Problem Mortgage | Mortgage | Bad Credit Loans | Personal Loans | French Properties
Wikipedia Gets Published - Should Writers Get Paid? [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia Gets Published - Should Writers Get Paid?


DeclinetoState
05-07-2008, 12:02 AM
It seems a debate is brewing in the "Wikipedia-sphere" surrounding the commercialization and the soon-to-be-made profit from the voluntarily written and edited online encyclopedia web site. For the first time, a major publisher has made plans to print out and sell popular articles from the site, leaving many wondering if the content's writers are being scammed out of royalties to which they are due. Wikipedia, the Print Edition

A major German publisher, Bertelsmann (http://www.bertelsmann.de/), has announced plans to print a book called "The One-Volume Wikipedia Encyclopedia," which goes on sale this September for 19.95 euros (around $32 U.S.). The book will feature some of the year's most popular articles. Says Dr. Varnhorn, the editor in charge of Bertelsmann's reference works, in a recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23wiki.html?ex=1366689600&en=0b9d088ca6cf8569&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink), "We think of it as an online encyclopedic yearbook." A statement that foreshadows the possibility of this book becoming the first of many annually printed editions.

Is this legal? Yes. Apparently, the material on the Wikipedia site is free for use given that you cite Wikipedia as the source. In addition, Bertelsmann will pay the foundation one euro for every copy sold.

But where does this leave the scores of writers who voluntarily gave their time to help in the creation of an online reference, something which they had believed to be a noble effort? Mark O'Neill of Now Sourcing (http://nowsourcing.com/blog/2008/05/06/german-wikipedia-rip-off/) believes he knows exactly where this leaves those writers: ripped off. More (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_gets_published_should_writers_get_paid.p hp)

Rhino
05-07-2008, 10:50 AM
Bullshit.

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

The works do not belong to the contributors and copyrighted material is not allowed.

DesertFox
05-07-2008, 10:56 AM
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. This statement is simply ridiculous. Anything published anywhere reflects SOMEbody's thoughts and analyses.