ISBN numbers (was, Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds)

[Jimmy Wales]

The simple answer is that they are incredibly useful, and that they
are convenient.  If there were some other number which uniquely
identified books, rather than particular printings of books, I would
support using those instead.

Delirium wrote:

> To sidestep the issue of partnering with booksellers for a bit, I have a 
> more fundamental question: why do we have ISBN links at all?  ISBN 
> numbers do not identify books; they identify particular printings of 
> books by particular publishers.  Our job, as an encyclopedia, is to 
> discuss the books themselves; if the reader wishes to find which 
> publishers have the book currently in print in his or her country, I 
> don't see that as our role (there are plenty of places to look that up, 
> or ask your local bookstore).  Not to mention that with the vast 
> majority of books we'd be interested in documenting in an encyclopedia, 
> there are dozens (sometimes hundreds!) of ISBN numbers under which the 
> book has been published.  Are we going to end every article on books 
> with a lengthy list of ISBN numbers?  Or are we going to arbitrarily 
> pick one from our favorite publisher?  I'd propose we instead just leave 
> them out entirely.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>