Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books/Publishing

Compensation
I'm asking this merely out of curiosity. Would there ever be a point in the future where major contributors to articles in published books would see monetary compensation? If book publishing became popular enough that PediaPress and the Wiki Foundation were making a fair sized profit from it, how would this affect editors who made contributions for free that were intended to be read for free? –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  07:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Very doubtful, although I suppose that in theory, nothing prevents the WMF or PediaPress from compensating editors. This seems very undesirable, as it would create classes of editors, with all the problems that this would entail (jealousy, edit wars, bickering, ...). As for "to be read for free", see Gratis vs Libre; Wikipedia content is free has in freedom, and not necessarily as in free beer. The freedom of the Wikipedia content include (amongst others) the freedom to repackage and sell it per CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Editors may not be happy about it, especially those who haven't read Wikipedia's terms of use, but they have agreed to it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick reply! So let me get this straight: can anyone, then, publish information derived from Wikipedia and sell it, so long as licensing rules are followed (attribution)? I do know that online blogs and news outlets will sometimes publish text directly from Wikipedia, but the only attribution is "Wikipedia" itself; the PDF books that I've been trying out show total attribution, not only to authors of the articles, but also with the references used in the articles. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  08:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty much yeah. I'm not a license expert myself however (someone at the WMF probably is however). If I recall correctly these books are released under CC-BY-SA 3.0. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was probably dipping a little into legal territory there, my apologies. I'm curious about this now. I may look into it some more in the future. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  08:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"official partners" of the wmf & advertising on-wiki
hello;

i've been surfing thru the info about pedia press & their p.o.d. service for wiki-content.

i don't recall there ever being a community-discussion about this "partnership", or about including p.o.d. links for their service.

there would seem to be some potentially very serious, problematic issues here about the "no advertising" rule (& nnpov).

both with the inclusion of p.o.d. links, & with our article-coverage of pedia press.

yet i don't see any policy-rules (or discussion) defining how we should handle this?

o__0

Lx 121 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)