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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
(Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015: new section)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
}}
 
}}
 
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.
 
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.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== Why are we allowing automatic reviewer rights? ==
  +
  +
What's the whole purpose of automatically achieving the reviewer flag? Which holds reviewing/rollback rights in them? --[[User:Atcovi|atcovi]] ([[User talk:Atcovi|talk]]) 19:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  +
: Interesting question. I think the main purpose is for editors who've been active in the project for some time. Since by now they are trusted by the community , an additional privilege is granted in the form of reviewer.--[[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  +
:: When a user first arrives at Wikibooks, they have (by definition of "first arrives") no prior experience of how things are done here. They may have experience of another wiki, most likely Wikipedia, and should edit here for a while, to learn how practices here are different from practices there, before they're given the power to make [[wikt:normative|normative]] judgements here. If they ''don't'' have prior experience of another wiki, then again they should edit here for a while before they're given such. The criteria for autopromotion are meant to hold off on giving them the bit until they've had a chance to get some sense of the place. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost ==
  +
  +
Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the [[en:w:WP:POST|Wikipedia Signpost]], the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikibooks project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my [[en:w:User talk:Resident Mario|English Wikipedia talk page]]. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b><font color="#333" size="2">[[User:Resident Mario|Res]]</font></b><font color="#444" size="2">[[User_talk:Resident_Mario#top|Mar]]</font></span> 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
: Did you mean to customize this message for each project, or did you really mean to ask at multiple sisters "Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiversity project..."? --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::I wish I had the excuse that I was tired, but no, I left the computer, went to eat lunch, came back, forgot I had to change that bit, and cross-posted. Well, I've fixed it now. Time to navigate around, again. Tut. [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] ([[User talk:Resident Mario|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Resident Mario|contribs]]) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::: {{ping|Resident Mario}} Do you figure on getting ''one'' person to talk to about a project, or getting a broader perspective on a given project by talking to more than one person per? Obviously, talking to multiple people per project there's the challenge of rendering the material into a coherent report, while talking to just one person there's the likelihood of idiosyncracies in the interviwee's view of the project. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::{{ping|Pi zero}} Because there's a lot of individual interviews that need to happen, I hope that if I get comments from one prominent contributor per wiki I can get a sufficiently clear picture of that wiki's activities from that alone, as long as the interview is of sufficient length. I do, however, want to speak with multiple people when possible, and I will post the draft here for community input before publication. [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] ([[User talk:Resident Mario|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Resident Mario|contribs]]) 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::: {{ping|Resident Mario}} Taking myself as an example, I know I have some ideas about Wikibooks that come from my peculiar personal history: I started on Wikipedia, then branched out to Wikibooks, then branched out to Wikinews, and have spent years medidating on the comarisons and contrasts between those three. If you interviewed me, it's a good bet you'd get a different impression of the elephant than speaking to some else. I can think of at least one other active long-term Wikibookian who'd be likely to give you an atypical view. Based on my own experiences with these projects, I expect I'd have to be active in a project for at least a year before I'd start to get a feel for it, several years for deeper insight (I got major insights into Wikipedia about once a years for several years, and even though I've slowed down at lot there, I feel I've got some further deep insights into it since).
  +
  +
::::: I don't mean to discourage you, honestly; I'm just encouraging you to be aware of the pitfalls.
  +
  +
::::: For mainstream insights into Wikibooks, the first name that pops into my head is [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]], which may of course just mean I'm unaware of the peculiarities of QU's view of the project :-).&nbsp; I've no clue whether QU would even entertain the possibility of an interview (I imagine some folks would be happy to give an interview, some would flat-out refuse; I'm ambivalent, myself). --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::::I have one perspective, sure, but there are others like Chazz, Jomegat, Panic, etc., who are very ''content'' focused whereas these days I'm quite administration focused. Depends what you want really. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::::::Perhaps one of each, then? [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] ([[User talk:Resident Mario|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Resident Mario|contribs]]) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::::::: I had no idea that such a activity even existed here. Probably a good idea I think. I could probably help here.--[[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::Ok, I will contact the people that have responded in this thread at a later date, a little buried at the moment. Thanks all! [[User:Resident Mario|Resident Mario]] ([[User talk:Resident Mario|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Resident Mario|contribs]]) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Wikidata ==
  +
  +
How can we make use of Wikidata here at Wikibooks? It occurred to me that all the data stored there could be used to keep books up to date. For example, property [[d:P1098]] is "number of speakers" (of a language), which could be used in language learning books to keep number of speakers claims up to date. However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to access any of this data on a Wikibooks. Supposedly, <code><nowiki>{{#property:p1098}}</nowiki></code> should access the data for this property stored at the Wikidata page for that item, but I tried it on [[Breton]], which is linked to the Wikidata page for the Breton language, which has P1098, but it didn't work. Not implemented for Wikibooks yet, maybe. Even if it worked here, the #property tag only allows accessing data from the Wikidata page for the current page. So there's no way, as I understand, to access any data for the Breton language on a subpage of that book, nor is it possible to access population data for Germany on [[Wikijunior:Europe/Germany]]. This essentially negates the usefulness of any Wikidata data on Wikibooks.
  +
This really bothers me. All this useful data collected in a systematic way, but for all intents and purposes not useful for any project but Wikipedia! I don't even see it being used at Wikipedia much, except for the interlanguage links. What makes this worse, is this appears to be a software thing, not something the people at Wikidata can fix. Then there's the whole problem of the interwiki links being forced on us, and not being organised in a way that is useful to our project.
  +
The Wikimedia Foundation is notoriously unresponsive to requests from the community, so I feel we, the Wikibooks community, possibly with the other sister projects, need to get the Foundation's attention, and let them know we are annoyed that Wikidata and the Wikidata software is being implemented in such a top-down, undemocratic way, and that is sidelining other projects and is not designed in a way that benefits any of the sister projects. I'm not sure how we'd go about this, but I think it's an issue the community should discuss. [[User:Liam987|<span style="color:white;background:#0055A4;font-variant:small-caps;text-shadow:0 5px 8px #850000">Liam987</span>]] [[User talk:Liam987|talk]] 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
: Have you listened to Lila's address at last year's Wikimania? One of the earlier points &mdash; translated from politician-speak &mdash; was, the Foundation doesn't give a &lt;several choices here, of varying rudeness&gt; about the non-Wikipedian sisters.
  +
  +
: Anyway, about Wikidata. I don't think I'd trust Wikidata's material to be ''automatically'' imported to Wikibooks (or any other sister, really, not even a Wikipedia), but I'm interested in the possibility of some sort of semi-automated checks against Wikidata that would make it easy to compare the current state of things here to the current state of things there, and update here for automatic use when things look right.
  +
  +
: I thought Wikidata stuff was supposed to be made available through Lua? At the very least, it should be possible to get at it through javascript &mdash; but we'd want to work out a super-general tool, so we'd only have to write it once and then wouldn't have to be constantly changing it every time we want some slight variation. The trick is to create a tool that's enormously general but also carefully limited in power so that it can't be used for large-scale vandalism (indeed, that's one of the key design blunders with Wikidata, that it doesn't minimize the consequences of vandalism). --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 02:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
::I understood that Lua could be used for that too, but it seems not. [[w:Template:Wikidata]] has a thread on the talk page from 2013 about wether it was possible to access Wikidata data for a page other than the current one, and it was found to be impossible. Nothing seems to have changed since. I really seems such a waste to have these people collecting endless data in a way that isn't useful to anyone. [[User:Liam987|<span style="color:white;background:#0055A4;font-variant:small-caps;text-shadow:0 5px 8px #850000">Liam987</span>]] [[User talk:Liam987|talk]] 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
::: {{ping|Liam987}} I'll put "accessing Wikidata" on my list of things to add to my [[n:Help:Dialog|dialog tools]]. The tools &mdash; which I do mean to import to Wikibooks once I've gotten one more round of upgrades implemented (in progress) &mdash; are designed to be extensible without modifying the existing code, by creating new ''actions'', which are wiki pages with associated javascript. So we can write javascript for querying Wikidata, and then a dialog can send a request to the Wikidata-query action which fetches the requested data and sends the results to another dialog page for further processing. That will be, frankly, ''slow''; probably at least four seconds, all told, and that's when neither the server nor the internet is being sluggish; but if we arrange for Wikidata queries to be an infrequent, manually initiated maintenance action, it should be tolerable. Eventually, once we've got the query facility working smoothly and are sure it's what we want it to be, we can integrate the Wikidata query facility into the general ''do'' action, where most dialog facilities are all kept together to avoid the time overhead of switching between actions; that should cut out two or three out of those four seconds. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::There is some stuff implemented at Wikipedia that compares, for example, the date of death recorded on Wikipedia to the Wikidata equivalent and then adds the article to a hidden category if they differ. No idea how this is done (because I haven't bothered to look). [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::: Sounds like a good place to start for an example of how to query Wikidata. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::::: {{ping|QuiteUnusual}} You're referring to, I think, [[w:Template:WikidataCheck]]. The problem with this is the same as I mentioned for the <nowiki>{{#property}}</nowiki> tag: it can only access data for the current page. If we were to create a Wikidata page for every page on Wikibooks, we could use this but the data would still have to be updated there. [[User:Liam987|<span style="color:white;background:#0055A4;font-variant:small-caps;text-shadow:0 5px 8px #850000">Liam987</span>]] [[User talk:Liam987|talk]] 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Stewards confirmation rules ==
  +
  +
Hello, I made [[:m:Requests_for_comment/Confirmation_of_stewards|a proposal on Meta]] to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --<small>[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]]</small> 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:MF-Warburg@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=11737694 -->
  +
  +
== VisualEditor News #2—2015 ==
  +
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
  +
<div style="margin:0.5em;width:230px;{{#switch:ltr|rtl=float:left;margin-left:0;|#default=float:right;margin-right:0;}}border:1px solid #AAA;padding:0.5em;">
  +
[[File:VisualEditor-logo.svg|200x70px|center|alt=VisualEditor]]
  +
  +
  +
'''Did you know?'''
  +
<div class="thumbcaption" style="font-size: 90%;">
  +
With [[:mw:Citoid|Citoid]] in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:
  +
  +
  +
[[File:Citoid in VisualEditor Screen Shot 2015-04-02.png|alt=Screenshot of Citoid's first dialog|centre|frameless|230x230px]]
  +
  +
  +
Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:
  +
  +
  +
[[File:Citoid results in VisualEditor Screen Shot 2015-04-02.png|alt=Screenshot of Citoid's initial results|centre|frameless|230x230px]]
  +
  +
  +
After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.
  +
  +
[[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/User guide|The user guide]] has more information about how to use VisualEditor.
  +
</div></div>
  +
Since the last newsletter, the [[:mw:VisualEditor|Editing Team]] has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the [[:mw:Citoid|Citoid]] reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted [[:mw:VisualEditor/changelog|on Mediawiki.org]]. The worklist for April through June is available [[phab:project/sprint/board/1113/|in Phabricator]].
  +
  +
The weekly '''task triage meetings''' continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at [http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20150401T11&p1=224&am=30 11:00 (noon) PDT] (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the [[phab:tag/editing_department_2014_15_q4_blockers/|Editing team's Q4 blocker project]] with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at [[:mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal|mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal]].
  +
=== Recent improvements ===
  +
VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and [[:mw:RESTBase|network speed]] by almost 40%.
  +
  +
The Editing team is slowly adding '''auto-fill features''' '''for citations'''. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The '''[[:mw:Citoid|Citoid service]]''' takes a [[:en:URL|URL]] or [[:en:Digital object identifier|DOI]] for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for [[:en:ISBN|ISBNs]], [[:en:PubMed#PubMed_identifier|PMIDs]], and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.
  +
  +
Citoid requires good [[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:TemplateData|TemplateData]] for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the [[phab:tag/citoid/|Citoid project on Phabricator]]. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.
  +
  +
The '''special character inserter''' has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the [[:mw:VisualEditor/Rollouts|Phase 5]] list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including '''Afrikaans''', '''Azerbaijani''', '''Breton''', '''Kyrgyz''', '''Macedonian''', '''Mongolian''', '''Tatar''', and''' Welsh'''.
  +
  +
Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use [[w:input method editor|input method editors]] ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.
  +
  +
The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the [[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Images#Mode parameter|"packed" mode in image galleries]]. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.
   
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.
+
You can now '''drag and drop categories''' to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.
   
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.
+
The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.
   
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)
+
'''Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon''' so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.
   
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)
+
Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead. ([https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90734 T90734])
   
: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)
+
=== Looking ahead ===
::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)
+
The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted [[:mw:VisualEditor/Special_characters|at mediawiki.org]].
:::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)
+
The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users at the English Wikipedia, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon. ([https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T90666 T90666])
:[[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,
+
=== Let's work together ===
:: 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)
+
* Share your ideas and ask questions at [https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Feedback&lqt_method=talkpage_new_thread mw:VisualEditor/Feedback].
: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)
+
* Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check [https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3AMessageGroupStats&x=D&group=ext-visualeditor-ve&suppressempty=1 this list] to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. [[m:User talk:Elitre (WMF)|Contact us]] to get an account if you want to help!
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)
+
* The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please [https://jfe.qualtrics.com/form/SV_6R04ammTX8uoJFP sign up for their research program].
  +
* File requests for language-appropriate "{{Int:visualeditor-annotationbutton-bold-tooltip}}" and "{{Int:visualeditor-annotationbutton-italic-tooltip}}" icons for the character formatting menu [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=PHID-PROJ-dafezmpv6huxg3taml24 in Phabricator].
   
: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)
+
Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at [[:m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|Meta]]. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the [[mail:translators-l|Translators mailing list]] or [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elitre_(WMF)&action=edit&section=new contact us] directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!
::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)
+
<span class="mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">[[:mw:User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]]</span>
   
:: <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)
+
</div> 19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Keegan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Newsletter/Wikis_with_VE&oldid=11742174 -->
   
== Goodbook ==
+
== https://wikibooks.org ==
   
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)
+
Just a quick note to inform that wikibooks.org and wikibooks.com now leads to https://www.wikibooks.org. wikibooks.org/wiki/Page links would continue to redirect to English Wikibooks for backward compatibility. See [[phab:T87039]]. [[User:Glaisher|Glaisher]] ([[User talk:Glaisher|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Glaisher|contribs]]) 08:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
== TOC in sidebar? ==
   
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)
+
Wikibooks usually have a TOC and people love to navigate thru the book via this TOC. But in most cases the TOC is a page of its own. So you always have to toggle between TOC-page and your actual page (or the author adds one of the navigation-templates, which is ugly, uncomplete and error-prone). Shall we have a sidebar like in the [https://doc.wikimedia.org/mediawiki-core/master/php/index.html documentation of mediawiki] to visualise the TOC? Additionally to the actual sidebar or as a replacement? --[[User:Kelti|Kelti]] ([[User talk:Kelti|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Kelti|contribs]]) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
: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)
+
: That sort of stylistic preference varies by book. Some books have a side navigation box, for example [[WJ:Big Cats]]. (Easily adjusting the style of such things is one of the targets I had in mind in [[Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Navlist]].) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
   
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Call for candidates|Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections]] ==
   
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)
+
''This is a message from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/Accepting nominations|Translations]] are available.''
  +
[[File:Wmf logo vert pms.svg|100px|right]]
  +
Greetings,
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Call for candidates|published letters]] describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015|accepting nominations]] for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
This year, elections are being held for the following roles:
   
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''.
+
''Board of Trustees''<br/>
  +
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015|the board elections page]].
   
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.
+
''Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)''<br/>
  +
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2015|the FDC elections page]].
   
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.
+
''Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud''<br/>
  +
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2015|the FDC Ombudsperson elections page]].
   
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?
+
The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015|the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki]].
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org
   
: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)
+
On behalf of the Elections Committee,<br/>
  +
-Gregory Varnum ([[m:User:Varnent|User:Varnent]])<br/>
  +
Coordinator, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]
   
:: 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)
+
''Posted by the [[m:User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]], 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/Accepting nominations|Translate]] [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015|Get help]]
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Varnent@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=11918510 -->
   
:(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)
+
== Mechanical work ==
   
: 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)
+
Hello! When filling images of stamps on the Commons there is a need for a set of cross references. Perhaps, they can be divided into 3 groups: 1) galleries of versions; 2) templates of series; 3) archives and miniatures. It is purely mechanical work. With pleasure I will look after the volunteer, temporary or constant. --[[User:Matsievsky|Matsievsky]] ([[User talk:Matsievsky|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Matsievsky|contribs]]) 12:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
   
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'm back... ==
   
:: 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)
+
Technically, I haven't really been ''inactive'', but I'm back from my semi-retirement from the WB community, i.e. I'll contribute in discussions and recent changes reviewing again. Any updates I should know? Any new members I should meet, new policies I should know, etc.? (I do know about Atcovi's adminship since I got a notification when Pi zero linked to my userpage. Nifty new feature!) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] <small>([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) </small> 06:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
: It's a neat feature, isn't it? Just about the only time I can remember in my years here that an upgrade to the wiki software appeared unambiguously beneficial. There's a template {{tl|ping}} for invoking it, like this:
  +
:: {{ping|Kayau}}
  +
: (As for recent developments, there's been trouble on the wikimedia-sisterhood-wide front, with the Foundation pursuing a lot of obviously or subtly centralizing measures that I see as the biggest current threat to the long-term future of the sisterhood; but that's a whole other can of worms.) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
::: Would you mind linking to that? :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] <small>([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) </small> 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::: {{ping|Kayau}} Well, for the single most obvious and prominent development, you might start with [[Meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer]]. My observation about the overall situation is based on the trend of a number of recent developments/initiatives; off the top of my head, there's Scribunto, Wikidata, VisualEditor, MediaViewer, Flow. There was, btw, an appalling statement by Jan-Bart (chair of the Foundation board of trustees), in the context of the superprotect business, that any members of the wikimedia community who don't approve of the Foundation's decisions should leave; that you can find in the archives of Lila Tretikov's user talk page at meta, [[Meta:User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 3#Our Future and the role of the Foundation]]. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::: This does appear to be serious. The WMF seems to be acting like a government. The superprotect right has been demonstrated to be detrimental to wiki autonomy. I wonder how the WMF will react. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] <small>([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) </small> 07:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
:::::: The interesting thing is that the WMF isn't really reacting. This all happened months ago, and the Foundation mostly ignored it, and nothing has really come of it since. Most people have either forgotten or never heard about it. There was an [[m:Requests for comment/Superprotect rights|RfC on Meta]] where there was a lot of outrage and heated arguments, and some rather [[m:Talk:Requests_for_comment/Superprotect rights#Annoyed|worrying comments]] from Foundation board member Ad Huikeshoven in which he called the RfC "annoying" and referred to the project websites as "internet real estate owned by the Wikimedia Foundation". However, the whole thing died out a while ago, with no conclusion reached and no action taken by anyone. I think this is because not enough people have heard about the issue or the RfC. I [[m:Talk:Requests_for_comment/Superprotect rights#Publicise_this|said as much]] on the RfC talk page, but nothing came of that either. [[User:Liam987|<span style="color:white;background:#0055A4;font-variant:small-caps;text-shadow:0 5px 8px #850000">Liam987</span>]] [[User talk:Liam987|talk]] 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  +
::::::: I don't think I agree that the whole thing died out. The WMF is doing some things that supposedly address the problem, and many in the community perceive them as same-old-same-old not addressing the problem. The letter has (I recall being remarked) more signatories than have ever voted for a candidate in a board of trustees election, and it's ''still going'' after an unprecedented time. People were quite vocal on Lila's talk page for a while, but that died down a lot after people got the impression nobody was really listening to what they said there; it doesn't follow that the sentiments went away, nor that things aren't happening on both sides. A proposal has recently been made from someone on the community to get the board to vote on a resolution about global permissions. The Foundation on one hand banned some users with no appeal possible and no explanation of why, and on the other hand Erik Möller has stepped down as deputy director. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
   
:::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.
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/FDC voting has begun|Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015]] ==
:::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 ==
+
[[File:Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg|right|75px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/FDC voting has begun]]
  +
''This is a message from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/FDC voting has begun|Translations]] are available.''
   
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)
+
[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/336|Voting has begun]] for [[m:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015#Requirements|eligible voters]] in the 2015 elections for the ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2015|Funds Dissemination Committee]]'' (FDC) and ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2015|FDC Ombudsperson]]''. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2015/Questions|Funds Dissemination Committee]]'' (FDC) and ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2015/Questions|FDC Ombudsperson]]'' will continue during the voting. Nominations for the ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015|Board of Trustees]]'' will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.
   
{{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]}}
+
The ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee|Funds Dissemination Committee]]'' (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.
   
{{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]}}
+
The ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Grants:APG/Funds Dissemination Committee/Ombudsperson role, expectations, and selection process|FDC Ombudsperson]]'' receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]], and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.
   
{{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]}}
+
The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. '''[[m:Special:SecurePoll/vote/336|Click here to vote]].''' Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2015/Questions|Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2015/Questions|Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question]].''' More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2015|2015 FDC election page]], the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2015|2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page]], and the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015|2015 Board election page]] on Meta-Wiki.
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
On behalf of the Elections Committee,<br/>
  +
-Gregory Varnum ([[m:User:Varnent|User:Varnent]])<br/>
  +
Volunteer Coordinator, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]
   
::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)
+
''Posted by the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/FDC voting has begun|Translate]][[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015|Get help]]
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Varnent@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=12082785 -->
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Language books ==
   
: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! I have mostly been contributing (in the past as my alter ego Iarlagab) to the Dutch language book. At the time I concentrated mostly on properly explaining grammar and syntax, which is useful but it is also not enough to actually learn a language. That also takes vocabulary building and training in listening and speaking. A book, even an e-book, is not really ever enough: you need to be with mother tongue speakers to learn how to speak. But certainly book can be helpful in the process and e-books have advantages over hard copy books in that you can add things like sound files or you can make little exercises with a collapsed wikitable that contains the solution to make the reading a bit more interactive. Now that the Dutch wiktionary has generated thousands of sound files all uploaded to commons, I decided to come back here to try and make the book [[Dutch]] more interactive and have developed a number of tricks to do so.
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (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)
+
However, I feel that many of the issues I am dealing with are of a general nature and are relevant to ''all'' language books. I may well be reinventing wheels here. Are there authors of other language wikibooks interested in any exchange of experience on this point? Do we have some sort of user group for that?
   
::::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)
+
[[User:Jcwf|Jcwf]] ([[User talk:Jcwf|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Jcwf|contribs]]) 17:41, 14 May 2015 (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)
+
== [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/339?setlang=en Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015] ==
   
:::::: 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.)
+
[[File:Wmf logo vert pms.svg|right|100px|link=metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/Board voting has begun]]
:::::: 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)
+
''This is a message from the [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]. [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/Board voting has begun|Translations]] are available.''
   
:::::::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)
+
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/339?setlang=en Voting has begun] for [[metawiki:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015#Requirements|eligible voters]] in the 2015 elections for the ''[[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015|Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees]]''. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the ''[[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015/Questions|Board]]'' will continue during the voting.
   
::::::::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.
+
The ''[[metawiki:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees]]'' is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.
:::::::::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 ==
+
The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. '''[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/339?setlang=en Click here to vote].''' More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015|2015 ''Board'' election page]] on Meta-Wiki.
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 ==
+
On behalf of the Elections Committee,<br/>
  +
-Gregory Varnum ([[metawiki:User:Varnent|User:Varnent]])<br/>
  +
Volunteer Coordinator, [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee|2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]
   
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)
+
''Posted by the [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) [[metawiki:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/MassMessages/Board voting has begun|Translate]] [[metawiki:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015|Get help]]
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Varnent@metawiki using the list at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=12206621 -->

Latest revision as of 17:28, 17 May 2015

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

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.

Why are we allowing automatic reviewer rights?[edit]

What's the whole purpose of automatically achieving the reviewer flag? Which holds reviewing/rollback rights in them? --atcovi (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think the main purpose is for editors who've been active in the project for some time. Since by now they are trusted by the community , an additional privilege is granted in the form of reviewer.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
When a user first arrives at Wikibooks, they have (by definition of "first arrives") no prior experience of how things are done here. They may have experience of another wiki, most likely Wikipedia, and should edit here for a while, to learn how practices here are different from practices there, before they're given the power to make normative judgements here. If they don't have prior experience of another wiki, then again they should edit here for a while before they're given such. The criteria for autopromotion are meant to hold off on giving them the bit until they've had a chance to get some sense of the place. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibility of a "Sister projects" report in the Wikipedia Signpost[edit]

Hello, all I'm a volunteer at the Wikipedia Signpost, the Wikimedia movement's biggest internal newspaper. Almost all of our coverage focuses on Wikipedia, with occasional coverage of Commons, the Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, Wikidata, the the Wikimedia Labs; we have little to nothing to say about Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, or Wikivoyage. I'm interested in writing a special long-form "sister projects" report to try and address this shortfall. Is there anyone experienced in the Wikibooks project with whom I can speak with, perhaps over Skype, about the mission, organization, history, successes, troubles, and foibles of being a contributor to this project? If so, please drop me a line at my English Wikipedia talk page. Thanks! ResMar 21:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to customize this message for each project, or did you really mean to ask at multiple sisters "Is there anyone experienced in the Wikiversity project..."? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I wish I had the excuse that I was tired, but no, I left the computer, went to eat lunch, came back, forgot I had to change that bit, and cross-posted. Well, I've fixed it now. Time to navigate around, again. Tut. Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 00:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: Do you figure on getting one person to talk to about a project, or getting a broader perspective on a given project by talking to more than one person per? Obviously, talking to multiple people per project there's the challenge of rendering the material into a coherent report, while talking to just one person there's the likelihood of idiosyncracies in the interviwee's view of the project. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Because there's a lot of individual interviews that need to happen, I hope that if I get comments from one prominent contributor per wiki I can get a sufficiently clear picture of that wiki's activities from that alone, as long as the interview is of sufficient length. I do, however, want to speak with multiple people when possible, and I will post the draft here for community input before publication. Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Resident Mario: Taking myself as an example, I know I have some ideas about Wikibooks that come from my peculiar personal history: I started on Wikipedia, then branched out to Wikibooks, then branched out to Wikinews, and have spent years medidating on the comarisons and contrasts between those three. If you interviewed me, it's a good bet you'd get a different impression of the elephant than speaking to some else. I can think of at least one other active long-term Wikibookian who'd be likely to give you an atypical view. Based on my own experiences with these projects, I expect I'd have to be active in a project for at least a year before I'd start to get a feel for it, several years for deeper insight (I got major insights into Wikipedia about once a years for several years, and even though I've slowed down at lot there, I feel I've got some further deep insights into it since).
I don't mean to discourage you, honestly; I'm just encouraging you to be aware of the pitfalls.
For mainstream insights into Wikibooks, the first name that pops into my head is QuiteUnusual, which may of course just mean I'm unaware of the peculiarities of QU's view of the project :-).  I've no clue whether QU would even entertain the possibility of an interview (I imagine some folks would be happy to give an interview, some would flat-out refuse; I'm ambivalent, myself). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I have one perspective, sure, but there are others like Chazz, Jomegat, Panic, etc., who are very content focused whereas these days I'm quite administration focused. Depends what you want really. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps one of each, then? Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea that such a activity even existed here. Probably a good idea I think. I could probably help here.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will contact the people that have responded in this thread at a later date, a little buried at the moment. Thanks all! Resident Mario (discusscontribs) 03:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata[edit]

How can we make use of Wikidata here at Wikibooks? It occurred to me that all the data stored there could be used to keep books up to date. For example, property d:P1098 is "number of speakers" (of a language), which could be used in language learning books to keep number of speakers claims up to date. However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to access any of this data on a Wikibooks. Supposedly, {{#property:p1098}} should access the data for this property stored at the Wikidata page for that item, but I tried it on Breton, which is linked to the Wikidata page for the Breton language, which has P1098, but it didn't work. Not implemented for Wikibooks yet, maybe. Even if it worked here, the #property tag only allows accessing data from the Wikidata page for the current page. So there's no way, as I understand, to access any data for the Breton language on a subpage of that book, nor is it possible to access population data for Germany on Wikijunior:Europe/Germany. This essentially negates the usefulness of any Wikidata data on Wikibooks. This really bothers me. All this useful data collected in a systematic way, but for all intents and purposes not useful for any project but Wikipedia! I don't even see it being used at Wikipedia much, except for the interlanguage links. What makes this worse, is this appears to be a software thing, not something the people at Wikidata can fix. Then there's the whole problem of the interwiki links being forced on us, and not being organised in a way that is useful to our project. The Wikimedia Foundation is notoriously unresponsive to requests from the community, so I feel we, the Wikibooks community, possibly with the other sister projects, need to get the Foundation's attention, and let them know we are annoyed that Wikidata and the Wikidata software is being implemented in such a top-down, undemocratic way, and that is sidelining other projects and is not designed in a way that benefits any of the sister projects. I'm not sure how we'd go about this, but I think it's an issue the community should discuss. Liam987 talk 00:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you listened to Lila's address at last year's Wikimania? One of the earlier points — translated from politician-speak — was, the Foundation doesn't give a <several choices here, of varying rudeness> about the non-Wikipedian sisters.
Anyway, about Wikidata. I don't think I'd trust Wikidata's material to be automatically imported to Wikibooks (or any other sister, really, not even a Wikipedia), but I'm interested in the possibility of some sort of semi-automated checks against Wikidata that would make it easy to compare the current state of things here to the current state of things there, and update here for automatic use when things look right.
I thought Wikidata stuff was supposed to be made available through Lua? At the very least, it should be possible to get at it through javascript — but we'd want to work out a super-general tool, so we'd only have to write it once and then wouldn't have to be constantly changing it every time we want some slight variation. The trick is to create a tool that's enormously general but also carefully limited in power so that it can't be used for large-scale vandalism (indeed, that's one of the key design blunders with Wikidata, that it doesn't minimize the consequences of vandalism). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I understood that Lua could be used for that too, but it seems not. w:Template:Wikidata has a thread on the talk page from 2013 about wether it was possible to access Wikidata data for a page other than the current one, and it was found to be impossible. Nothing seems to have changed since. I really seems such a waste to have these people collecting endless data in a way that isn't useful to anyone. Liam987 talk 02:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Liam987: I'll put "accessing Wikidata" on my list of things to add to my dialog tools. The tools — which I do mean to import to Wikibooks once I've gotten one more round of upgrades implemented (in progress) — are designed to be extensible without modifying the existing code, by creating new actions, which are wiki pages with associated javascript. So we can write javascript for querying Wikidata, and then a dialog can send a request to the Wikidata-query action which fetches the requested data and sends the results to another dialog page for further processing. That will be, frankly, slow; probably at least four seconds, all told, and that's when neither the server nor the internet is being sluggish; but if we arrange for Wikidata queries to be an infrequent, manually initiated maintenance action, it should be tolerable. Eventually, once we've got the query facility working smoothly and are sure it's what we want it to be, we can integrate the Wikidata query facility into the general do action, where most dialog facilities are all kept together to avoid the time overhead of switching between actions; that should cut out two or three out of those four seconds. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There is some stuff implemented at Wikipedia that compares, for example, the date of death recorded on Wikipedia to the Wikidata equivalent and then adds the article to a hidden category if they differ. No idea how this is done (because I haven't bothered to look). QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good place to start for an example of how to query Wikidata. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: You're referring to, I think, w:Template:WikidataCheck. The problem with this is the same as I mentioned for the {{#property}} tag: it can only access data for the current page. If we were to create a Wikidata page for every page on Wikibooks, we could use this but the data would still have to be updated there. Liam987 talk 22:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Stewards confirmation rules[edit]

Hello, I made a proposal on Meta to change the rules for the steward confirmations. Currently consensus to remove is required for a steward to lose his status, however I think it's fairer to the community if every steward needed the consensus to keep. As this is an issue that affects all WMF wikis, I'm sending this notification to let people know & be able to participate. Best regards, --MF-W 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

https://wikibooks.org[edit]

Just a quick note to inform that wikibooks.org and wikibooks.com now leads to https://www.wikibooks.org. wikibooks.org/wiki/Page links would continue to redirect to English Wikibooks for backward compatibility. See phab:T87039. Glaisher (discusscontribs) 08:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

TOC in sidebar?[edit]

Wikibooks usually have a TOC and people love to navigate thru the book via this TOC. But in most cases the TOC is a page of its own. So you always have to toggle between TOC-page and your actual page (or the author adds one of the navigation-templates, which is ugly, uncomplete and error-prone). Shall we have a sidebar like in the documentation of mediawiki to visualise the TOC? Additionally to the actual sidebar or as a replacement? --Kelti (discusscontribs) 11:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That sort of stylistic preference varies by book. Some books have a side navigation box, for example WJ:Big Cats. (Easily adjusting the style of such things is one of the targets I had in mind in Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Navlist.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

Greetings,

I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at- wikimedia.org

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Mechanical work[edit]

Hello! When filling images of stamps on the Commons there is a need for a set of cross references. Perhaps, they can be divided into 3 groups: 1) galleries of versions; 2) templates of series; 3) archives and miniatures. It is purely mechanical work. With pleasure I will look after the volunteer, temporary or constant. --Matsievsky (discusscontribs) 12:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm back...[edit]

Technically, I haven't really been inactive, but I'm back from my semi-retirement from the WB community, i.e. I'll contribute in discussions and recent changes reviewing again. Any updates I should know? Any new members I should meet, new policies I should know, etc.? (I do know about Atcovi's adminship since I got a notification when Pi zero linked to my userpage. Nifty new feature!) Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a neat feature, isn't it? Just about the only time I can remember in my years here that an upgrade to the wiki software appeared unambiguously beneficial. There's a template {{ping}} for invoking it, like this:
@Kayau:
(As for recent developments, there's been trouble on the wikimedia-sisterhood-wide front, with the Foundation pursuing a lot of obviously or subtly centralizing measures that I see as the biggest current threat to the long-term future of the sisterhood; but that's a whole other can of worms.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind linking to that? :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kayau: Well, for the single most obvious and prominent development, you might start with Meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer. My observation about the overall situation is based on the trend of a number of recent developments/initiatives; off the top of my head, there's Scribunto, Wikidata, VisualEditor, MediaViewer, Flow. There was, btw, an appalling statement by Jan-Bart (chair of the Foundation board of trustees), in the context of the superprotect business, that any members of the wikimedia community who don't approve of the Foundation's decisions should leave; that you can find in the archives of Lila Tretikov's user talk page at meta, Meta:User talk:LilaTretikov (WMF)/Archive 3#Our Future and the role of the Foundation. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
This does appear to be serious. The WMF seems to be acting like a government. The superprotect right has been demonstrated to be detrimental to wiki autonomy. I wonder how the WMF will react. Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The interesting thing is that the WMF isn't really reacting. This all happened months ago, and the Foundation mostly ignored it, and nothing has really come of it since. Most people have either forgotten or never heard about it. There was an RfC on Meta where there was a lot of outrage and heated arguments, and some rather worrying comments from Foundation board member Ad Huikeshoven in which he called the RfC "annoying" and referred to the project websites as "internet real estate owned by the Wikimedia Foundation". However, the whole thing died out a while ago, with no conclusion reached and no action taken by anyone. I think this is because not enough people have heard about the issue or the RfC. I said as much on the RfC talk page, but nothing came of that either. Liam987 talk 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I agree that the whole thing died out. The WMF is doing some things that supposedly address the problem, and many in the community perceive them as same-old-same-old not addressing the problem. The letter has (I recall being remarked) more signatories than have ever voted for a candidate in a board of trustees election, and it's still going after an unprecedented time. People were quite vocal on Lila's talk page for a while, but that died down a lot after people got the impression nobody was really listening to what they said there; it doesn't follow that the sentiments went away, nor that things aren't happening on both sides. A proposal has recently been made from someone on the community to get the board to vote on a resolution about global permissions. The Foundation on one hand banned some users with no appeal possible and no explanation of why, and on the other hand Erik Möller has stepped down as deputy director. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections 2015[edit]

Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) and FDC Ombudsperson will continue during the voting. Nominations for the Board of Trustees will be accepted until 23:59 UTC May 5.

The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions on the committee being filled.

The FDC Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 3 to 23:59 UTC May 10. Click here to vote. Questions and discussion with the candidates will continue during that time. Click here to ask the FDC candidates a question. Click here to ask the FDC Ombudsperson candidates a question. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 FDC election page, the 2015 FDC Ombudsperson election page, and the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 03:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Language books[edit]

Hi! I have mostly been contributing (in the past as my alter ego Iarlagab) to the Dutch language book. At the time I concentrated mostly on properly explaining grammar and syntax, which is useful but it is also not enough to actually learn a language. That also takes vocabulary building and training in listening and speaking. A book, even an e-book, is not really ever enough: you need to be with mother tongue speakers to learn how to speak. But certainly book can be helpful in the process and e-books have advantages over hard copy books in that you can add things like sound files or you can make little exercises with a collapsed wikitable that contains the solution to make the reading a bit more interactive. Now that the Dutch wiktionary has generated thousands of sound files all uploaded to commons, I decided to come back here to try and make the book Dutch more interactive and have developed a number of tricks to do so.

However, I feel that many of the issues I am dealing with are of a general nature and are relevant to all language books. I may well be reinventing wheels here. Are there authors of other language wikibooks interested in any exchange of experience on this point? Do we have some sort of user group for that?

Jcwf (discusscontribs) 17:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections 2015[edit]

Wmf logo vert pms.svg

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2015 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Questions and discussion with the candidates for the Board will continue during the voting.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2015 Board election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Volunteer Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 17:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help