Hi Juliana<br><br>Thats really a necessary question.<br>We had in the germanspeaking Wikipedia in the last year trouble about it.<br><br>In Germany you can get money from the state, if you are publishing books or articles. And since two years you can get money, if you publish internet-articles. If your internet-article has enough clicks, than you can get 30-40 € for each article. If your article is published by an organization, than you get 60% and the organization gets 40% of the royalty. Each year the internet-authors in Germany get 12 million € from the state (from VG-Wort).<br>
<br>I was in contact with VG-Wort and they told me, they want also give money to Wikipedia / the Wikipeda-Authors. But the Wikimedia-Foundation and the German chapter didn't want to have the money. They didn't told anything to the German authors. The ideology: Wikipedia-Authors have a lot of fun, if 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, than the internet-authors can get a special distribution. VG Wort was giving around three € for each article (if it has enough clicks). It's not much money for one article, but some authors have written thousands of articles. The German Wikimedia-Chapter knows about this special distribution, but they didn't inform the Wikipedia-Authors about this easy possibility to get money for their work.<br>
<br>Best<br>Andreas<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;">
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>
<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>
<br>
I find their questions not only interesting, but necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
“Everybody who writes for Wikipedia has to have another source of<br>
income. What would happen to the global scholarly publishing industry 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 happen<br>
to scholarly associations and research institutes that have 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 involuntary<br>
volunteerism, unaccountable cross–subsidy, charity or penury. We<br>
know from experience the fate of workers in other domains of unpaid 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 and<br>
make a fortune from it.<br>
<br>
…<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 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 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 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 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>
<br>
<br>
<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>
</blockquote></div><br>