As I expected, the Amazon experiment shows fairly conclusively that the revenue to be obtained is not sufficient to justify any potential controversy that this might cause.
From the other day when I started this, to now, our complete earnings
are $0.34, yes, 34 cents.
These earnings are based on the sales of 5 total items, 4 paperbacks from Amazon, and 1 hardback from their used Marketplace. (However, it looks like the earnings may not have been credited for all the items, so it is possible that a few more cents will trickle in.)
In any event, it is clear to me that under the most optimistic scenario, with the links made more prominent or more often or whatever, the Amazon program could return at most $200 per month. I just made that number up out of thin air, and I actually have no particular idea as to how it could be forced that high.
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is a dead issue, and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
As I expected, the Amazon experiment shows fairly conclusively that the revenue to be obtained is not sufficient to justify any potential controversy that this might cause.
From the other day when I started this, to now, our complete earnings
are $0.34, yes, 34 cents.
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is a dead issue, and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
--Jimbo
:-)
Anthere wrote:
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
As I expected, the Amazon experiment shows fairly conclusively that the revenue to be obtained is not sufficient to justify any potential controversy that this might cause.
From the other day when I started this, to now, our complete earnings
are $0.34, yes, 34 cents.
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is a dead issue, and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
--Jimbo
:-)
Of course - it was only for US Amazon. To be honest, as I buy books from amazon I would rather wikipedia got 2.5% of whatever I spend than the whole amount going to amazon. Naturally I only buy from amazon.uk.
Cafe Press is really US only - it would cost me $7 dollars in postage to get a mug sent here, for example. And they don't take UK debit cards anyway....
My 2ps worth,
Caroline (User:Secretlondon)
Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com writes:
As I expected, the Amazon experiment shows fairly conclusively that the revenue to be obtained is not sufficient to justify any potential controversy that this might cause.
Thanks for this info.
Best, Karl
Jimbo wrote:
[...]
Therefore, I eagerly conclude that this whole issue is a dead issue, and that we need not consider it much further, if at all.
[...]
I would not easily give up this idea. What one may consider (now or in future) is to promote a more source-based (bibliography-based) wiki article policy as you have eg in Brittanica or major German encys. I know it well for www.ericweisstein.com -(Wolfram research) for mathematics and some other. In general, I would highly appreciate to see more references in the articles... This could have the consequence that users reading a WP article directly order a referenced book via WP (I would certainly do).
Another proposal is, that there could be a weekly book list with recent releases by topic. This (together with references) in turn could lead to higher sales revenue. This, however, relies on accurate article writing (and more accurate referencing) which seems not possible to me without editor responsibilities ... and there the circle is. This way, every move is part of the WP strategy. If you consider the amazon.com issue to be dead then this is in my opinion not a good sign of how the WP strategy is being proceeded.
If you argue with Wikibooks etc. I must concede that I am not a friend of these particularisation. The strength of the Wiki environment is to have ONE document and get the whole world linked to it. The "stem cell", I think, should be the WP article.
Mark
-- _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org