Skip to Navigation »
Skip to Content »

The Bookseller.com

18th May 2008

Jobs Activate Subscribe

What's Hot

Odd Titles Prize Events 2008 Buyer's Guides Paperback Preview Children's Rights Deals media Salary Survey 2008 Retail International Prize Financial libraries

News

Random to publish first Wiki book

23.04.08

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by volunteers, is to be published as a book in Germany by Random House in a twist for those who believed Wikipedia had all but destoyed printed reference books.

The idea is to use Wikipedia to capture the zeitgeist by selecting the most popular entries, Beate Varnhorn, the editor in charge of Bertelsmann’s reference works, said in an interview by telephone with the New York Times. "We think of it as an encyclopedic yearbook," Dr Varnhorn said, leaving open the possibility of new editions if the 2008 version is successful.

Editors will distil 50,000 of the most popular entries in the German version of Wikipedia into the 1,000-page volume to go on sale in September. When begun, Wikipedia was perceived as making books redundant, with no future for printed encyclopaedias. In Germany, France and Denmark leading publishers have pulled their printed encyclopaedias in the face of Wikipedia's rise.

International Rights deal Random House Home Germany

Comments on this article

By Clive Keeble

An assured print-to-pulp project ; there would be no apparent sales opportunity for such a title on the overstocks market here in UK. Even as recently as the last decade there was a strong trade for sales of old Encyclopaedia Britannica to Germany - now the market is virtually non-existent.

By Emma B

I agree with Clive: the benefits of Wikipedia are that it is frequently, openly edited and is immediately accessible - with a great search engine. And I bet they won't try to pay royalties to contributors.

By Philip

Wikipedia is a great resource as long as you're aware of its limitations - namely its susceptibility to codswallop. E.g. their page on "Richard & Judy" lists "Harry Hindley's 'goes back in time'" as the 11th member of their 10-book 2005 "Book Club". An error that, laughably, has not been noticed by other websites who've included it on their lists. The editors of this tome of Wiki will have a tough job on their hands.

By Matthew Perren

Please let them do an e-book version. It's the only thing that could make this a more absurd idea.

By Josey Wales

I have to wonder if the readers of this sorry excuse for a publishing industry website have any understanding of the industry they think they work in. A condensed volume edition of Wikipedia IS A GREAT IDEA which, at the right price and in the right format will sell shedloads. No, it won't be the same as Wikipedia (it will, doh, be a BOOK not a website) and no it won't have the same cost base as the bloatware it replaces (because, doh, the contributors assign copyright) but that doesn't mean it will be a bad product or that it has no market. No wonder treeware is in such trouble if this is the level of debate on the main industry website.

By im a tree

Josey, it will not sell shedloads - however cleverly or beautifully packaged or condensed, it's a non starter. Is 'treeware' in trouble? I understood that overall sales in the industry are increasing.

By Eoin Purcell

Complete agreement with everyone. I cannot see this working. Though if it was the 1000 most ridiculous entries . . .

By Jon

Please could 'treeware' become the standard industry term for anything made of paper from now on?

By Chris Tordoff

'Treeware'? When did this happen??

By Encarta

What does it say about this "sorry excuse for a publishing industry website" to allow such ill-informed comments like: "A condensed volume edition of Wikipedia IS A GREAT IDEA" No it's not (and we know that because we know about the industry we work in). Why on Earth would anyone trust an untrusted encyclopedia from an untrusted site like Wikipedia, when on the saturateds market already there are a number of lovely encyclopedias from established, trusted names like Encarta or Hutchinson or Whittaker's or Chambers? But hey, Josey Wales is free to have an (absolutely ridiculous) opinion (and an attitude problem - one presumes you are a disgruntled Random House employee??). The UK is a country of free speech and democracy and all that But, then, demoracy isn't always a good thing. We kept Thatcher in power for over a decade. Though if I delete her Wiki entry maybe it'll nev er make it into the book...

By philip.jones@bookseller.co.uk

Heh, leave the "sorry excuse for a publishing industry website" out of it would ya :-(

By Encarta

I was only quoting Josey Wales. I happen to be a fan of The Bookseller's online presence - much more so than Publishing News. (Do I get a free subscription for saying that?)

By philip.jones@bookseller.co.uk

Yes, that's how it works. Anyone who also points out typos also gets a prize.

By June Austin

can you repaet that plaese !

By June Austin

can you repaet that plaese !

By Matthew Perren

Brave, if hopelessly misguided words, Josiy. Braver still to utter them under your own name rather than a lame alias. After 23 years of "thinking" I work in this industry - and 23 years of watching reference sales steadily decline - I think I'm qualified to say that I wouldn't be attempting a new print version of any encyclopedia, regardless of brand. You are either a troll or an RH functionary. Fess up: which is it?

By JamieB

Why are you guys talking about this as if it's going to be a reference title? The article states: 'The idea is to use Wikipedia to capture the zeitgeist by selecting the most popular entries.' As I understand it, it will be more of a yearbook than a serious reference title. Sort of like those kooky books you get for people on their birthday that tells them all the crazy stuff that happened in their birth year... This is why they expect it to appeal to the younger generation (who might not be inclined to buy encyclopaedia titles at all....) It'll be more of a 'cool' thing to own, than a serious book.

By Matthew Perren

Oh, I see! You mean, kind of like what the Friday Project was doing? Wait a minute..... That still makes it sound like an irretrievably stupid idea.

See Also