On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we're concerned about the WMF referring in its blog to a for-profit > organisation that happens to be working with us in a way that is > open-source, offline and furthering our mission to distribute our content > widely, why did no one complain about the OpenMoko Wikireader being in the > WMF blog: > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2009/10/13/openmoko-launches-wikireader/
maybe it was seen through beer-tinted goggles. > There are several examples of commercial services being used in Wikimedia > projects that are integrated in a way that is acceptable because they > further our mission of sharing free-cultural resources effectively: > > - The Geohack tool.. > - The ISBN lookup tool .. > - The "template:social bookmarks" .. > > All three of those systems are community-developed and no one is reasonably > complaining that we are sending our readers to those commercial services > because they are integrated in a way that is relevant/appropriate for the > kind of re-use that is A Good Thing™. Your 'because' oversimplifies the many debates over the years. These tools have been accepted by the community because they include every possible externally provided service, allowing the user to select the one they prefer to use. > I suspect that the issue lies not with the fact that you are only a couple > of clicks away from the PediaPress bookprinting service from every Wikipedia > article, but more the fact that the PediaPress system is the *only *service > listed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Book As Erik > mentioned in the previous email, the relationship with PediaPress is > non-exclusive and entirely independent from the "Book Creator" code. I agree that the concern is one vs many for-profits in the case of our book service. The help pages on English Wikipedia don't suggest that this is non-exclusive. They say: "The service is offered in cooperation with PediaPress which is the official print on demand partner of the Wikimedia Foundation." > If there is another organisation out there that offers a > printing-and-binding service that is comparable to what PediaPress offers > then we could/should add it to the list but I don't believe there is. Firstly, if you consider the tools that you mentioned above, many of the options given to readers are not comparable to the leading providers in their respective areas. The geotool is a fine example of including low quality solutions alongside high quality solutions; some of those maps are terrible. Secondly, there are many print on demand services which could easily be added into this system, and I expect that they will offer comparable products. The Book Creator tool provides a PDF, and the print on demand services accept PDF. The key benefit with PediaPress is that they give 10% back to the WMF. I wouldn't mind if PediaPress did have an exclusive arrangement for time, given that they have put in the hard work to make this possible. Any other provider would need to also give back 10% to the WMF, or something similar. I am guessing that the WMF would consider any reasonable offer. One obvious opportunity here is for each chapter to find local services which provide a cheaper service, as postal costs will be lower. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
