Wikipedia-tennis-articles now on books?

[urban]

A question especially to Carlo, JeffreyNeave, Krosero and others, who have contributed on the wikepedia-pages about tennis articles. I got a newsletter by amazon, that now some of these articles, including one about Rod Laver, are edited in books and sold for 49 Euro. Its interesting, because some of us actiually wrote great parts of those articles. Who is editing them? And what about copyrights)

 

[Xenakis]

I got a Amazon recommendation for a book about serialism (modern music composition/harmony) taken from wiki articles and wondered about copyright/royalties etc. I wouldn't buy it anyway, far too expensive and not well written enough compared to the proper literature on the subject.

 

[jrod]

^^^ I suspect that when you post them, you are implicitly agreeing to terms established by wikipedia. My suspicion is you gave up your copyright rights when you did this. You have to be rather explicit in establishing copyright...never mind how costly it can be to enforce it.

 

[borg number one]

Jrod is right about copyrighting issues in the post above, yet I do see some explicit copyrighting instructions on this wiki page for you folks that are involved with writing wiki articles. Most of this applies to what is posted ON wiki though as opposed to folks that may take wiki material and use it elsewhere. Each person's situation may be a bit different, depending on what exactly was posted on wiki, etc. The central point that Jrod makes is accurate though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_problems

This information below looks to be more pertinent Urban:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/wikipedia_copyright.htm

 

[JRstriker12]

Very interesting...

Just wondering. Is wikipedia selling the articles? I could kind of see that if the sale of the articles only went to supporting the site and keeping it going. If it's just being ripped off by some other source, I'd be kind of angered.

 

[Reredef]

You guys really don't understand this whole Wikipedia thing, do you?

No, it's not Wikipedia publishing these books (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betascript_Publishing). However, it is Wikipedia's stated goal to provide content that is free for anyone to use for any purpose* (including crappy publishers who want to sell a bunch of articles for 49 euro). That's the whole point. It's not just "the free encyclopedia" because it's free to access, you know..

* as long as certain conditions are met, such as attribution or licensing of derivative content under the same terms.

 

[Reredef]

OK I'll be slightly more helpful (and a tad less condescending).

All text contributions on Wikipedia are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...s_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

Whenever you edit a page, you are told the following: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

For more information, see the terms of use: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

 

[jrod]

...
All text contributions on Wikipedia are licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...s_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

Whenever you edit a page, you are told the following: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

For more information, see the terms of use: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use

Thanks for clarifying Reredef.