Wikipedia Gets Published - Should Writers Get Paid?
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, 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, "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 believes he knows exactly where this leaves those writers: ripped off. He writes:
"Wikipedia is ripping them off big-time. No, in fact, let’s not beat around the bush here. Let’s say it for what it really is. Wikipedia is SHAFTING THEM....Had they known that Wikipedia would then use their work in a commercial printed venture, I’m sure they would have had second thoughts about writing those articles. At the very least they would have demanded a contract and perhaps a guarantee of financial compensation later."
Some of the commenters on his post disagree. As one points out, there is no rip-off - Bertelsmann will be selling the content legally under the terms of the GNU-FDL license, which makes it perfectly OK.
But let's be honest here, if the writers thought that the content they were contributing was to help a commercial publisher make a buck, and not part of a movement to "let information be free," would they still have given so much of their time on a volunteer basis?
It's one thing to see Wikipedia distributed to the developing world, like when SOS Children's Village, the world's largest orphan charity, distributed Wikipedia CDs to Africa, but it's quite another to know that you're making money for someone else...for free.
To Arne Klempert, though, executive director of Wikimedia Germany, "It is not about the money. It is a very good example of the power of knowledge." That may be true, but Bertelsmann won't be making deposits of "knowledge" at the bank, will they?
Share
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
People who are Wikipedia "true believers" are working on the project for the very reason that the content can be used by anybody, for any purpose. That's the entire point -- to make a Free Content encyclopedia.
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 am willing to write on free of cost for wikipedia
One euro per copy? On a 20EUR book?
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.
PS - petition?
This is likely going to end in a mess. It's only going to take a few folks to raise an issue over this, particularly if the funding issues at Wikipedia continue to creep out.
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.
First off let me just say that I think the use of Wikipedia for profit is a bad move.
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?
This is retarded. Contributing to Wikipedia requires you to license your work under the GNU FDL and this is made very clear when editing. I have no sympathy for anyone whining about this.q Wikipedia is Free as in speech, not beer.
Much more useful than this book by Bertelsmann will be (s.th. like) PediaPress, once it's live. And yes anyone who thinks publishing books is against the will of Wikipedians hasn't understood anything about the goal/spirit of Wikipedia.
It would be legal to digitalise the book and offer it for free online yes. Of course then you would be trying to dirrectly compete with wikipedia which would make things tricky but nothing to stop you trying.
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.
If you've contributed content to Wikipedia you did it gratis, and that was well communicated by the lack of paycheck you received when you hit "Submit."
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? :)
If you've contributed content to Wikipedia you did it gratis, and that was well communicated by the lack of paycheck you received when you hit "Submit."
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 author of this post could make herself a little bit more informed about Wikipedia and its history before posting. It has its roots in Open Source / Free Software movement which in general accepts the idea that information doesn't necessarily need to be protected from copying as the original information is still available for its owner after it's copied.
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.
I wasnt insinuating that writers should get paid, i was just curious as to what the legal implications were for publishing a book based entirely on free/open content.
What part of the GNU-FDL don't people questioning this proposed publication understand? Why is this a story? Does it presume Wikipedia contributors are ignorant? That's the message I'm getting and it doesn't sit well.
The writers should have the option of being paid if there work is distributed in a book that is sold and where some of the profits go to wikipedia.
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....
Shit stirring? Were you short of stuff to write about?
That's just how Open Source works. I'm a contributor to Open Source software products, and I've never heard of an Open Source contributor being upset by someone selling their work, so long as it complied with the terms of the license. It's not like the fact that somebody is making money off of it somehow hurts the contributors. If I wanted to make money off of a particular software idea, I wouldn't contribute it to an Open Source project in the first place. Otherwise, I don't care HOW it's used; I'm just happy that it's used!
I think Justin made an excellent point. If you have a problem with how someone else is doing it, do it differently yourself. The people who participate in Wikipedia do so knowing that there is no specific financial upside for themselves. Anyone is free to re-publish the material, and expand the boundaries of how information is distributed and consumed around the world.
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 think Justin made an excellent point. If you have a problem with how someone else is doing it, do it differently yourself. The people who participate in Wikipedia do so knowing that there is no specific financial upside for themselves. Anyone is free to re-publish the material, and expand the boundaries of how information is distributed and consumed around the world.
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.
If people are upset by this, maybe the best reaction would be to publish another printed version that directly competes with BMG's offering. But instead of the net profit going to the publisher, 100% of net could be donated back to Wikipedia or to various other charities and non-profits. That way the marketplace would decide whether they wanted their money to go to BMG or to "loftier" places. Nothing is stopping BMG from publishing the book, and nothing should stop anyone else from doing so as well.
The catch with this is that many Wikipedia pages contains some plagiarized material from other websites and printed publications. It's a guess as to what is and isn't original which would open a printed version (which can't be edited on the fly) up to lawsuits.
This really speaks to the whole argument that is currently raging in marketing circles about giving your product away for free. And then selling other stuff later to make up for the economic sacrifice.
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
Can you explain how what Bertelsmann is doing is making the online version of Wikipedia *less free*? I hope their efforts make them look like the desperate industry they are, but I defend their right to be stupid and to re-publish Wikipedia under the terms of its license. At worst, maybe a few more people access information they might not otherwise have accessed (I mean, if they are buying something they could get for free...)
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.
I can't believe RWW actually published this article. Do you really have no opinion on the lack of merit of the complaints by "writers"?
REALLY?
We all know how the license works, Wikipedia is a commons, not property, etc.
(apologies to Yochai Benkler...)
Get real!
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading this FUD. It's very clear that you don't understand the facts of this situation and that you made nothing more than a token effort to establish the truth. Your only goal in publishing this FUD was to stir up some controversy and try to increase your pagehits. Here's an idea: take some time to dig for the truth. I am sure that you will find that the vast majority (so far, 12 of 14 by my own survey) are perfectly ok with commercial publications using Wikipedia. Many don't just feel not "ripped off" they feel proud and see this as another sign of Wikipedia's increasing meainstreaming.
Again, I'm really disappointed RW decided to publish this FUD.
i don't get it... why would somebody pay cash for something they could just read on the internet for free?
"But let's be honest here, if the writers thought that the content they were contributing was to help a commercial publisher make a buck, and not part of a movement to "let information be free," would they still have given so much of their time on a volunteer basis?"
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?
But why would anyone buy the Book. They can get it for free of wikipedia, if all they're doing is just using the same articles. Seems like a dumb idea for a book
This is ridiculous, it's like RDR vs JK Rowling all over again. Tis ripping off the writers in an extreme sense.
I have been posting content, and then having it either modified or removed by other "authors" for the last couple of years. The database is so easily manipulated that the work of a certain author can and I am sure has been modified from it's original copy, making the ability to find the true source rather hard.
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...
Once again, another good IDEA shot to hell in the name of capitilisim! One day people are going to wake up and realise what is truly important OR we will all die from stupidity
i dont like that wikipedia be turn into a book, its unfair for the writers who have contributed in the articles. he's an ASS for trying ti print out others hard work!
Hi, my opnion how they could repay the all the authors that have been writing in wikipedia is that they should also give 1€ or 2€ as donation for international charity organizations.
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.
It's a scam and for those wanting to make an extra buck off free material that others volunaraily give their free time to help develop, shame on you!!!!!!
I've been a Wikipedia editor for over 5 years, and the fact is, there are huge warnings plastered all over the site that "your work is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License" - which allows companies to use Wikipedia material for commercial purposes. Any experienced editor (exactly those people who would benefit the most from any type of writers' royalties) knows this and, by continuing to make edits licensed under the GFDL, has given his implicit permission for companies to "take advantage of us".
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?
Umm, dont add to the articles if you dont want to release your rights to your statement. the fact that you put your statement on wikipedia is the fact that its being published in the first place. if you just starting blabbing about 18th century war vessals on your myspace no one would make a book out of it.
Bottom line is i don't believe the material on wikipedia is copyrighted, meaning it can be copied
1) You are probably upset that you did not think of it first and 2) If you are so concerned with information being free, go on Wikipedia (as I am sure the articles will still be posted) and don't buy the book. Shouldn't these volountairy writers be honored that their work is being published? I'm sure they have probably tried to have it published in the past if they are writing for free on the website.
Who cares, 90% of Wikipedia is wrong and written by idiots! I don't know how many times I have used Wikipedia and look in an actual encyclopedia and the information is totally different.
i like Wikipedia and I have respect and admiration for the writers who volunteer their time, effort and research into making information available for Internet users like me. I think that what is happening here is a shame and should not be done. Is there any way for these writers to protect their intellectual property and rights?
umm #20, probably 95 percent should go to charity... it takes money to print the book duznt itZ?
To me: A college student and a person who loves to learn - profiteering off of something that is honestly a charitable source of information for the masses, by the masses - seems somewhat wrong. Don't get me wrong - I am an Economics student and am all about profit, but capitalizing on something like Wikipedia just doesn't go with what I think the creator's intent of the website was. If it were a publication that was done in order advance the spread of knowledge, information, or even help under-funded schools or areas with extreme levels of poverty - that would be a respectable and agreeable action. I would even buy a book or two for myself and friends in order to support that cause, but I would want(as an Accounting minor as well :O) ) to see that this doesn't become some type of corporate deal. I just think that too often,businesses ruin a great thing that wasn't meant to become a profit generating machine. For once I would like people to be a bit more concerned about social welfare and freedom of information and the power that that distributes amongst the masses, who have the internet, instead of their wallets or investors.
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.
I guess it should have been expected. Just like Napster or Google, or any Technology craze that starts selling itself as a noble cause. In the end anyone inventing something in the net, they are in for the money, and not for the democracy of cyberspace. . . let's face it guys.
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.
Hold on a moment. It's legal to publish and sell wiki articles? There are hundreds of articles and that's practically an untapped market. Serious.
This is just wrong. Wikepedia is not meant to be for sale. If someone go's to a church and gets the free food they give out to the homeless and then go's and sells it what would you call that?
You're lying Zero Xavier. Don't lie, it reflects poorly on you.
lol I knew it JW
I will non longer write for Wikipedia and I urge everyone else to follow suit. The whole premise was that it remain a free source. These people are just another corporation attaching their parasitic tentacles to honest people.
Who the hell would pay money for a Wikipedia book?
I will non longer write for Wikipedia and I urge everyone else to follow suit. The whole premise was that it remain a free source. These people are just another corporation attaching their parasitic tentacles to honest people.
I would also urge people to boycott it altogether. Next they'll be making money on the clicks to view our content.
1 2 3 4 Next