by 21st century standards most of the contents will fail miserably. The greatest value that these volumes provide is their contribution to the historical framework of knowledge. On-line communities are prone to a recentism that ignores how knowledge got to where it is and the collective effort and experience that accomplished this.
Personally, I find it a delight, and am prone to flipping through it when I'm wondering what exactly an encyclopedia is. More for inspiration than knowledge, of course. But it's nice to see the familiar features: articles, large and small; redirects, see-alsos, illustrations, references; even a proto-NPOV, where on topics of dispute, both sides are explained.
I find my copy a delight too, even with all the faux foxing to make it look old. I also love my copy of the 1701 second edition of Jeremy Collier's "Great Historical, Geographical, and Poetical Dictionary". It doesn't use the word "encyclopedia", but still shows enough characteristics to be called one. My favorite article:
NEW-ZELAND, a large Country of /South America/, or /Antartickland/, discovered by the /Hollanders/ in 1642. It lies South of the Pacifick Sea, and far East of /New-Guiny/ and /Solomon/'s Island. It's not yet known whether it be an Island or Continent, there being no /European/ Colony settled there./ Baudr[and]/.
The first edition of the Britannica did not include an article about New Zealand.
My second-favorite thing about it is that the three volumes, which were published serially, are A-B, C-L, M-Z. I've always suspected they started out with a surplus of ambition and then realized what they were up against. And my favorite thing is the preface, which starts out, "Utility ought to be the principle intention of every publication." Reading through it never fails to remind me what a great enterprise an encyclopedia is, both theirs and ours.
I have a dozen or more encyclopedic works, among which I include biographical compendia. (I'm finding it tough to acquire the secon through eighth editions of the EB.) Comparing the way that each treats the same subject can be fascinating. The detailed articles about World War I in the 12th edition of the EB were no longer there for the 13th; the later printings of the 14th edition differed considerably from the earliest. The "Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada" includes far more from Spanish speaking countries than what you might find in an English work.
Depending on only one encyclopedia presents a risk of monotonic thinking.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org