It's not screwing anyone over to provide a platform for people to share their knowledge with the world. Most people who contribute to Wikipedia are aware of its purpose, and everyone who does significant and regular contribution understands its mission. You just can't spend hours a day working on an encyclopedia and not know what it's all about.

Commercial entities have been using Wikipedia content for years -- as they should! That's what it's for: to be used. Those commercial entities who donate part of the money they collect from selling a book back to the Wikimedia Foundation to support the continued work of the project should be applauded, not derided.

IF you think about Wikipedia in the same way you think about, say, Facebook, sure, it's easy to understand getting mad. People who write on a web forum think their contributions will stay on that forum, period. But people who use a Web interface to edit a Free Content database should and do understand that that contribution will be used for lots of purposes by lots of people. That's what "making a contribution" is all about.

I don't know much about publishing, but I would have expected a writer of a comparable book to get at least 3EUR per copy.

Even assuming they take out a third of that for the cleanup they probably had to perform on the articles, I think Bertelsmann could give at least 2EUR to the WMF.

But then Sony-BMG is probably screwing over their music artists too, so I suppose its to be expected.

Freelancers -- and if this book gets published, that's what everyone who contributed will be -- will have writer's unions itching to get to them. They have to. If content is created for free -- and then sold by someone else -- writers will have to protect their domain.

The New York Times and others faced a backlash when content created in one medium was repurposed in another. They would have a much better chance at monetizing the site -- the same medium -- than pulling off a printed version with no legal ramifications, I would think.

I do have several questions maybe someone could answer. Since none of the work in the book is really going to be the authors, and all of it is freely available, would it be illegal to download pirated copies of the book?

Whats stopping someone from just compiling the exact same articles and releasing them for free?

You could also sell your own printed copies or modify the work and sell copies of that.

In much the same way you can legal sell linux.

The fact is anyone can do this based on the Wikipedia license. Read sections 2 and 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. There are some interesting requirements in there for publication.

If someone pays $32US for a book of "free" information, that's too bad for them.

If you're *really* upset...why not do the same but sell it for $10US and give half of it back to the foundation? :)

The fact is anyone can do this based on the Wikipedia license. Read sections 2 and 3 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. There are some interesting requirements in there for publication.

If someone pays $32US for a book of "free" information, that's too bad for them.

If you're *really* upset...why not do the same but sell it for $10US and give half of it back to the foundation? :)

But I still think that this issue around Wikipedia is interesting as it will likely show that even when someone makes money from free content without giving back to individual content creators it doesn't stop the content creation. It happened already with free software (Linux-based businesses like Red Hat and many other companies building their business around free software products not necessarily giving anything back) and there's no reason why it won't happen with free user-generated content.

To me it does not matter what any license says....There is not high ground to take when you sell someone else content and make a profit from it without asking the original content creator if they would like to have some of the revenue from the sale of their content....

I applaud the audacity of the publishers of this new book, and I hope they make tons of money. I hope they inspire thousands of copycats. I hope it grows into a movement, creates a bubble, leads to a crash, and forces even more innovation as people debate what went right and what went wrong.

I know you hope the same. Just think how much more there will be to write about here.

I applaud the audacity of the publishers of this new book, and I hope they make tons of money. I hope they inspire thousands of copycats. I hope it grows into a movement, creates a bubble, leads to a crash, and forces even more innovation as people debate what went right and what went wrong.

I know you hope the same. Just think how much more there will be to write about here.

It doesn't work for everyone. Especially the writers that won't be getting paid.

The reason this is a royal ripoff is because none of the writers in their wildest imaginations concieved that wikepedia would sell their content.

But even in the weird world of the internet a few truths hold true:

Don't trust anyone
Money Talks
The Only Peson Watching Your Backside Is You
There is no such thing as a free lunch.

People will think twice before they write for free again.

Live From Las Vegas
(Where everything is free and nothing is free)
The Masked Millionaire

Better would be if Bertelsmann, in the copyright clearance process they will inevitably undertake, would help wikipedia identify articles that already do a good job not plagarising existing materials, and where one is found that does re-use existing copyright infringing content (as some inevitably do), help produce non-infringing versions of the content.

REALLY?

We all know how the license works, Wikipedia is a commons, not property, etc.

(apologies to Yochai Benkler...)

Get real!

Again, I'm really disappointed RW decided to publish this FUD.

This assumes, though, that the commercial publisher will indeed "make a buck." This begs the question: how many people will willingly pay for this information which is, by its very nature, available for free online at wikipedia.org?

Let them make a buck...I'm fed up with the wiki and it's ability to have up to date and honest information changed or removed and someones whim.

The shaft...guess what comes around goes around no...

Wikipedia writers usualy write in such a way (they give their knowladge and time freely) as do charity organizations, well they give essential materials to people around the globe who need it to survive. So in a way this would repay ALL writers.

It can happen to you.

For the vast majority of us, Wikipedia is only a hobby. Personally I'm delighted that some company somewhere in the world can use things I did in my free time to make money for themselves. We should only worry about getting paid when Wikipedia becomes like a job, complete with obligations and time requirements - but those people are already getting paid (i.e. the members of the Wikimedia Foundation board, the developers of the MediaWiki software, etc.). But as it stands - why should I complain about not being paid for something I do 100% for fun?

But on the bright side of this - at least Wiki will be getting more money and can hopefully expand even more. It's still free and this doesn't harm anyone - in any way really. I just would like the profits, and maybe not all of them because I understand the incentives needed for this type of investment, but some or a good portion of the profits to go to charitable organizations dedicated to the improvement of human life. Simply put, I hope that Bertelsmann decides to give out more than just "one euro" per book sold.

This isn't a good or a bad thing - I just think it's something that if you are going to pursue - you should be true to origins of that which you are capitalizing on.

The sad thing is that there a lot of serious contributors who have put a lot of time and effort in writing Wikipedia articles, and as a constant user, I gotta tell you, sometimes it beats Britannica. They must me mad as hell.

I personally do not care, as long as it is still free, and people continue making it better. A book cannot replace the real Wikipedia on line, so I am not sure who is going to buy it. But then again, I can be surprised.

I would also urge people to boycott it altogether. Next they'll be making money on the clicks to view our content.

A great way to make money.

They have every right to do this and if the people that take the time to edit wiki don't like it they'll just have to grin and bear it because there ain't jack they can do about it other than piss and moan(which I fully expect them to do regardless of what happens).

In summary. Boo. Freakin. Hoo.

In our "instant everything" culture, I see it quoted all the time, and often in error.

I suggest we all go back to Britannica. I would much rather "pay" and know that I am getting accurate information, overseen by editors and most of all, a reputation at stake for accuracy.

Truth be told, I loath Wikipedia.

Karrin

I did not contribute anything to Wikipedia, but this is my most favorite online dictionary. I hate to see it is being abused and will be shut down someday due to this blood-sucker act. Thanks for reading.

We mustn't confuse what's ethically wrong with what's legally wrong. I would argue that selling a book of Wikipedia articles runs counter to the premise behind Wikipedia and that I imagine most contributors wouldn't have bothered to write much if they knew it would eventually be farmed for profit.

But when do ethics get in the way of anything anymore? Especially anything capitalistic?

I suggest the following for those who don't like it: Rather than spend your time whining about it not being fair, do something creative like, say, vandalizing the site. That's right. Make it wortheless. Log on and go to town. Edit crazily. Edit stupidly. Make stuff up. Make it so the site is so erroneous that an army of thousands of editors would need to be hired to sort it all out. Then, when you're done wreaking havoc on the site, apply for one of those editorial positions. Win-Win!!!

In fact, Poetry.com does the same thing. They have these poetry contests and people from all over are enticed into sending in their own personal work thinking they will be made famous and receive a big prize if they win, etc. But that doesn't happen at all. Poetry.com keeps the poems, they publish the poems in books and the authors never get anything for it. In fact, Poetry.com doesn't even give their authors a copy of the books. They jack the price way up there and then want the authors to pay to receive a copy of a book that they helped to write.

Now does that sound right to you?

I know this for a fact because my daughters entered their contests when they were teenagers. They both got published in the books, one daughter was even said to have been one of the top writers of that year. But my daughters only received a notice that they could BUY the book their poems were published in at an outrageous price.

If some hypothetical publishing company published a "book" with adaptive pages that displayed information from the internet, we'd scarcely consider it copyright infringement. This particular book has pages simply stuck on Wikipedia pages. No problem, never mind GNU-DFL.

My only concern is the amount that is being contributed by Bertelsmann. I think it should be higher, around 5-10 euros per copy, sort of a good faith donation to them. Anyway, that's my two cents.

When we become too caught up in the cynical perspective that the only purpose the publisher could have is to rip of writers and make money, we lose sight of the more innocent side of things. This is a prime example.

The article is not only making the publisher look greedy, but also the people who donated the information willingly without expectations of receiving checks for it.

Yes it is legally right to do what the publisher proposes, but is it the right thing to do in regards to the spirit in which the "wiki" was created? Will such an act hinder or help the "free information" movement? All this, among many other questions could be raised in relation to this story.

Personally, I believe that the publishing company is in the "wrong" for many reasons, without even discussing the legal ramifications. I also believe that had the original or "editing" authors of the articles on Wikipedia known that a company would turn around and attempt to profit from it, they would have been far less inclined to submit their (or other's) work.

I sincerely hope that the project doesn't work out, that the book fails to sell well, if at all. As a previous poster pointed out, "...[why would someone buy something they can get for free]...". Perhaps that will show the "Corporate Machine" that not every good intention and free thought can be used to make a buck.

Sorry to beak it to you, but it's the truth.

I doubt something like this will happen, because it sounds like someone wants to make a quick buck, and so many people are so money motivated and greedy that it is disgusting, but it could be a good alternative to one person or group of people keeping the profit for their own personal benefit.

Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri, Advocate, CFE

Now, they did it for free so why the hell not.

They clearly wanted people to know, now more people will know.

I dont see the problem.

from a literary stand point this is plagiarism. and i am pretty sure the GNU license agreement is only good for software and cannot apply to published written works.

i havent contributed to wikipedia so i am not sure about this but the contributors do not operate under any license agreement. the GNU license is for wikipedia itself, not the content.

whether or not there is small print that says anything contributed to wikipedia is owned by wikipedia i do not know. but if wikipedia has no legal claim to the content on their website other than the GNU the contributors are getting ripped off.

this is a major story and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Contribute online, view online. Keep it free and add your input into its diversity, period!

imo :)

1. Old people who still don't know the internet exists yet or just plain don't know how to use computers. This demographic should dissapear within 10-15 years anyway.

2. People who don't have internet. WTF seriously though, who in this day and age in Capitalist America doesn't have access to the internet? This demographic should dissapear within the decade.

3. Idiots. Unfortunately, that probably means over 90% of the human population, so I guess a Wikipedia book does have selling potential after all. Too bad this demographic isn't going away anytime soon.

For those who contributed, they did so with no expectation of financial gain (supposedly), so their efforts were not in vain. If they truly contributed to benefit others, nothing they've done has been undermined. If they want to print a Wikipedia excerpt book and profit from their work, they're apparently free to do so under the same license.

Why would anyone pay for something that's freely available?!

I think that the book shouldn't be charged so expensively - perhaps only for the printing cost.

Wikipedia articles are for anyone to use for whatever purpose. its the whole point!

Sarah Perez is not the brightest bulb in the socket, She obviously doesn't know anything about Wikipedia

Mark O'Neill is an Idiot.

Wikipedia is not ripping anyone off.

Wikipedia isn't publishing the book.

People who write on Wikipedia know how it works.

Wikipedia contributors are not ignorant.
Ecept for maybe Capt. Collins Wanderi Munyiri, Advocate, CFE,
And any other contributer that is bothered by this)

maybe I shouldnt read all those emls, or prehaps I should put a free ad on for viagara, or do you all want to find out where to get a gold rolex for $200?

First, fact. This has been stated; contributors did their writing for free, they signed off on it. Consider that once you do that it is no longer yours. Anyone has the right to use it in any way they see fit. This is certainly nothing new. (And, if people think this publisher is the first to make money from freely contributed material, think again...)

The argument "had they known..." only shows that there are people ignorant of intellectual property law.

When intellectual property rights expire or are given away (by signing such an agreement) anyone has the right to do anything they wish with the material, including investing their money to try and sell it. That is the nature of the world we live in. (And, not just the modern world...read your history.)

Next, opinion. Bertelsmann should contribute between 10 and 15 percent of the retail price to Wiki (or other charitible causes) as that is what they would typically pay an author. That they are paying only 5 percent shows they are not too philanthropic.

Do I agree with what they are doing? Not really. But it is their right.

Will I buy one? No. As has been pointed out, why buy what you can get for free.

Will I ever buy books published by Bertelsmann again? Probably as they are the world's largest book/music/etc publisher, hard to get away from them.

Will I still use and refer to Wiki? Yep.

i suppose also, there are contracts that were sighned in the beginning.do they include that at some point in time, the wikipedia will commercialised? if so, fine.but if not, the compony has bridged a contract unlawfully and it should be held accountable!it is good to make money, but everyone should agree and benefit.

thanks

www.gaylords.com

Wikipedia writers should not get paid. It's a volunteer website. If you want to write to help other people and do it selflessly, good for you.

Could you just leave Wikipedia and find another dreamland! We don't need add-ons here, 'DAMNIT!!

Everyday, on the web, user generated content is used,
in one way or another, to make a profit. Take, for
instance: FaceBook, MySpace, Ning, etc.; if their
creators didn't have financial gain in mind, then
these social networking sites probably would not even
exist.

Yes, their creators may have had the "public good" in
mind, but even dreams have to be fueled with cold, hard
cash. The contributors to Wikipedia are being treated
fairly. Some of the world's best contemporary writers
started out freely contributing their work to similar
types of entities (poetry orgainzations, ect) in hopes
that this practice would someday elevate them to fame.

The Wikipedia contributors that feel "ripped-off" could
take heart in the fact that their work would be spread
even wider with a printed edition of Wikipedia. If they
feel the need for compensation, then they should realize
that having their work now spread even wider around the
globe is a priceless marketing opportunity that could
earn them a lifetime of revenue as opposed to having
recieved a one-time stipend for making a contribution
to the Wikipedia website.

I wonder, how many of the "complainers" have actually
contributed to the Wikipedia? Surely, the actual contri-
butors can realize the golden opportunity as I have
explained above and choose not to make too much of a fuss.

Just a thought.

as for making a buck, those who contributed to wikipedia voluntarily shouldn't care, you were selflessly (allegedly) providing information so that it could be free (fly away information, you're free!). If this prevents you from volunteering, then go ahead, we don't want snobbish, whiny little babies giving us knowledge, it's tainted.

Sure, Linus sits on many boards and makes money through
that but the bottomline is that he does not make money
out of Linux. And I am sure that is the case with the
JBoss or MySQL too.

Most people contribute to open source software (or in this
case knowledge) out of passion and their beliefs and with
the knowledge that somebody can make money out of their
contributions - that is the beauty of open source or free
software.

Cheers,
A open-source proponent

There is no explicit or implied indication at the Wikipedia site that contributed information submitted by global writers would result in economic revenue for a 3rd party publisher and seems to be a valid argument for a lawsuit for 'unjust enrichment' on the part of the 3rd party publisher and Wikipedia if they receive remuneration from the publisher in any form. It can be assumed by the submissions that the intent of the writers was to introduce free information to the world audience, and not blindly put a benefit in the hands of a self-serving 3rd party. This is new 3rd party criminal scam of creating so-called lexicons (as in the Harry Potter situation) and encyclopedias with words, phrases, and articles based on the sweat and hard work of original writers (and artists) is nothing less than another facet of industrial espionage and an obvious attempt to exploit and maliciously compromise the integrity of copyright and patent laws created to protect intellectual property of writers, artists, and other global creators of arts and technology. Some of the greatest artistic and technological creations in the world never would have existed but for the creative talents of artists and technologically skilled inventors. However, if criminal and civil action are not taken against lazy individuals and nations who intentionally and negligently violate copyright and patent laws it is extremely doubtful if inventors and artists are economically cheated of rewards for their life's hard work and achievement. What if out there is an future inventor of an antidote, vaccine, or medical solution for dangerous viral diseases that could ultimately save mankind, but the medical doctor or scientist refuses to risk wasting or sacrificing his or her family's time developing vaccines without compensation? If scientists and educators had been stifled into not sharing information there would be no Internet today.

The rule is simple, if you did not 'create' the written information, you should be prohibited from receiving any form of compensation. An 'honest' day of work can be compensated for by an honest day of pay, but copying Wikipedia and introducing it as an ‘another’ online source of encyclopedic information is basically redundant (as Wikipedia has already done this) and theft of another person’s work product and any violator should be held civilly and criminally liable by international law enforcement and at the very least by a class action (civil) lawsuit. If a lazy company or individual can inure a benefit from the hard work and sweat of another uncompensated altruistic writer, then what motivation would a writer have for continuing to do so in the future?

A 3rd party publisher should not be compensated for the work of Wikipedia writers without a legally binding contract between the publisher, writer, and Wikipedia or it would cause a chilling effect that would be counterproductive to society. The needs of many writers and readers outweigh the greedy needs of the lazy few or the lazy one company attempting to inure profit by deception after the fact.

To test this theory of the intent of the contributing writers, all Wikipedia has to do is to publicly state in bold red letters that any and all contributions by writers will be copied and sold by 3rd party publishers with no compensation going to writers and it will not be long (perhaps as little as one month) before writers completely stop contributing so much as one sentence to Wikipedia. Let that German company use some of that German ingenuity that they so often brag about to ‘create’ a work product that they can sell, instead of trying to rip off contributions made by altruistic writers. When was the last time that anyone in the world was able to get a brand new German car for free? Never. The notion is just as absurd as their attempting to profit from another’s work product without reasonable compensation going to the contributing writers. German companies demand from the world top dollar for everything they stamp their country’s name on, so it is quite ironic, perhaps even hypocritically insulting that one of their company’s would try to sleaze their way into making a fast buck on the back of someone else’s hard work….If they did not ‘create’ the work product (i.e.’ the Wikipedia concept, artwork, photographs, the articles, footnotes, etc.) then without explicit permission from the writer/artists…it is not theirs to sell regardless of how much money they pay to Wikipedia and mask it in the form of a donation…..

Guess What.... It doesn't matter what I type or you type....

They are GOING TO MAKE THE BOOK...

They are going to get rich...

and who gives a **** about you or what you feel.

This is simple....

Someone has a good idea for a book.... makes book legally.... gets rich....

What is there for you people to complain about...

I am making a book too....

People who post stupid comments on forums....

I am using a lot of these page entries... so don't be surprised if you see your words in my book.... this is an open forum and I plan on using all this in my book....

Ya!!! more money for me....

Stop complaining people... and head on over to WIKIPEDIA and type a few more bucks for them.... Wish I would have though of the idea first... but good for the people that did...

Can't wait to buy my copy...

Oh and don't forget...

***holes and the words they write (thats the name of my book) will be on shelves on October 17th so mark your calendars... who knows.... YOU MIGHT BE FEATURED.... sorry no checks will be coming your way tho. :)

-Billy

here is another page you can set as your hompages

http://www.fart.com/links.html

That's the point of the Internet in the first place. To improve communication, to bring the world closer through sharing it's ideas free of charge... the way it's meant to be.

Would you charge someone that asked you for directions?!?! would you charge someone if they asked you a question?!?!

Quite possible, after the book's published, that some folks will go online later to edit (vandalize?) those "most popular articles" beyond recognition. What then?

Furthermore, addressing the point regarding the "let information be free" movement, the fact still stands that this information is indeed still free - all one needs to do is to go online and he or she would be able to access this information, and more. But if there are people out there, aware of this fact and yet still willing to fork out 20 euros for a compilation of quite possibly outdated articles, I don't see why it is anyone else's business to stop them from doing so, considering it is afterall the consumer's sovereign choice.

SPARE A THOUGHT FOR PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD,WHERE ELECTRICITY CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED,LET ALONE,THE COMPS IN ALL THEIR GENRE.

A HARD COPY OF WIKIPEDIA ,IS ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.

CLIMB DOWN YOUR HIGH LADDERS, ALL YOU FIRST WORLDERS!

KNOWLEDGE WILL ONE DAY BE FOR FREE, JUST LIKE THE SOUND OF THE WIND.THIS WILL SPELL GLOOM FOR ALL PROFITEERS.

ADIOS

G.B.AMGAHIA
KENYA

http://creativecommons.org/about/

They allow an author to specify that their work cannot be reproduced for commercial use. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how this would apply outside the US, but it's a move in the right direction.

To some people who doesn't care about the importance of these information, which are compiled through a series of sources. Information will slowly deplete once greedy selfish business minded people trying to publish books out of others' hard work. It's free and useful by many people who sources information from internet. Information is never ending and always being updated.

You may think it is a smart move, but no sensible person will BUY the book as the information is from the internet anyway. I do think that majority of wikipedia users are IT savvy anyway.

I think is as bad as piracy and hence most people will get a pirated copy or not buying at all.

Personally I think this book is a pretty stupid idea, and almost as vapid as this article.

This article was meant to pose a question, spark debate, and get people thinking. According to those that have chosen to comment here, there are many aspects to this issue and people have strong feelings about it.

A Wikipedia press contact would like me to point out the following:

"First of all, at the bottom of every page edited on Wikipedia, there is an explicit disclaimer that says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.". There are also several links to the text of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), which is very explicit about allowing commercial reuse. You use the phrase " leaving many wondering if the content's writers are being scammed out of royalties to which they are due." which is inaccurate: all editors clearly agree to license their content under the GFDL, and thus there are no royalties to grant: The information is freely licensed. Anyone may use it commercially. Readwriteweb could start its own encyclopedia using the content on Wikipedia and charge for it, as long as they comply with the other terms of the GFDL.

[Author's Note: I linked to the license in the article. That's not the point. People agree to EULA's too...]

Also, there is a major factual inaccuracy in your article. The terms of the GFDL do not require Wikipedia to be cited as a source, but rather require the individual authors to be cited. So, if you contribute to Wikipedia, someone else using your content must cite you as a prior author."

[Author's Note: Hmmm. So you're saying the publishers will know *exactly* whose labor they are profiting from?]

At first I thought that you were afraid that this book was going to hurt Wikipedia by making the authors feel that they were "ripped off".

Now I believe that you are overly concerned with profits, are you trying to hurt wiki's credibility? What does voluntary mean to you?

Isn't there anything more noteworthy going on around the world than this?

Like I said this book idea is insipid at best, I doubt they'll even see a profit. Maybe someone will take some of these books to where the internet is not readily available.

So, your poorly researched article created a parade of nonsense that forced a Wikipedia spokesperson to set the record straight...

(and in the process enlightened us all, including myself, about the most interesting part of the story: individual authors must be cited).

You then respond by trying to gerrymander your own factual innaccuracy into some justification for your original line of thinking?

It's crazy that a blog that publishes the work of a brilliant mind like Alex Iskold also published this piece.

Next time the editors need a story written about copyright or IP, hire someone with a clue to write it.

First anyone could legally publish a book like this and not give anything back to the foundation - Wikipedia don't have an exclusive right to this.

Second I expect that most significant contributers realise that they were never going to make any money with what they are doing and are well read enough to know that the licence allows people to sell their work.

I think one of two things will happen
1) The book won't sell or will lose money (publishing costs are high)
2) The book will sell really well and be profitable.

In the case of 1, I expect no one in the comments here will care. In the case of 2 then some other company will do the exact same thing for less and so will another and another and so on, until no one can make any profit on it.

ANYONE can do this. That is, if I understand the license properly. For instance, you could package volumes on different subjects through Lulu or Createspace, give them some handsome graphics and... price them lower than a commercial publisher.

That;s the double-edged sword of free content. Sure, a big company can use it. But then, so can everyone else. :)

Several people here raised the question: who would pay for something that's already available free?

I'd like to point out that there are several huge markets, like India, where millions of people don't have Net access and even if they do, still pay good money for the printed word. Moreover, the encyclopedias available are mostly expensive, and of course not as up to date as Wikipedia (none can possibly be). Therefore a printed Wikipedia makes a great deal of sense in these markets. Thinking local is important.

Secondly, you don't have to print all of Wikipedia (I don't think anyone would even consider it). After all there are more than 2 million articles. There is the option of printing several Wikipedias. For instance, you could print a Baseball Wikipedia, full of every possible trivial baseball detail, all the scores, bios, history, scandals, info on baseball movies, books, etc...all edited and organized in a neat and easy-to-access fashion. Price it moderately and you should have a winner on hand. Surely you should be able to sell out several thousand copies, given the huge baseball fan base in the US.

Pick and choose, use your judgment of what the target audience would like to read, take out those pages, cross-check for any unauthorized content and publish. That is the value addition a publisher should offer.

Many people would rather a publisher picked a variety of articles and compiled them into a book. Sure 2 million articles are available free online, but do you have the time, energy, resources and the ability to spot stuff that would interest you from that mountain of knowledge? Many don't, and they are the target audience.

Lastly, most of the whiners are blind to the fact that the publisher is also running the risk of losing money: what if no one wants to buy the Printed Wikipedia? Publisher's money down the drain. It's a risk he's taking, and you know what they say - no risk, no reward.

http://dbpedia.org/About

People have been working on extracting info from Wikipedia. This site could be a good start for anyone with plans for Printed Wikipedias.

I'm always surprised by the very uneven quality of the articles on RRW.

Some of it is just pure garbage...

There are also a good number of people who don't understand that different things bring value to different people. There are a lot of people who are in fact paying for Wikipedia use as is: Printing articles on your printer costs a lot more than buying a book! But even more importantly, there are just many many different reasons that some would pay for the content. And do. http://www.reference.com/search?q=wikipedia is just an exmple of dozens of sites that already benefit from the authors voluntary work.
Now, what's the difference here???

Probably so. Wikipedia is the equivalent of Open Source software--people write it for free, knowing that there is a good chance someone, someday will make money off work they did and that they (the authors) won't see a penny from it.

There are so many other people making money off Wikipedia online--it was only a matter of time before someone made money off Wikipedia in print.

Many posters have mentioned before that the content of Wikipedia is free, Bertelsmann does not need to pay anything.

In fact, BERTELSMANN PAYS FOR USING THE WIKIPEDIA LOGO on the book. Around this fact centers most of the diskussion in the german wikipedia (by the way, only about 70 authors wrote about their opinion about the deal on a dedicated page - a very small minority).