Wikipedia On Hard Copy
For the first time ever, Wikipedia (yes, that Wikipedia — the free encyclopaedia) is available in a more tangible form than bits and bytes. A collection of almost 2000 articles from Wikipedia has been put on CD, billed as Wikipedia 0.5.
Of course, the CD isn't priced too affordably for those of us in the third world. Without shipping, the CD itself costs USD13.90. Shipping within the US costs another USD1.54, while shipping to Malaysia will burn a hole worth USD3.01 in your pocket.
For a Malaysian, that works out to almost RM60 for a collection of articles already available online and for free. Why would you want the CD? If you really wanted those articles in hard form, you could go ahead and burn them to a CD yourself — this is actually legal. (Actually, you are encouraged and allowed to download an image of the CD and burn it yourself — the images are hosted on the website.)
Basically, what you are paying for is the assurance that the articles were selected and properly checked to make sure they aren't crap. You could wade through the immense pile of crap that is Wikipedia (because let's face it, that's what it is — a mountain of crap with several gems to be found) to harvest 2,000 articles worth reading, but would it be worth your time?
Another consideration, of course, is that much of what you are paying will end up in the pockets of the Wikimedia Foundation which runs Wikipedia. If you're the charitable sort, you won't mind paying RM60 for getting a high-quality collection of encyclopaedia articles when much of that RM60 goes to supporting the worthwhile cause that made those articles come into being.
Still, I bet that more than a few entrepreneurial pirates will soon be hitting the streets with Wikipedia CDs to complement their illicit Encarta and Britannica CDs. The only difference is that they'll actually be selling something that's completely legal, and actually encouraged.
Being a Wikipedia editor, should I be miffed that other people are mooching off my own hard work (one of my favourite articles that I've worked hard on, Parliament of Malaysia, is included on the CD)? After all, the French company Linterweb will be getting a cut of the earnings (if I'm not mistaken) for helping with the logistics, and those pirates will be earning pure profit on my work.
Nevertheless, I'm happy. Any earnings that go back to the Wikimedia Foundation will support the cause I've signed up for. And indirectly, even the earnings that go back to the pirates are supporting the cause of free information.
After all, what is the point of Wikipedia? To get information into the hands of every person on the planet — to democratise it, if we want to use those buzzwords that journalists and marketers are so fond of.
Surely you don't expect people to do the grunt work of democratising information for free. In the end, market motives will still play an important role in getting information (and thus, power, if we agree with the oft-quoted statement of Lord Acton) into the hands of the world. Those pirates are putting CDs in the hands of people who would otherwise balk at paying RM60 for the same CD — and why begrudge them a little incentive to spread the information?
Of course, it would be nice for me to get my hands on some of that money. But the world isn't fair. I think it's justice enough that maybe, just maybe, because I had too much spare time on my hands, someone out there will be able to read a proper encyclopaedia article about the Parliament of Malaysia for almost no cost.
Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "wikipedia": | |
|---|---|
|
chickster
Member Posts: 168 IP Logged | Posted at 10:18:35 am Dec 12, 2005
do u think dis site is reliable??? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy do u trust wikipedia? i heard like 70% or sumthin of d people hu voted on dis poll on cnn say dey dun trust it i think itz okay 4 sklol la...but u must be stupid if u wan 2 use it 4 serious stuff |
| Last five replies (2 comments not shown): | |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 5:48:12 am Dec 18, 2005
You can't extrapolate the status of 800,000+ articles from a review of 42 articles. |
|
chironua
Member Posts: 12 IP Logged | Posted at 4:05:32 am Dec 22, 2005
using 42 to extrapolate on 800k article is possible. It's called sampling. It's not generalization though. |
|
NightHawk
Member Posts: 187 IP Logged | Posted at 11:39:59 pm Jan 8, 2006
wikipedia is prone to crap editing... but dont they log the editor's ip??? |
|
bentmw
Gamemaster Member Posts: 219 IP Logged | Posted at 12:51:56 am Jan 9, 2006
i think wikipedia is useful...despite it being vulnerable tu f***ed up editors....its is updated evrytime..i think its good. |
|
johnleemk
Infernally Rambling Thoughtless Mind Head Administrator Posts: 948 IP Logged | Posted at 3:25:12 am Jan 9, 2006
I doubt a reasonable sample of 900,000 articles can be made from 42 articles, especially when they are intentionally concentrated in one field. Vandals are caught easily, I suppose. What's worrying is the more subtle kind of crap. For instance, how could anyone be supposed to know John Seigenthaler was never accused of being involved in JFK's assassination? With so many conspiracy theorists, it wouldn't be surprising if he has been accused. |
