Re: [VereinDE-l] Grunds�tzliche Haltung zu WikiReadern

Mathias Schindler <neubau(a)presroi.de> wrote: Matthias Walliczek wrote: Der Verein wird niemals verhinden k�nnen, da� ein Student in seinem Namen Pressemitteilungen �ber eigene Projekte verschickt. Das ist weder seine Aufgabe noch in seinem Interesse. Der einzige Punkt ist ggf. die Sicher-/Klarstellung, da� das kein Wikipedia- und kein Wikimedia-Projekt ist. Tom hat gegen die Bitte von Wikipedianern diese Sache rausgehauen und heise hat halbwegs brauchbar das widergegeben. Das f�llt in meinen Augen in den Bereich Diskussionskultur und betrifft Wikipedia. Mathias ------------------- Hi I hesitate saying this, because google translations from german to english are not so good, so it is hard to see what your opinions are all on the topic, but I'd like to report something. Several months ago, Jimbo has agreed to give some money to Tom, so that he could print some wikireaders and offer them to sale through the webshop. My belief is that it was clear the money had to be refunded. I presume as well that since the foundation was helping Tom in this, there was an expectation that it would benefit the project as well as Tom himself. A few months ago, there were some questions raised about what was happening about the sales. I wrote several times to Tom about this, and though he gave me many explanations and values, I was never able to get full answers to my questions, which were essentially * how many readers were printed * how much did it cost * how much is each item sold (and if there are different prices, differenciate each price and each situation) * how many were actually sold All this to simply try to establish a basic balance of input and output, income and expenses. I do not question Tom good will at all, I question the relevance of having sales and distribution in the hand of one person who maybe can not entirely take care of it. It is both difficult for him, and difficult for us because we can't get straight answers, and difficult for the project because a certain image is given which does not necessarily respect what the community believes in or want to. Wikipedia content is free for anyone to use and free to sell as well. But it is the encyclopedic content which is free, not the name Wikipedia itself, nor the name of the foundation or german verein. If advertisement is made from the names, then 1) the organisations should get a benefit of its use 2) the organisations should govern the use of these names, meaning the board should approve the use. In short, any individual should have the right to sell some wikipedia content, but under his name, and limit himself to mention the source on the back cover (ie, just by respect of the license, mention the gfdl and the sources of the content). However, he should not make it appear as if his activity is in any sense supported by the foundation or the verein, by displaying huge logos on the front page, or by sending press releases which make it appear it is a communication from the association or foundation. Unless he has been clearly authorized to do so. Tom activity has been raising a lot of worries in the past months, not because he is acting in bad faith, but because he seems to be acting in the name of a group when it is not true. It would be okay for him to do so if support was obvious, but it is not the case. It is rather bringing a lot of stress. For this reason, I supported the closing of the webshop and I hope the german association will set up one itself. This is just my opinion :-) I put the french association in copy of this mail, because I think this is an issue we might be confronted as well quite soon. It also need to find some way to raise funds and some wikireaders could be set up quite soon if a motivated person decide to do it. Anthere If there is no agreement about this, I think it should also be discussed with more wikipedians. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'