There are programs to find the main-authors. It didn't seem to be the big problem to find the main-authors in Wikipedia. We had in the German Wikipedia a big discussion about the question: should we name the main-authors in the beginning of a Wikipedia-article <br>
<a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umfragen/Autorennennung_am_Artikel">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Umfragen/Autorennennung_am_Artikel</a> <br><br>and we had also a big discussion about VG Wort/Metis: <br>
<a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:METIS#aktuelle_Sonderaussch.C3.BCttung">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:METIS#aktuelle_Sonderaussch.C3.BCttung</a> <br><br>and here is my blog-article about the solidarity economy in Wikipedia:<br>
<a href="http://klassismus.blogspot.com/2009/05/zur-solidarischen-okonomie-wikipedias.html">http://klassismus.blogspot.com/2009/05/zur-solidarischen-okonomie-wikipedias.html</a><br>where I published the possibility to get royalty from the state for Wikipedia-articles.<br>
<br>All this articles are in German language, sorry.<br><br>The most Wikipedia-articles have enough clicks per year to get the royalty from VG-Wort/Metis, so Wikimedia and the German Wikipedia-Authors could get each year a big peace of the cake (12 million Euro!), Matthias Schindler spokes about 5 million Euro.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/3/23 Juliana Brunello <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:juliana@networkcultures.org">juliana@networkcultures.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Wow, I wasn't aware of such a possibility!<br>
<br>
However, I don't know how exactly this would work in the case of<br>
Wikipedia. Articles are edited by a different number of authors, so how to<br>
compensate them? Divide equally? Divide per word count? How should it<br>
actually be measured and is it possible to automate the process?<br>
<br>
Juliana<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> Hi Juliana<br>
><br>
> Thats really a necessary question.<br>
> We had in the germanspeaking Wikipedia in the last year trouble about<br>
it.<br>
><br>
> In Germany you can get money from the state, if you are publishing books or<br>
> articles. And since two years you can get money, if you publish<br>
> internet-articles. If your internet-article has enough clicks, than you can<br>
</div>> get 30-40 € for each article. If your article is published by an<br>
<div class="im">organization, than you get 60% and the organization gets 40% of the<br>
royalty.<br>
</div>> Each year the internet-authors in Germany get 12 million € from<br>
<div class="im">the state<br>
> (from VG-Wort).<br>
><br>
> I was in contact with VG-Wort and they told me, they want also give<br>
money<br>
> to<br>
> Wikipedia / the Wikipeda-Authors. But the Wikimedia-Foundation and the<br>
German chapter didn't want to have the money. They didn't told anything<br>
to<br>
> the German authors. The ideology: Wikipedia-Authors have a lot of fun,<br>
if<br>
> they write articles for Wikipedia. It's not work, it's a hobby.<br>
><br>
> If there an internet-content-organization is not part of the VG-Wort,<br>
than<br>
> the internet-authors can get a special distribution. VG Wort was giving<br>
</div>around three € for each article (if it has enough clicks). It's<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">not much<br>
> money for one article, but some authors have written thousands of articles.<br>
> The German Wikimedia-Chapter knows about this special distribution, but<br>
they<br>
> didn't inform the Wikipedia-Authors about this easy possibility to get<br>
money<br>
> for their work.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
> Andreas<br>
><br>
> 2010/3/23 Juliana Brunello <<a href="mailto:juliana@networkcultures.org">juliana@networkcultures.org</a>><br>
><br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>> This is a two paragraph quote from a text published at firstmonday called<br>
>> ‘Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge<br>
system of the academic journal’ by William W. Cope and Mary<br>
Kalantzis.<br>
>> <a href="http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2309/2163" target="_blank">http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2309/2163</a><br>
I find their questions not only interesting, but necessary.<br>
>> “Everybody who writes for Wikipedia has to have another source of<br>
income. What would happen to the global scholarly publishing industry<br>
if<br>
>> academics assumed collective and universal responsibility for self<br>
publishing, an industry supporting in 2004 a reported 250,000 employees<br>
worldwide with a US$65 billion turnover (Peters, 2007)? What would<br>
happen<br>
>> to scholarly associations and research institutes that have<br>
historically<br>
>> gained revenue from the sale of periodicals and books? An ironical<br>
consequence of a move to social production would, in the<br>
>> much–trumpeted era of the knowledge or creative economy, be to value<br>
>> knowledge making and creativity at zero when coal. How do knowledge<br>
workers eat and where do they live? Without doing away with the market<br>
entirely, we are consigning a good deal of knowledge work to<br>
involuntary<br>
>> volunteerism, unaccountable cross–subsidy, charity or penury. We<br>
know from experience the fate of workers in other domains of unpaid<br>
labor,<br>
>> such as the unpaid domestic work of women and carers. Making it free means<br>
>> that it is exploited. In the case of the knowledge economy, the exploiters<br>
>> are the likes of Google who take the unpaid work of social producers<br>
and<br>
>> make a fortune from it.<br>
>> …<br>
>> In this perspective, in this era of the new, digital media we might be<br>
witnessing no more than one of the old marvels of industrial capitalism<br>
— a technology that improves productivity. In the case of<br>
knowledge<br>
>> making, the efficiencies are so great — print encyclopedias vs.<br>
Wikipedia, celluloid movies vs. digital movies posted to YouTube, PDF<br>
journal articles vs. print journals — that we get the impression<br>
that the costs have reduced to nothing. But they have not. They have<br>
only<br>
>> been lowered. We have become too dazzled by the reduction in costs to<br>
notice the costs we are now paying. So low are these costs in fact that<br>
we<br>
>> are can even afford to make these cultural products in our spare time, and<br>
>> not worry too much about giving away the fruits of our labors to companies<br>
>> who have found ways to exploit them in newly emerging information markets.<br>
>> Knowledge is a product of human labor and it needs human labor to make it<br>
>> available. There can never be zero costs of production and distribution of<br>
>> knowledge and culture, theoretical or empirical. At most, there are<br>
productivity improvements. Far from ushering in a new mode of<br>
>> production,<br>
>> the driving force is more of the same engine that over the past few<br>
centuries has made capitalism what it is.”<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com">Cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com</a><br>
>> <a href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org" target="_blank">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>