On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin <slimvir...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being >> copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a >> 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear >> enough that they're on Wikipedia for free. >> The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three >> editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in >> fact it's lifted word for word. >> Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not >> realizing they're in a hall of mirrors. > > > Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take > without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just > scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. > This will do that, slightly. > > > - d.
>From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then: http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx Amazon product descriptions almost certainly fall under "non-paid-for space online under [the marketer's] control". So a misleading description ought to lead to action. But the issue here is the misleading *lack* of any description. It could be an interesting conundrum for the ASA! Pete / the wub _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
