[Foundation-l] PediaPress

Fri Nov 12 04:04:50 UTC 2010

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/11/2010 6:23:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> z at mzmcbride.com writes:
> 
>> I think focusing energy and efforts on creating print versions of
>> Wikipedia articles is antithetical to the idea of creating an online
>> encyclopedia. The benefits of the Internet (and more specifically
>> Wikipedia) include the ability to centralize information in one place
>> and the ability to update information in a quicker manner. The idea
>> that it's a good idea to distribute hard copies of these articles,
>> negating two huge benefits of the Internet and of Wikipedia, is
>> baffling to me. The business model seems to mostly consist of "hey,
>> look, we've reverted to the printing press!"
>> 
>> The people living in places without readily available Internet access
>> don't seem like the same people who would want to order a printed
>> copy of "List of The Simpsons episodes".
> 
> While I agree with part of your aim, that PediaPress's prominent placement
> (alliterative aren't I?) is an issue going forward, I think this part of
> your argument is a no-starter.
> 
> Why should any of us care, if someone else has an extra ability to print a
> copy?  Why they want to, is really secondary.  *That* they want to, or
> alternatively that it doesn't harm us at all to *let* them, is the issue from
> where I sit.
> 
> What if I really really want to read that enormous list of who might ascend
> to the British throne and the next 500 claimaints... in order... which we
> have.  What if I really want to study that list, but I have to go catch a
> train and I don't have a wireless laptop or the train doesn't?  I could print
> it out and read it in the john if I want.
> 
> I don't think we should waste effort on *why* someone wants to print it
> out.  The main issue is whether or not we are profiting a company.

I think there's some conflation here. Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't
be able to print out a Wikipedia article (at your home computer, at the
library, wherever). But you're not going to be ordering a bound book of
heirs to the throne if you want to read it on the next train.

There are a limited amount of resources available. In this case, as Tim
said, the resources (namely the extension development) were essentially
donated, but nothing in life is free. They were donated seemingly because
this company wanted to turn a profit. There's nothing wrong with that and
PediaPress certainly isn't unique in wanting to monetize off of Wikipedia.
What does appear to be unique is that this particular company gets what I'd
describe as "star treatment." This includes having their custom code
enabled, a prominent section in the sidebar, and even blog posts on the
Wikimedia blog shilling for their products.

Again, I still can't readily determine if this is a non-profit organization
or a for-profit company. I think there's definitely a difference between the
two. My gut feeling is that this is a for-profit company (I don't see any
reason why a non-profit would try to mask their non-profit status), which
begs the question of why this particular for-profit company is exceptional.

MZMcBride