It might be. I've been on the pre-order list for that book since last October and it was supposed to be shipped in November 2009. I wouldn't necessarily count on it being released this month. Hopefully it'll be worth the wait..
It would actually be kind of cool if it followed the link graph for the article a couple articles deep, so you could get a customized book of concepts clustered around a main topic.
Regardless, the assumption that pornography would be in every book assumes that you don't cluster the data to topics with strong clique behavior and normalize the data to remove overly-linked (aka obvious) topics.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what this book is doing.
The full book title is: "Stack (data structure): Abstract Data Type, Data Structure, Friedrich L. Bauer, Charles Leonard Hamblin High-level Programming Language, Lisp".
Go to the Wikipedia Stack article, and just read the article's links in order: computer science, LIFO, abstract data type, data structure, Friedrich L. Bauer, Charles Leonard Hamblin, high level languages, array, linked-list, overrun, Lisp, etc. It looks like they are doing very little editing -- maybe an automated pruning algorithm.
I don't see any problem with this, it clearly states that the articles are from Wikipedia. As long as they don't change the license they can more or less rework and distribute it however they like. There are also others doing similar things.
I've never been tempted to type "LOL WUT" until now.
I have been willing to pay for printed copies of freely-available digital material. I bought Dive Into Python 3. I even bought a pair of Lulu-printed copies of Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby.
Repackaged Wikipedia articles, however, is pushing it a liiitle too far. Especially given the price. Especially given how unclear the listing is about what's even in there (as Psyonic said, the stack article doesn't fill 144 pages).
If you do, then you can give it away free, because their book is under the Creative Commons Attribution/ShareAlike license, being a modification of Wikipedia.
The real question in my mind is whether the book provides attribution to Wikipedia as the source. If not, and if the book's contents are literal copies of the wikipedia article, then Wikipedia may be able to have the book(s) taken down because the attribution clause was violated (and thus the license). I've not looked into the Amazon listing enough to know whether that's the case or not.
The cover art for each of these books shows a "content from Wikipedia" badge, so it looks like they are probably conforming to the licenses.
It's a little odd that they'd state it so clearly on the cover, though, since it seems as though they're trying to exploit a knowledge gap in their target market.
Did you actually use the link? In the description there is: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" (emphasis not mine). That'll probably count as an attribution.
Amazon is not the publisher, Betascript Publishing is. Looking at their site, it seems that what they do is gather articles and bind them together (with or without permission, I don't know). Here is the text from their About page:
Annually, millions of works are written worldwide in the research industry.
Enterprises and scientists would be especially interested in these ideas; nevertheless, up to today, most of this work is shelved as a result of high costs.
Betascript Publishing specializes in the publication of such works and uses commitment and the latest technology in order to make the invaluable work of such researchers available worldwide, quickly and efficiently.
They must have made an automated system that creates these books and sells them on Amazon using print on demand.