I have a link for the amazon listing.
Perhaps CLLA missed it, but WB doesn't appear to miss much.

Curiously, in these three updates the word "I" appears 24 times, "me" twice, and "we" twice. And one "we" refers to readers in general. So, what's happened to the Lexicon staff? Indeed, in the second to last update SVA puts out a call for a "good programmer". SVA used to speak in the first person plural, including his staff, quite a lot prior to this unpleasantness. And he came to their defence in late December. But I find this use of the first person singular very curious, indeed.

Why? Surely it's just good grammar. If Steve is the only one working on a particular aspect of either the website or book, then of course he will use "I". On the 3rd January, Lisa updated the "What's New?" section and used the word "I" 25 times in one post.

We completely agree that it would be brilliant if everything was updated. Trouble is, there are about a thousand pages in the Lexicon and a complete update will be a LOT of work. We don't want to have to do it twice. So if you'll forgive us, we're waiting. In a couple of weeks, with the release of the last book, we'll start a complete update and overhaul of the entire site. We'll revise every page with the final details, we'll flag essays that are out of date (although we will very likely leave them in our essay collection, since they provide a record of fan history which we don't like to see disappear). We'll update all the pages to the new format and work on databasing everything so that it integrates into the Portkey.

If you think about it, that's the answer to another question I get quite often: What will happen to the Lexicon after the last book? Will it go away? No, it will just become more complete, more user-friendly, more integrated, and more the best Potter reference source on the planet.

So please be patient. I apologize for things which are out of date or incomplete. We'll get to it in just a few weeks.

This is what I meant when I asked if Steve had copied and pasted and paraphrased everything. What, if anything, did he contribute? Besides compiling all of these sources into a single spot? Compilations are not "transformative" and are generally not considered Fair Use. Taken into account, the vast majority of content belongs to Rowling, a significant amount belongs to others who hold the copyrights to their information, and an incrementally small portion belongs to Steve.

That's been my impression. There are too many ambiguous and uncredited references here to be really safe. The Lexicon may have made a good book. However, I'd recommend at least a year's good, solid work to revamp everything, rewrite a good amount of actual analytical observation,and include proper citation, for goodness sake. This is just a rush job that has potential, but not real marketability, imho. I see why Jo said she'd rather he not publish it- not fear of competition, but fear of the poor quality (as it stands) making the entire brand look bad.

"...feels frustrated that a “former fan” has tried to “co-opt my work for financial gain. The Harry Potter books are full of moral choices and ethical dilemmas, and, ironically, Mr. Vander Ark’s actions tend to demonstrate that he is woefully unfit to represent himself as either a ‘fan of’ or ‘expert on’ books whose spirits he seems entirely to have missed."”