[Foundation-l] PediaPress

[John Vandenberg]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we're concerned about the WMF referring in its blog to a for-profit
> organisation that happens to be working with us in a way that is
> open-source, offline and furthering our mission to distribute our content
> widely, why did no one complain about the OpenMoko Wikireader being in the
> WMF blog:
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2009/10/13/openmoko-launches-wikireader/

maybe it was seen through beer-tinted goggles.

> There are several examples of commercial services being used in Wikimedia
> projects that are integrated in a way that is acceptable because they
> further our mission of sharing free-cultural resources effectively:
>
> - The Geohack tool..
> - The ISBN lookup tool ..
> - The "template:social bookmarks" ..
>
> All three of those systems are community-developed and no one is reasonably
> complaining that we are sending our readers to those commercial services
> because they are integrated in a way that is relevant/appropriate for the
> kind of re-use that is A Good Thing™.

Your 'because' oversimplifies the many debates over the years.  These
tools have been accepted by the community because they include every
possible externally provided service, allowing the user to select the
one they prefer to use.

> I suspect that the issue lies not with the fact that you are only a couple
> of clicks away from the PediaPress bookprinting service from every Wikipedia
> article, but more the fact that the PediaPress system is the *only *service
> listed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book As Erik
> mentioned in the previous email, the relationship with PediaPress is
> non-exclusive and entirely independent from the  "Book Creator" code.

I agree that the concern is one vs many for-profits in the case of our
book service.

The help pages on English Wikipedia don't suggest that this is
non-exclusive.  They say:

"The service is offered in cooperation with PediaPress which is the
official print on demand partner of the Wikimedia Foundation."

> If there is another organisation out there that offers a
> printing-and-binding service that is comparable to what PediaPress offers
> then we could/should add it to the list but I don't believe there is.

Firstly, if you consider the tools that you mentioned above, many of
the options given to readers are not comparable to the leading
providers in their respective areas.  The geotool is a fine example of
including low quality solutions alongside high quality solutions; some
of those maps are terrible.

Secondly, there are many print on demand services which could easily
be added into this system, and I expect that they will offer
comparable products.  The Book Creator tool provides a PDF, and the
print on demand services accept PDF.

The key benefit with PediaPress is that they give 10% back to the WMF.

I wouldn't mind if PediaPress did have an exclusive arrangement for
time, given that they have put in the hard work to make this possible.
 Any other provider would need to also give back 10% to the WMF, or
something similar.  I am guessing that the WMF would consider any
reasonable offer.  One obvious opportunity here is for each chapter to
find local services which provide a cheaper service, as postal costs
will be lower.

--
John Vandenberg