Difference between revisions of "Wikibooks:Reading room/General"

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
m (Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 60 days) to Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2014/October.)
 
(880 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
+
|algo = old(60d)
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
+
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
}}
 
}}
Line 10: Line 10:
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== Introducing myself ==
   
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
+
Hello to everyone, I am posting this as I saw a message on profile page to introduce myself.
  +
I am medical graduate from India ,currently pursuing PG in Radiology and also preparing for some more exams.
  +
I like to untangle the anything that i feel is too complicated to my liking and i good at it (at least that is what my colleagues have told me). Ever I started my med school preps , their were just way too many things to cram in my brain (which shrinks a little every day) , so i started to make jingles out the first alphabets.
  +
I will most likely be contributing a lot of my mnemonics to this site and messing with others , and if i ever manage to write a book , it will happen here at Wikibooks. {{unsigned3|Randjo}}
   
The advantages of this system is that the papers would be created and remain in the public domain. Publication might also be faster than through the established printed journals. Academics like myself want the widest possible distribution of their work but this gets blocked because the publishers of academic journals normally take the copyright of the papers away from the authors.
+
== Request comment regarding cookbook and baking recipes ==
   
I am new to Wikibooks and Wiki space in general, so I apologize if I'm way off track with this. It is just an idea, hopefully it can gain substance if other people are interested. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi, this morning or last night I updated one [[Cookbook:Basic_Bread_Dough|Basic bread dough]] recipe with baker's percentages and the weights of the original recipe, determined via lookup at the USDA Nutrient Database. Many of the newest artisan baking books always include baker's percentages and/or weights in addition to volumetric measure. I'm at the point in my own baking that if an author doesn't have those already printed, I usually skip it for another that does, unless I have reason to believe it's an unusually good recipe. I thought I'd go through the baking-related recipes, slowly as my time allows, and try to get more of the recipes similarly notated. I was wondering if anyone could offer suggestions for improving the general look, or formatting. Thanks. I want to add that there's some redundancy which I don't care for, the ingredients are listed twice. It seemed necessary due to an inability to get the table's ingredients lined up with the bulleted list. An alternate might be a table without borders including all values including the volumetric text, but then the bulleting function doesn't work. Suggestions? <u>I have updated the table to a different format which eliminates redundancy. MOS does not seem to say bullets are required, though they are used on every recipe I've seen. This table style looks cleaner to me.</u> [[User:Gzuufy|Gzuufy]] ([[User talk:Gzuufy|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuufy|contribs]]) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
   
Thanks for all the comments. It seems that wikibooks is not the place for this idea. However, I will continue the thread for a moment longer, if only for the benefit of others who are lost in wikispace. At wikia I found a page that has been set up to do almost exactly what I proposed. It seems to have been in existence for some six years and, although all the infrastructure is there, there is virtually no content. It seems that an "academic publishing" page is just too general to attract participants. It needs to be more focused on a specific area of study. Also, I think it needs a strong group to start it off. I do not think it can be started by just one person with the expectation that others will just drop in (it will end up as dead space). I might pursue the idea further at wikiversity if I can put a group together.[[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
+
:Update. This is a copy of a message I put on the talk page of [[cookbook_talk:Cinnamon Bun]], <blockquote> How is 2 cups of all purpose flour = 480 g? ... I can't make sense of this recipe. 2 cups of all purpose flour, per the USDA National Nutrient database (NND), should weigh 250 g, or 125 g per cup. But this recipe says 480 g of all purpose flour = 2 cups. There are other inconsistencies, but the flour is the biggest one. The shortening, USDA NND says composite vegetable shortening weighs 205 g per cup. But this recipe says 1/2 cup weighs 120 g, which is 240 g per cup. The brown sugar is not specified as packed or unpacked, leading to three possible values, because the same error seems repeated. Too many inconsistencies.... I've done a little more investigation, and it appears that [https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Cookbook%3ACinnamon_Bun&diff=646371&oldid=482864 "metrication" was added in this diff]. In a different recipe, I found the same user making a [https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Cookbook%3ALemon_Poppy_Seed_Muffins_%28Glazed%29&diff=665704&oldid=492139 similar mistake, 1.75 x 125 g = 218.75 g, but the same user converted it to 300 g].</blockquote> It's kind of interesting, because if a user was following gram weights, instead of cup measure, and presumed the values were correct, they'd get a completely different result from the results someone else following the cup measure would get. I say "interesting", because weighing ingredients is considered a more accurate method, particularly for "flour" based recipes, but these kinds of errors in the conversions appear to undermine that accuracy. I find myself wondering how many other "metrications" the same user has performed, and if the same kinds of major errors were made in them. We all make typos, but two repetitions of the same error, particularly on the flour weight, the "core" of the "[[w:Baker percentage|baker's percentage]]" method? [[User:Gzuufy|Gzuufy]] ([[User talk:Gzuufy|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gzuufy|contribs]]) 00:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
   
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
+
== Introducing myself ==
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
   
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi , I'm Leaderboard and I currently edit on some computing books , such as [[How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC|http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC]] and [[Basic Computing Using Windows]]
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
+
== Meta RfCs on two new global groups ==
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
 
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
As someone who recently repurposed a small portion of his undergraduate honors thesis [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|here on Wikibooks]] (perhaps unwittingly in violation of policy!), I would like to say something. I can attest that there were at least 100 honors papers coming out of Emory University every year in the late 1980's, and one would estimate with near certainty that easily half of them never reached a "digital age" reformatting. It seems an utter waste of talent and labor to '''''not''''' reach out to people with honors research "collecting dust", and ask them (plead with them!) to consider scanning the work for OCR, then releasing it under a free license to share with the rest of the world. Multiply my experience at Emory by at least 200 (or 400, or 800!), to cover the many outstanding universities worldwide that have featured honors papers, etc. We're talking about a great deal of content and information that really should be gathered up and made digital. If not on Wikibooks, why? And where? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
+
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Hello all,
:Not peer-reviewed, but this material would presumably be fine for Wikiversity, no question, and some of it might be okay here as well. It's likely to be of better quality than the average. Great idea, Thekohser. The problem with great ideas is, frequently, too many Chiefs with great ideas and not enough Indians. I'd suggest this as a project on Wikiversity, to get the papers in a place which is pretty safe from deletion based on arguments of POV, etc., and then review them for transfer to Wikibooks. But I have no problem with placement here first, and then a move to Wikiversity if that seems more appropriate at the time. What I don't like is the raw deal of you do all this work on a page or set of pages and then they are deleted because Randy from Boise and a few drive-bys thought it wasn't notable or was something else Bad. (It's hard to imagine a submitted degree thesis or an honor paper that wouldn't be appropriate, at least, for Wikiversity. But the world is big.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
Concerning Thekosher and Abd remarks on undergraduate honors thesis, I am very confused about where papers can be uploaded on the various Wiki Foundation sites. I have a lot of papers that I would like to make more available to the general public. These are undergraduate thesis, Masters thesis, PhD thesis, a collection of working papers published by University Departments, an even larger collection of papers published in academic journals. The copyright of the published papers have been hi-jacked by various publishers, so there seems to be nothing that can be done about these - they will be locked away in print libraries (where nobody will ever read them) until long after I'm dead (which is why I suggested academic papers could be produced on a Wiki). Going one step back, there are the working papers upon which the published papers are based. They are not as polished as the published papers but are a valuable research resource that could be placed in the public domain. Working papers are peer reviewed within a University Department. When I brought up the question publishing these at Wikisource I was told "We would only look at the papers following peer review" by which I understand them to mean that the working papers would have to be peer reviewed again. This requirement would, I think, be difficult to meet because I know of nobody that would be prepared to spend their time reviewing a paper that has already been reviewed. Now Thekosher suggests collecting undergraduate thesis (I do not think this is a bad idea), when papers that are far more developed, and only one step away from being lost for 100 years, have nowhere to go. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
+
There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at [[m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group]]. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at [[m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review]].
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:If it is in the Public Domain and has been published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", it is welcome at wikisource. The Wikiproject can be found at [[s:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers]]. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.
   
:: <s>I think, thought I could be wrong, that wikisource requires the material to be published elsewhere before they will accept it. I suppose this keeps people from posting their rejected papers there straight away without correcting the flaws.</s> [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at [[m:Stewards' noticeboard]].
   
== Goodbook ==
+
Thanks and regards, [[m:User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[m:User talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Ajraddatz@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=10024331 -->
   
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
+
== Where can I request blocks of vandals? ==
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
Such as this vandal: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.112.140.130 - I would like this vandal to be blocked for problematic edits after his/her first and final warning. Thanks! --[[User:Goldenburg111|goldenburg111]] ([[User talk:Goldenburg111|talk]]) 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
:You can request an administrator to look into blocking a vandal here or at [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Administrative_Assistance]]. I have further warned this IP user but I haven't blocked him/her as the vandalism appeared to be minor rather than extreme or offensive. Additionally I have protected the High School Science page so that any future edits (indefinite) by an IP user or a new user need to be reviewed before being visible (as is the case with other kid's books like all of the Wikijunior books). The Japanese History page has been protected for 2 weeks. Thanks.--[[User:Xania|ЗAНИA]] [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]][[User talk:Xania|<sup>talk</sup>]] 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
::Alright, thanks. --[[User:Goldenburg111|goldenburg111]] ([[User talk:Goldenburg111|talk]]) 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
   
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Global AbuseFilter ==
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
+
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Hello,
   
The comment above inspired me to nominate myself as a bureaucrat. As per [[WB:CRAT|policy]] I am advertising my nomination here. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
+
[[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:AbuseFilter|AbuseFilter]] is a MediaWiki extension used to detect likely abusive behavior patterns, like pattern vandalism and spam. In 2013, [[m:Special:Mylanguage/Global AbuseFilter|Global AbuseFilters]] were enabled on a limited set of wikis including Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikispecies and (in early 2014) all the "[https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=small.dblist small wikis]". Recently, global abuse filters were enabled on "[https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=medium.dblist medium sized wikis]" as well. These filters are currently managed by stewards on Meta-Wiki and have shown to be very effective in preventing mass spam attacks across Wikimedia projects. However, there is currently no policy on how the global AbuseFilters will be managed although there are proposals. There is an ongoing [[m:Requests for comment/Global AbuseFilter|request for comment]] on policy governing the use of the global AbuseFilters. In the meantime, specific wikis can opt out of using the global AbuseFilter. These wikis can simply add a request to [[m:Global AbuseFilter/Opt-out wikis|this list]] on Meta-Wiki. More details can be found on [[m:Special:Mylanguage/Global AbuseFilter/2014 announcement|this page]] at Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on [[m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter|m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter]].
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
Thanks,
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
[[m:User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]], [[m:User:Glaisher|Glaisher]]</div> 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Glaisher@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_AbuseFilter/2014_announcement_distribution_list&oldid=10495115 -->
   
There is [[wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#colspan, etc.|an ongoing discussion]] about the existence of individual entries for HTML tags. As notable examples, on Wiktionary, there are ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/img Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]'', ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/h1 Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/h1]'' and ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/title Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/title]'', to define, respectively, the tags ''img'', ''h1'' and ''title''.
+
== VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature ==
   
However, especially since the creation and maintenance of HTML tags at Wiktionary is a fairly new project, it depends on further consensus. All these pages may conceivably be kept or be deleted from Wiktionary, according to the development of possible discussions and/or votes.
+
<div dir="ltr" class="me-content-ltr" lang="en">
  +
[[File:VE_as_BetaFeature.png|right|350px]]
   
One particular argument for deleting these pages from Wiktionary is that there are already pages on Wikibooks, including ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]]'', ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/option]]'' and ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/table]]'' for similar purposes, therefore Wiktionarian versions would be redundant.
+
''Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!''
   
Since the particular message "Given this book is a user guide, it is organized around topics from the user's perspective, not around the names of the tags." is displayed at the top of [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List]], am I right in assuming that individual pages for each HTML tag would be better placed in Wiktionary? Or, perhaps, there are reasons for keeping them at Wikibooks, that I am unaware of?
+
'''[[:mw:VE|VisualEditor]], a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a [[:mw:Beta Features|Beta Feature]]'''. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
To access it, you will need to visit the {{int:Prefs-betafeatures}} [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures page] after the deployment and tick the box next to "{{int:Visualeditor-preference-core-label}}". (If you have enabled the "{{int:Betafeatures-auto-enroll}}" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "{{int:Visualeditor-preference-language-label}}" that you can enable if you need it.
   
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Then, you just have to click on "{{int:Vector-view-edit}}" to start VisualEditor, or on "{{int:Visualeditor-ca-editsource}}" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.
   
:: Since Wiktionary is already more reference-like, it makes sense in that view to put them there. But Wikibooks would be a more logical choice given the content and purpose of Wikibooks itself. I can't, however, imagine that a separate book would be created for the reference of each computer language. Which, in turn, means that if they were to be placed on Wikibooks, they'd necessarily have to form part of some sort of appendix within each wikibook on their respective subjects. In either case, a reference list for HTML as well as for other computer languages is certainly extremely useful. I really think we should at least have references for computer languages ''somewhere'' on Wikimedia. But where, I don't know. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
[[:mw:Help:VisualEditor/VE as Beta Feature|A guide was just published at mediawiki.org]] so that you can '''learn how to support your community with this transition''': please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at [[:mw:VisualEditor/Feedback|the main feedback page]]. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page [[:m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|here]].
  +
Thanks for your attention and happy editing, [[:m:User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) </div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Newsletter/Sister_projects&oldid=10598554 -->
   
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
: I'm sorry to hear it's coming here in any form at all. The Foundation has made clear they don't care what users think, though. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]][[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
:: I'm interested to hear what your reasons for opposing it are. I don't know that much about this but I reckon that anything which encourages more non-technical people to contribute to Wikimedia projects is a good thing. Wikipedia and sister projects are so fiddly to edit and very little has changed in 10 years. It's stilll just as much of a pain in the arse to find pages, to add templates and to remember what code does what as it was at the very beginning.--[[User:Xania|ЗAНИA]] [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]][[User talk:Xania|<sup>talk</sup>]] 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
   
: I think "HyperText Markup Language/Tag List" with all its subpages should be separated again into a standalone book, named along the lines of "HTML Reference". I do not think a reference book should be presented as an appendix of a guidebook; these should be two standalone books instead. On the other subject, this seems to be a Wikibooks material rather than a dictionary one. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
::: Having taken a few days to mentally prepare, I'll take a shot at articulating this. Though, there could well be deep considerations that contribute to my intuition without my having explicitly identified them. (I've said for many years now, I take my ituition very seriously because I've found from experience that my intuition is way smarter than I am.)
   
I think "which project" is the wrong thing to focus on. A dictionary explains how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses. Books may have a glossary, which usually only include unfamiliar words that people in the field should know without details usually found in a dictionary. Books should have glossaries. I think what Wiktionarians should focus on is if explaining how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses for programming terms is relevant to Wiktionary's scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
::: I've got two ways of describing this, very different from each other though seemingly somehow intertwined &mdash; one in terms of the way markup languages evolve, and one in terms of the way wiki users learn.
   
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:::* Having watched as data formats rise and fall, I've observed that the ones that enjoy real long-term success are ''text''; not some binary format, just plain text. This is closely related, of course, to the ''open-source'' concept, since text is by nature broadly readable and maniuplable with no need for specialized software to access it. UNIX is founded on text as a common data form. Programming languages (successful ones) are too. TeX, and its highly successful library extension LaTeX. Text is the medium of the web, and of (for all its flaws) javascript. Html. And wikis. This is why something like Flow (yes, I know we're not primarily talking about Flow here) is just a stupifyingly bad idea; if you deliberately set out to bring about the destruction of the wikimedian movement, you couldn't do much better than Flow.
   
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
+
:::: However, there is a qualitative difference between text that can be manipulated by hand, and text that can only be handled by machine. In the early days of html, we wrote our web pages in html. And it was tolerably easy to do. The markup language was, however, oriented in its design more toward software than toward human authors, and continued to evolve in that direction &mdash; and wiki markup came along, the ''dominant characteristic'' of which was that it is incredibly easy for a human being to write and edit. There's been a lot of revisionism about this, but despite efforts to portray wiki markup as difficult, the whole reason it was ever successful in the first place is that it's a miracle of convenience. And the one thing guaranteed to turn any text-based language, no matter how easy to use, into a humanly intractable mire &mdash; as demonstrated consistently by history&mdash; is to have a program "help" to write it. The computer will "help" you right into being unable to deal with the text directly, losing a great chunk out of the marvelous benefits of text. Programing language source code written by software is unreadable, even if (as rarely happens) the software is made to enforce some ostensibly human-friendly style discipline. Html, that reasonably tractable markup I remember hand-coding in the first few years of the web, can still be written to be sort-of legible ''if it's written entirely by hand'', but the moment any of it is generated by software you've lost it, and since it's been ceded to the software a lot of what you'd want to do is beyond reasonable reach of hand-composition anyway. If you want to hang on to the lion's share of the benefits of text &mdash;and, as I say, those benefits are requisite to large-scale, long-term success&mdash; you have to avoid ceding its composition to software.
:::If one particular goal of Wiktionary is to explain the grammar of many natural languages, it may as well conceivably explain the syntax of programming languages similarly. Since Wikibooks has [[Subject:English language]], in addition to the coverage of English from Wiktionary, I assume each project may treat the same subjects from different approaches, without them becoming redundant to each other. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
:::* My other view of this thing is based on personal experience with learning wiki markup, and watching others do so. If you want to write something on a wiki, how do you do it? You want to correct a spelling error, perhaps; my first several wiki edits were correcting spelling errors. You click where it says "edit", and you're presented with an edit buffer full of stuff. Most of it is just plain text; there's a little markup, much of it very light-weight, which you don't have to bother with right now &mdash; but you see it there, and at least with the lightest-weight parts of it, you can see immediately how it's done. Later on, when you have occasion to want to do some of that yourself, you've already seen it done &mdash; and if you have any doubts, you just go and find where somebody else has done something similar, and there's your example to follow. Pretty much all of wiki markup &mdash;and there really isn't much to it&mdash; is like that, you don't need much very often, and by the time you do need something you've probably already seen it done, and you can find examples of how it's done.
   
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:::: The whole thrust of VE is to try to ''prevent'' you from ever seeing the raw wiki markup &mdash; in other words, its whole purpose is to prevent you from learning how to do anything, to deprive you of the very benefits that have made wikis a huge success. My first eperience with VE went like this: I was looking at a section of a Wikipedia article, and there was something missing from a bulleted list. Oh, I thought, I'll just add that. And it occurred to me to try to use VE for it, since VE had been much touted, and this was a very simple edit. I tried. And tried. I couldn't figure out how. I finally gave up and just edited the wiki markup directly. And in doing so, I reflected that a ''complete novice'' could trivially easily have made that edit, because the moment they edited the wiki markup for that section, it would have been ''immediately obvious'' how to add another bullet item to the list, because you're looking right at nothing but a block of examples of how to do it. Even if you figure out how to do something with VE, it doesn't help you do something ''else'' with VE; even if you see an ''example'' where somebody else has done something on a wiki page, with VE you can't imitate it because you don't know ''how'' they did it; and you also don't get to incidentally see examples of how things are done that you haven't needed to do yet but may in the future. So you've taken a markup language that's incredibly easy to learn, and actively interceded to prevent users from learning it. As with Flow, this is a profoundly bad idea.
   
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
::: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
::::I understand your reasons and I see how useful it is for editors to learn the markup. But Wikimedia needs to look at how many people start editing and then never edit again. So many editors are tech-savy which might suggest that ordinary people find it too cumbersome to edit pages. I believe that anything which makes this process easier is a good thing.--[[User:Xania|ЗAНИA]] [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]][[User talk:Xania|<sup>talk</sup>]] 07:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  +
::::: Some thoughts.
  +
:::::* I actually don't think the Foundation, as a whole, is ''competent'' to do studies, and then extract correct conclusions, of things like "how many people start editing and then never edit again". Almost all such studies get misdesigned, misimplemented, and then misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation usually favors whatever conclusion was already favored by those providing the initiative for the study. The line about "three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" is saying something profound.
  +
:::::*: In this case, right off the bat, in the unlikely event one could actually determine reliably how many people start editing and then never edit again, one probably couldn't reliably determine why (self-impressions certainly wouldn't do it, and ''asking'' people for self-impressions might actually increase the likelihood that they wouldn't come back).
  +
:::::* I've heard anecdontally of non-tech people who try wiki markup and VE, find wiki markup easier, and are surprised by this ''because they had heard that wiki markup is difficult''. There are a bunch of tech people who basically ''want'' wiki markup to be difficult for non-tech people. Why do they want this? Proobably because <s>changing</s> replacing the interface is a simple-minded way of throwing tech labor at the problem. Irony, that.
  +
:::::* I maintain that
  +
:::::*# all you have to be able to do in order to ''start'' using wiki markup is edit a plain text file.
  +
:::::*#: If somebody wants to make an easier-to-use interface for editing plain text, they're welcome to try. Not sarcasm. When you're in the standard wikimedia interface, and you go to edit a section, you get an edit box with the cursor at line 1 column 1 of the edit box, and you then have to hunt for the part of the edit buffer where the thing you actually wanted to change (such as a spelling error) is. Might it be more useful, for mobile devices, if you could enter the edit interface from any point in the text, and that would put you in edit mode with the cursor at the point where you entered?
  +
:::::*# once you're in, the fact that you are working directly with the wiki markup ''is what helps you learn more wiki markup''.
  +
:::::*#: So as soon as you're dealing with something that actually ''is'' technical, you're better off having started out working with wiki markup.
  +
:::::*# the actual causes of the slow decline of wikimedia are to be found elsewhere. I see two major causes, one social and one technical.
  +
:::::*#* (a) The Wikipedian social atmosphere is toxic. Untangling why, and moreover what can be done to change it, is a really difficult social problem. The Wikipedian social order is based on, broadly, bureaucracy and AGF-and-civility. These seem to me like ''technical'' approaches to social structure: bureaucracy is like programming, and AGF-and-civility is a gross oversimplification, naive in the extreme. And instead of tangling with anything deeper on the social side, folks want (as I mentioned before) a simple way of throwing tech labor at the problem.
  +
:::::*#* (b) The higher-level things wikimedians do, on every sister project including Wikipedia, actually ''do'' require expertise; not expertise with writing wiki markup, but expertise with what high-level decisions are needed, when, and what one needs to know to make them well.
  +
:::::*#:: I was under the misapprehension, when I'd been on Wikinews for just a little while, that Writing a news article is an ''especially'' technical task; but really, the pressure at Wikinews is merely because the technical task has to be done in such a short period of time. I've since concluded that writing a Wikipedia article is, on the whole, actually a good deal more complicated; and organizing a ''book'' &mdash;from overall outline to arrangment of parts at scales all the way down to the paragraph/table/figure&mdash; so that it comes out well is, I think, even more complicated. And the technical means avaiable to capture expertise on wikis is, of course, to do the one thing wikis have been made to be good at: ''writing documents''. Manuals and guides and help pages and such. Which (I think I've said this before) is a really lousy way to try to pass on the expertise. Hands-on is what you want.<p> I'm working on a technical approach to making it possible to actually ''address'' the expertise problem, in a way that can eventually be crowdsourced to the sister-project communities (once I've devised appropriate idioms for practical use of the low-level tools I'm implementing); and I'm hoping even the social problems can be partly alleviated by capturing expertise for social interaction. (The low-level tools would make wiki pages interactive; make that one change, the theory goes, and all else can follow.)
  +
::::: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
   
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
== VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature (errata) ==
   
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="it" dir="ltr">
  +
''Please notice the correct direct link to access {{int:Prefs-betafeatures}} [[:Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|is this one]]. Thanks for your understanding! [[:m:User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]] 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Newsletter/Sister_projects&oldid=10598554 -->
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Give rate limited move-subpages (and supressredirect-new-self) to autoconfirmed users ==
   
::Yes. It's not surprising to me, however. It just gives me all the more motivation to prove them wrong. Also, a relevant slide from Wikimania 2010, where Erik Moeller above took a look at the other Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=23 Slide 23]. Slides before and after cover the others, for comparison. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
I suggested this at [[w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Give_rate_limited_move-subpages_and_supressredirect-new-self_to_autoconfirmed_users|wikipedia]], and it was pointed out that this would be particularly useful for wikibooks. This would allow autoconfirmed users to move books with up to seven subpages in one action, instead of having to move each subpage one by one. The subpage moves would be counted in the rate limit of eight moves per minute, removing the potential for abuse that the was the reason this feature got restricted to admins in the first place. As a bonus, you could increase the rate limit for reviewers to, for example, 30 moves per minute, so that they can move in one go books with more subpages. I also suggest to allow recently created pages with a single contributor to be moved by said user without leaving a redirect. If you were to show your support for this, it would be prioritized by developers. I'll file the bugs then. [[User:Cenarium|Cenarium]] ([[User talk:Cenarium|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cenarium|contribs]]) 10:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Bringing Sociology to the World ==
   
:I thought Moeller founded Wikinews... Anyway, but how can the WB community prove them wrong? It's not like WB will get much more traffic even if we make it 100% perfect... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Hi everyone. My name is Dr. Mike. I'm a sociologist and I've been involved in "opening sociology" for over twenty years. I currently have two sociological projects running, one is The Socjourn (http://www.sociology.org) and one is a nascent space on the Sociology of Religion. I came here to maybe help with the introductory sociology text books.[[User:Dr.Sosteric|Dr.Sosteric]] ([[User talk:Dr.Sosteric|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Dr.Sosteric|contribs]]) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
: Hi, [[User:Dr.Sosteric|Dr.Sosteric]]. Welcome to Wikibooks.&nbsp;:-)&nbsp; --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   
:::Indeed, I would think that high quality textbooks would attract more readers due to gaining higher rankings in search results. The moral of the above is that if we want to succeed, we have to do it ourselves and the WMF cannot be relied upon for support. We prove them wrong about our prospects by not giving up even if the head honchos have forgotten where Wikipedia once was compared to where it is today. It's apparent that they have not heard the idea that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As Wikipedia has matured, the potential for greater percentage of growth lies in the other projects. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks ==
   
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
There is a feature in Wikipedia for making a book by gathering different pages on a specific subject. Can wikibooks import a verbatim of one of these books if the subject is in the domain of Wikibooks? If the answer is yes, what is wikibooks for then?--[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
   
:::::But that is offset by the fact that textbooks are way different than encyclopedias. Something like [[Excel]], [[PHP]], or [[HTML]] wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:You seem to have a problem understanding what is an Encyclopedia and what constitutes a text book (the scope of the projects). Wikipedia if for encyclopedic articles (I would agree that sometimes it goes far beyond that but that is a problem for Wikipedians) while Wikibooks is only for the creation of educational text books (that sometimes some projects seem only a collection of encyclopedic articles is because Wikibooks is intended for continual developing of works and almost no starting process is objected too, and that is a fast way to bring useful content in, requiring only licensing considerations and few creative or intellectual work). --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
+
::Thanks for your eligible answer but I think we need some clear-cut criteria for example wikibooks contains test exams, exercises, etc. but wikipedia not. --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.)
+
::: At the time the "book" feature of Wikipedia was introduced, it was suggested &mdash;how seriously is open to interpretation&mdash; that the feature was called "book" in a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikibooks. A collection of pages is decidedly ''not'' a book, in the sense used here; it's not a matter of content, but of coherence. See {{nowrap|[[WB:What is Wikibooks?]]}}. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:::::::http://www.ck12.org is our main competitor on the secondary education front as it is aiming for approval by California's schools. Their licensing was changed to noncommercial a few months back, but I was able to pull content from their site under the cc-by-sa license before that and upload the PDFs to Commons. There are Creative Commons licensed books and material at http://cnx.org, another competitor. The advantage Wikibooks has over these two is that anyone can improve upon the content easily because this is a wiki. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
::::::::It's out of the question that secondary schools use learning materials from free sources such as WB, in a truely commercialised world, except for 'non-traditional' subjects such as [[Hong Kong Senior Secondary Liberal Studies|Liberal Studies]]. However, if the education bureau actually allows such materials to be used (which is highly unlikely), I believe it will be extremely popular. There are repeated complaints about book publishers realeasing a new edition every now and then. Sometimes it's necessary. For example, when we were learning planets in primary school, they had to make a new edition of the science book. However, most of the time the changes can be rather trivial, and like Thenub said it can be rather irritating that old books cannot be used. Also, books can be hard to find, especially 'non-traditional' subjects such as Liberal Studies. That's something they are also complaining about. I think using materials from sources such as WB has neither of these advantages and therefore has potential.
 
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Proposing new deletion process ==
 
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Regex ==
 
 
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 08:13, 18 December 2014

Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

Introducing myself[edit]

Hello to everyone, I am posting this as I saw a message on profile page to introduce myself. I am medical graduate from India ,currently pursuing PG in Radiology and also preparing for some more exams. I like to untangle the anything that i feel is too complicated to my liking and i good at it (at least that is what my colleagues have told me). Ever I started my med school preps , their were just way too many things to cram in my brain (which shrinks a little every day) , so i started to make jingles out the first alphabets. I will most likely be contributing a lot of my mnemonics to this site and messing with others , and if i ever manage to write a book , it will happen here at Wikibooks. —Preceding unsigned comment by Randjo (discusscontribs) added before 10:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Request comment regarding cookbook and baking recipes[edit]

Hi, this morning or last night I updated one Basic bread dough recipe with baker's percentages and the weights of the original recipe, determined via lookup at the USDA Nutrient Database. Many of the newest artisan baking books always include baker's percentages and/or weights in addition to volumetric measure. I'm at the point in my own baking that if an author doesn't have those already printed, I usually skip it for another that does, unless I have reason to believe it's an unusually good recipe. I thought I'd go through the baking-related recipes, slowly as my time allows, and try to get more of the recipes similarly notated. I was wondering if anyone could offer suggestions for improving the general look, or formatting. Thanks. I want to add that there's some redundancy which I don't care for, the ingredients are listed twice. It seemed necessary due to an inability to get the table's ingredients lined up with the bulleted list. An alternate might be a table without borders including all values including the volumetric text, but then the bulleting function doesn't work. Suggestions? I have updated the table to a different format which eliminates redundancy. MOS does not seem to say bullets are required, though they are used on every recipe I've seen. This table style looks cleaner to me. Gzuufy (discusscontribs) 17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Update. This is a copy of a message I put on the talk page of cookbook_talk:Cinnamon Bun,

How is 2 cups of all purpose flour = 480 g? ... I can't make sense of this recipe. 2 cups of all purpose flour, per the USDA National Nutrient database (NND), should weigh 250 g, or 125 g per cup. But this recipe says 480 g of all purpose flour = 2 cups. There are other inconsistencies, but the flour is the biggest one. The shortening, USDA NND says composite vegetable shortening weighs 205 g per cup. But this recipe says 1/2 cup weighs 120 g, which is 240 g per cup. The brown sugar is not specified as packed or unpacked, leading to three possible values, because the same error seems repeated. Too many inconsistencies.... I've done a little more investigation, and it appears that "metrication" was added in this diff. In a different recipe, I found the same user making a similar mistake, 1.75 x 125 g = 218.75 g, but the same user converted it to 300 g.

It's kind of interesting, because if a user was following gram weights, instead of cup measure, and presumed the values were correct, they'd get a completely different result from the results someone else following the cup measure would get. I say "interesting", because weighing ingredients is considered a more accurate method, particularly for "flour" based recipes, but these kinds of errors in the conversions appear to undermine that accuracy. I find myself wondering how many other "metrications" the same user has performed, and if the same kinds of major errors were made in them. We all make typos, but two repetitions of the same error, particularly on the flour weight, the "core" of the "baker's percentage" method? Gzuufy (discusscontribs) 00:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Introducing myself[edit]

Hi , I'm Leaderboard and I currently edit on some computing books , such as http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC and Basic Computing Using Windows

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would grant them autopatrolled rights on all wikis except those who opt-out. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Where can I request blocks of vandals?[edit]

Such as this vandal: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.112.140.130 - I would like this vandal to be blocked for problematic edits after his/her first and final warning. Thanks! --goldenburg111 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You can request an administrator to look into blocking a vandal here or at Wikibooks:Reading_room/Administrative_Assistance. I have further warned this IP user but I haven't blocked him/her as the vandalism appeared to be minor rather than extreme or offensive. Additionally I have protected the High School Science page so that any future edits (indefinite) by an IP user or a new user need to be reviewed before being visible (as is the case with other kid's books like all of the Wikijunior books). The Japanese History page has been protected for 2 weeks. Thanks.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --goldenburg111 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter[edit]

Hello,

AbuseFilter is a MediaWiki extension used to detect likely abusive behavior patterns, like pattern vandalism and spam. In 2013, Global AbuseFilters were enabled on a limited set of wikis including Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki.org, Wikispecies and (in early 2014) all the "small wikis". Recently, global abuse filters were enabled on "medium sized wikis" as well. These filters are currently managed by stewards on Meta-Wiki and have shown to be very effective in preventing mass spam attacks across Wikimedia projects. However, there is currently no policy on how the global AbuseFilters will be managed although there are proposals. There is an ongoing request for comment on policy governing the use of the global AbuseFilters. In the meantime, specific wikis can opt out of using the global AbuseFilter. These wikis can simply add a request to this list on Meta-Wiki. More details can be found on this page at Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on m:Talk:Global AbuseFilter.

Thanks,

PiRSquared17, Glaisher

— 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature[edit]

VE as BetaFeature.png

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "VisualEditor". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "VisualEditor language tool" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at mediawiki.org so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear it's coming here in any form at all. The Foundation has made clear they don't care what users think, though. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested to hear what your reasons for opposing it are. I don't know that much about this but I reckon that anything which encourages more non-technical people to contribute to Wikimedia projects is a good thing. Wikipedia and sister projects are so fiddly to edit and very little has changed in 10 years. It's stilll just as much of a pain in the arse to find pages, to add templates and to remember what code does what as it was at the very beginning.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Having taken a few days to mentally prepare, I'll take a shot at articulating this. Though, there could well be deep considerations that contribute to my intuition without my having explicitly identified them. (I've said for many years now, I take my ituition very seriously because I've found from experience that my intuition is way smarter than I am.)
I've got two ways of describing this, very different from each other though seemingly somehow intertwined — one in terms of the way markup languages evolve, and one in terms of the way wiki users learn.
  • Having watched as data formats rise and fall, I've observed that the ones that enjoy real long-term success are text; not some binary format, just plain text. This is closely related, of course, to the open-source concept, since text is by nature broadly readable and maniuplable with no need for specialized software to access it. UNIX is founded on text as a common data form. Programming languages (successful ones) are too. TeX, and its highly successful library extension LaTeX. Text is the medium of the web, and of (for all its flaws) javascript. Html. And wikis. This is why something like Flow (yes, I know we're not primarily talking about Flow here) is just a stupifyingly bad idea; if you deliberately set out to bring about the destruction of the wikimedian movement, you couldn't do much better than Flow.
However, there is a qualitative difference between text that can be manipulated by hand, and text that can only be handled by machine. In the early days of html, we wrote our web pages in html. And it was tolerably easy to do. The markup language was, however, oriented in its design more toward software than toward human authors, and continued to evolve in that direction — and wiki markup came along, the dominant characteristic of which was that it is incredibly easy for a human being to write and edit. There's been a lot of revisionism about this, but despite efforts to portray wiki markup as difficult, the whole reason it was ever successful in the first place is that it's a miracle of convenience. And the one thing guaranteed to turn any text-based language, no matter how easy to use, into a humanly intractable mire — as demonstrated consistently by history— is to have a program "help" to write it. The computer will "help" you right into being unable to deal with the text directly, losing a great chunk out of the marvelous benefits of text. Programing language source code written by software is unreadable, even if (as rarely happens) the software is made to enforce some ostensibly human-friendly style discipline. Html, that reasonably tractable markup I remember hand-coding in the first few years of the web, can still be written to be sort-of legible if it's written entirely by hand, but the moment any of it is generated by software you've lost it, and since it's been ceded to the software a lot of what you'd want to do is beyond reasonable reach of hand-composition anyway. If you want to hang on to the lion's share of the benefits of text —and, as I say, those benefits are requisite to large-scale, long-term success— you have to avoid ceding its composition to software.
  • My other view of this thing is based on personal experience with learning wiki markup, and watching others do so. If you want to write something on a wiki, how do you do it? You want to correct a spelling error, perhaps; my first several wiki edits were correcting spelling errors. You click where it says "edit", and you're presented with an edit buffer full of stuff. Most of it is just plain text; there's a little markup, much of it very light-weight, which you don't have to bother with right now — but you see it there, and at least with the lightest-weight parts of it, you can see immediately how it's done. Later on, when you have occasion to want to do some of that yourself, you've already seen it done — and if you have any doubts, you just go and find where somebody else has done something similar, and there's your example to follow. Pretty much all of wiki markup —and there really isn't much to it— is like that, you don't need much very often, and by the time you do need something you've probably already seen it done, and you can find examples of how it's done.
The whole thrust of VE is to try to prevent you from ever seeing the raw wiki markup — in other words, its whole purpose is to prevent you from learning how to do anything, to deprive you of the very benefits that have made wikis a huge success. My first eperience with VE went like this: I was looking at a section of a Wikipedia article, and there was something missing from a bulleted list. Oh, I thought, I'll just add that. And it occurred to me to try to use VE for it, since VE had been much touted, and this was a very simple edit. I tried. And tried. I couldn't figure out how. I finally gave up and just edited the wiki markup directly. And in doing so, I reflected that a complete novice could trivially easily have made that edit, because the moment they edited the wiki markup for that section, it would have been immediately obvious how to add another bullet item to the list, because you're looking right at nothing but a block of examples of how to do it. Even if you figure out how to do something with VE, it doesn't help you do something else with VE; even if you see an example where somebody else has done something on a wiki page, with VE you can't imitate it because you don't know how they did it; and you also don't get to incidentally see examples of how things are done that you haven't needed to do yet but may in the future. So you've taken a markup language that's incredibly easy to learn, and actively interceded to prevent users from learning it. As with Flow, this is a profoundly bad idea.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand your reasons and I see how useful it is for editors to learn the markup. But Wikimedia needs to look at how many people start editing and then never edit again. So many editors are tech-savy which might suggest that ordinary people find it too cumbersome to edit pages. I believe that anything which makes this process easier is a good thing.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 07:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Some thoughts.
  • I actually don't think the Foundation, as a whole, is competent to do studies, and then extract correct conclusions, of things like "how many people start editing and then never edit again". Almost all such studies get misdesigned, misimplemented, and then misinterpreted, and the misinterpretation usually favors whatever conclusion was already favored by those providing the initiative for the study. The line about "three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" is saying something profound.
    In this case, right off the bat, in the unlikely event one could actually determine reliably how many people start editing and then never edit again, one probably couldn't reliably determine why (self-impressions certainly wouldn't do it, and asking people for self-impressions might actually increase the likelihood that they wouldn't come back).
  • I've heard anecdontally of non-tech people who try wiki markup and VE, find wiki markup easier, and are surprised by this because they had heard that wiki markup is difficult. There are a bunch of tech people who basically want wiki markup to be difficult for non-tech people. Why do they want this? Proobably because changing replacing the interface is a simple-minded way of throwing tech labor at the problem. Irony, that.
  • I maintain that
    1. all you have to be able to do in order to start using wiki markup is edit a plain text file.
      If somebody wants to make an easier-to-use interface for editing plain text, they're welcome to try. Not sarcasm. When you're in the standard wikimedia interface, and you go to edit a section, you get an edit box with the cursor at line 1 column 1 of the edit box, and you then have to hunt for the part of the edit buffer where the thing you actually wanted to change (such as a spelling error) is. Might it be more useful, for mobile devices, if you could enter the edit interface from any point in the text, and that would put you in edit mode with the cursor at the point where you entered?
    2. once you're in, the fact that you are working directly with the wiki markup is what helps you learn more wiki markup.
      So as soon as you're dealing with something that actually is technical, you're better off having started out working with wiki markup.
    3. the actual causes of the slow decline of wikimedia are to be found elsewhere. I see two major causes, one social and one technical.
      • (a) The Wikipedian social atmosphere is toxic. Untangling why, and moreover what can be done to change it, is a really difficult social problem. The Wikipedian social order is based on, broadly, bureaucracy and AGF-and-civility. These seem to me like technical approaches to social structure: bureaucracy is like programming, and AGF-and-civility is a gross oversimplification, naive in the extreme. And instead of tangling with anything deeper on the social side, folks want (as I mentioned before) a simple way of throwing tech labor at the problem.
      • (b) The higher-level things wikimedians do, on every sister project including Wikipedia, actually do require expertise; not expertise with writing wiki markup, but expertise with what high-level decisions are needed, when, and what one needs to know to make them well.
      I was under the misapprehension, when I'd been on Wikinews for just a little while, that Writing a news article is an especially technical task; but really, the pressure at Wikinews is merely because the technical task has to be done in such a short period of time. I've since concluded that writing a Wikipedia article is, on the whole, actually a good deal more complicated; and organizing a book —from overall outline to arrangment of parts at scales all the way down to the paragraph/table/figure— so that it comes out well is, I think, even more complicated. And the technical means avaiable to capture expertise on wikis is, of course, to do the one thing wikis have been made to be good at: writing documents. Manuals and guides and help pages and such. Which (I think I've said this before) is a really lousy way to try to pass on the expertise. Hands-on is what you want.

      I'm working on a technical approach to making it possible to actually address the expertise problem, in a way that can eventually be crowdsourced to the sister-project communities (once I've devised appropriate idioms for practical use of the low-level tools I'm implementing); and I'm hoping even the social problems can be partly alleviated by capturing expertise for social interaction. (The low-level tools would make wiki pages interactive; make that one change, the theory goes, and all else can follow.)

--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature (errata)[edit]

Give rate limited move-subpages (and supressredirect-new-self) to autoconfirmed users[edit]

I suggested this at wikipedia, and it was pointed out that this would be particularly useful for wikibooks. This would allow autoconfirmed users to move books with up to seven subpages in one action, instead of having to move each subpage one by one. The subpage moves would be counted in the rate limit of eight moves per minute, removing the potential for abuse that the was the reason this feature got restricted to admins in the first place. As a bonus, you could increase the rate limit for reviewers to, for example, 30 moves per minute, so that they can move in one go books with more subpages. I also suggest to allow recently created pages with a single contributor to be moved by said user without leaving a redirect. If you were to show your support for this, it would be prioritized by developers. I'll file the bugs then. Cenarium (discusscontribs) 10:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bringing Sociology to the World[edit]

Hi everyone. My name is Dr. Mike. I'm a sociologist and I've been involved in "opening sociology" for over twenty years. I currently have two sociological projects running, one is The Socjourn (http://www.sociology.org) and one is a nascent space on the Sociology of Religion. I came here to maybe help with the introductory sociology text books.Dr.Sosteric (discusscontribs) 14:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dr.Sosteric. Welcome to Wikibooks. :-)  --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Difference between Wikipedia and Wikibooks[edit]

There is a feature in Wikipedia for making a book by gathering different pages on a specific subject. Can wikibooks import a verbatim of one of these books if the subject is in the domain of Wikibooks? If the answer is yes, what is wikibooks for then?--Doostdar (discusscontribs) 20:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem understanding what is an Encyclopedia and what constitutes a text book (the scope of the projects). Wikipedia if for encyclopedic articles (I would agree that sometimes it goes far beyond that but that is a problem for Wikipedians) while Wikibooks is only for the creation of educational text books (that sometimes some projects seem only a collection of encyclopedic articles is because Wikibooks is intended for continual developing of works and almost no starting process is objected too, and that is a fast way to bring useful content in, requiring only licensing considerations and few creative or intellectual work). --Panic (discusscontribs) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your eligible answer but I think we need some clear-cut criteria for example wikibooks contains test exams, exercises, etc. but wikipedia not. --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 21:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
At the time the "book" feature of Wikipedia was introduced, it was suggested —how seriously is open to interpretation— that the feature was called "book" in a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikibooks. A collection of pages is decidedly not a book, in the sense used here; it's not a matter of content, but of coherence. See WB:What is Wikibooks?. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)