Very funny :) I have just completed my book on Scotus, which will be submitted to the Catholic University Assocation Press next week. Assuming it gets through their lengthy approval process,it will be published under whatever license they use - I imagine the 'evil' one. So to for the Wikipedia book, but it is early days to approach a publisher. If you ask why, I reply that no method has yet been devised to give attribution to the author of a work in a way that advances their career. I will earn little or no money from either work, I imagine. Note that Andrew Lih's book, which I have ordered from Waterstone's, is also under a standard copright license. At least I assume - I paid good money for it, because it was not available any other way. However, I do publish material on my own website, the Logic Museum. I fund this myself, and the translation work such as here http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae is published under a 'free' license. http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/The_Logic_Museum:Copyrights I don't get any formal recognition for this. I do it because I want this material, which is very hard to get access to, even for subject matter experts, to be freely available to everyone on the planet. Edward

I'm assuming that this is the Peter Damian who is also knol.google.com/k/edward-buckner/edward-buckner/2u2a5qlvdgh8h/1# since he signs as "Edward", rather than a troll seeking to impersonate the banned Wikipedia editor of the same name, for nefarious purposes. In either case, I have little confidence that this book would achieve an audience sufficient to make the effort worthwhile, except on an extremely personal basis. Sometimes it's good to write things down if only to let off steam, but to expect an audience in this case seems to be a triumph of hope over experience. By all means, write your book. But don't expect Wikipedia to crash to the ground as a result of your revelations. I, for one, have no interest in participating, not least because the OP wasn't to wp-en-l but to the Foundation list, and that smacks of a desperate, if limp, attempt at some sort of improper meta-leverage. KillerChihuahua wrote: