[Foundation-l] PediaPress

[Noein]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm forwarding this message from "Cyrano".
- --------------------

On 12/11/2010 02:06, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > A bit of general background:
> >
> > The Collection/"Book creator" feature allows managing, organizing and
> > exporting content in PDF and in OpenDocument (the latter is still very
> > buggy). We're planning to work with PediaPress to add OpenZIM support
> > (useful for offline readers like Kiwix); EPUB is a possibility. The
> > feature supports pulling specific article revisions, or the current
> > revision, and it has some nice features like automatic suggestion of
> > articles, easy addition of articles to collections while browsing,
> > etc.
> >
> > Although PediaPress are the developers behind the feature, it's
> > completely separate from their services (providing printed books).
The code of this feature is open-source and has been reviewed by
developers from the community, I assume.

It seems that PediaPress was entirely created (their site is from 2006)
for the edition of wikipedia books: I couldn't find a single book not
written "by Wikipedians". So again, what were the so interesting profile
of this society... Were other alternatives like
http://www.lulu.com/en/about/index.php considered?

PediaPress says that "A portion of the proceeds of each book will be
donated to the Wikimedia Foundation to support their mission."
[http://pediapress.com/]. How much exactly?

Look at that:
PediaPress was founded in July 2007 as a spin-off from brainbot
technologies AG and is located in Mainz, Germany.
[http://pediapress.com/about/]

And brainbot is:
This cooperation enables brainbot technologies to rapidly transform
state of the art research results into marketable products.
[http://brainbot.com/home_en/]

Can you see the big picture, the plan? Wikimedians and internauts build
the info, and Brainbot/PediaPress/DFKI
[http://www.dfki.de/web/welcome?set_language=en&cl=en] profit on it!

Great plan. I'm sure the wikimedians would love to have a say, though.


If
> > PediaPress were to disappear tomorrow, we'd continue providing the
> > remaining functionality. In fact, at this point in time, uses of the
> > feature for digital offline distributions are more interesting to us
> > from a strategic point of view than print distribution. Because images
> > and other media quickly inflate any offline export, content selections
> > may often be the more viable method to create digital offline
> > distributions of WP content. The 1,400 selections already compiled
> > using the Collection extension provide a great starting point for
> > this. It's also conceivable to work with "validation partners" to
> > create trusted selections of content for schools etc.
> >
> > We have a non-exclusive business partnership with PediaPress (a small
> > for-profit company) with regard to their provision of print services,
> > which is commission-based. From a mission standpoint, it's nice for
> > both our audience and our contributors to have the print options
> > available, which is supported by demand (about 2,000 per quarter --
> > we'll soon have a WikiStats report on book sales) and user feedback.
> > It can also be great outreach tool.
> >
> > In fact, as Tim pointed out, the idea of printed selections is a very
> > old idea that very many Wikipedians have worked on over the years. The
> > goal of the relationship with PediaPress was to have an open toolset
> > that any and all efforts towards print or other export formats could
> > build upon. PediaPress has been a model partner -- they're
> > super-responsive, and interact directly with the community to service
> > all aspects of the technology.
> >
> > I'm personally very pleased that the hardcover and color options are
> > now available. There are so many fantastic photos and illustrations in
> > Wikimedia projects that the black/white books really didn't do them
> > justice. It's certainly not for everyone, but for those of us who like
> > to show our family and friends what this whole Wikipedia thing we
> > spend so much time on is all about, it can be pretty awesome. Kindle
> > or not, a printed book gives a very tangible reality to our efforts.
I am certain that this conversation is not about the cover. Our concerns
are real.

On 12/11/2010 03:32, Tim Starling wrote:
> > On 12/11/10 13:23, MZMcBride wrote:
>> >> They negotiated with Wikimedia? Where and when? How many thousands of
>> >> companies would like their links in the sidebar of the fifth
most-visited
>> >> website in the world? Are they really that good at negotiating? On the
>> >> English Wikipedia, there's a Book namespace and the sidebar has a
completely
>> >> separate "print/export" section that comes from the Collection
extension.
>> >> That's worth a percentage of the book sales?
> >
> > Potential parternships are assessed by mission-relevance, not just
> > revenue potential. Offline distribution is part of the Foundation's
> > mission, as is open source software development. PediaPress were
> > offering to do those two things.
Pediapress is promising a donation for each sell.


>> >> I think focusing energy and efforts on creating print versions of
Wikipedia
>> >> articles is antithetical to the idea of creating an online
encyclopedia.
> >
> > You're entitled to your opinion, but this is not the Foundation's
> > position. Print versions have always been supported by both the
> > community and the Foundation.
It's interesting that you speak in the name of the Foundation. I expect
other Board Members to jump if that is not their opinions.
At any rate, we're talking about lucrative print versions of our work.
Even if it's legal, I wonder how much does the community really support
this idea.

>> >> I think there's a large distinction between the
>> >> Wikimedia Foundation taking a community project and encouraging a
for-profit
>> >> company to make money off of it (through sidebar links and
installing a
>> >> custom extension) and working with a non-profit organization to
distribute
>> >> free content.
> >
> > Yes, it is an important distinction. The reason our content licenses
> > are friendly to commercial use is to allow companies to make money by
> > distributing Wikipedia's content. The theory is that commercial
> > activity can help to further our mission, more effectively than the
> > non-profit sector working alone.
Whose theory is that? How is it that the community is not aware of this
strategy? Since how many months or years are you abiding to this
"commercial activity can help" idea?

> >
> > The Foundation's mission is to educate, not "to educate as much as is
> > possible without anyone making any money".
A quote to live by, thank you for sharing. However, I have another
vision about one of the biggest shared work of volunteers. Wouldn't the
volunteers feel betrayed if people started to make money from their
contributions?

On 12/11/2010 03:41, John Vandenberg wrote:
> > 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."
Official: the one, the recommended.
Partner: you can trust them, go! they're friends.
Who is speaking in the name of the community, recommending a specific
for profit organization?



> >
> > The key benefit with PediaPress is that they give 10% back to the WMF.
Wow! They only take 90% of benefits on our work! That's very generous.
Lulu.com (the one I know, but there are others) give 80% back.


> >
> > 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.
We're saying "slow down" and you're saying "faster". Could be a Beatles'
song.

On 12/11/2010 03:53, Ting Chen wrote:
> > Hello Sarah,
> >
> > I would put it somehow differently. If Virgin Ventures has a tool with
> > which a newbie (or also an oldbie) can in a very intuitive way construct
> > a well formatted article from the scrap, so something like that magic
> > editor we had talked about for long time and never realized until now,
> > and it is open source, I would certainly consider a button in the
> > toolbox like "Use the wizard to start an article".
I think the issue is still the commercial aspect. "Use the paying wizard
to start an article".


On 12/11/2010 04:33, Tim Starling wrote:

> > Defining our mission and interpreting our mission statement is the
> > role of the Board, the executive and the strategy process. They have
> > produced various documents and decisions which help to guide the staff.
Not exclusively. In fact, the community has the main say in it.



To summarize:
The problem of a printed version of wikipedia edited and produced by a
third party or by private interests [*], is that we have little control
of the content, in particular about dumb typos, slightly modified
versions, slightly obsoletes, but with a curious and growingly worrying
bias towards an agenda (usually power over minds or money, or both).
Freeing information is antithetic with surrendering the diffusion means
of wikipedia to private hands.

[*]:I don't think that this German AI foundation is pursuing
humanitarian goals, by the way, so don't be fooled by the "non-profit" label
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM3QMRAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LwtsH/i/W6o/89SrngdqT9Fee98J+
0/PcLtp+WXAfXtcoBCgFzEQgZfTdrkH6IC5LSJAFpleWC0uHAqJqAC522qBT8IP0
jvwuuat3bvADpel+aZ/HWWXTLnCfxN+mFHeGXW/EwLKxOGtlNytooNddQIZXgtk+
boRZ7XBdrCVU3Z6/lkt1H8oDOg+6PbH4OBnCoBgWMFsSByjmzwCymrb3KPFn3q/7
b1X4c2zgC3wcEXVxMJfs2qI6tbov6SVw702fTMt44mncfzf7Tkn74cQyYhQ+Sd/s
UGjcu/zHhk4egi1RvSCIZ0M8fFoqSPhnlnV5quqNy1QbvtPHyvCm894koaZCJ1I=
=4JAg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----