User talk:Panic2k4/Archive2

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] C++ Programming

I wasn't saying it has to do with Windows in general, but with Windows Programming or the Windows API. I did it based on what I thought was my best judgement at the time. Moving its contents based on what it seemed to be topic of its discussion and what the Windows Programming wikibook topic is as being more tightly related and outside the scope of the wikibook as its describe. It may have been better for me to have added a comment to its page saying I think it should be moved there and perhaps added the template suggesting merger to the top of its page and waiting awhile to see if there was any objections, rather then going with what looked like reasonable move to me.

The GFDL gives everyone the right to distrubute and modify the contents of a document so long as previous authors are given credit for their work. GFDL protects authors from all liabilities from the use and modification of the documentation. GFDL allows authors to control their copy of the documentation, but authors give up their rights to dictate to others what is done to or with the documentation other then to enforce that people who do make use of the documentation give the same rights to everyone else. GFDL documents may be hosted anywhere, but to be hosted here at wikibooks, additional rules must be followed.

I don't know what steps your reffering to for protecting articles, however I disagree with your assertion on your rights and that the rules you make alone, aren't violating the GFDL and the rules and guidelines of Wikibooks. Wikibooks from what I can tell has no explicit policy on approaches to working together as a community to work on books and even says there is no one right way to do it and leaves open for people's interpretation of best practice, which of course other people may not agree with, such as in our case. I can understand trying to develope some helpful approaches to be used with any wikibook, so long as its agreed to by the majority of community of the wikibook in question as is required by wikibook policy. This wikibook doesn't have a clear guideline or approach that is recommanded written anywhere that I can see, which makes it open to each person's best judgement to decide what to just do and what to discussion beforehand. I'm open to trying to understand what you think on this and adobt some of it to try to reduce disagreements, so long as its reasonable and doesn't violate Wikibook Guidelines and Policy.

There isn't a defined level or ranking of contribution that is needed to be listed on the authors page and the GFDL doesn't say anything about it either other then that the names of those who are listed as the authors must be preserved and that the person should add there name to the list if they make any modifications to it. There's no policy that gives someone more say then other people for historial reasons or otherwise and I think it is fair to say any such attempt at enforcement goes against wikibook policy.

We haven't even had much chance yet to discussion our visions of the work to know if they differ, if they are compleatly incompatible and if there is no room for compromise. Jumping the gun a little bit, don't you think in comparing that past situation to here and now? I kindly ask you to minimize changes to the C++ Programming modules for now since we do disagree until we've worked things out please, as I have tried to do, so we can discuss without resulting in the chaos you spoke of before and getting sidetracked with changes we disagree with.

I don't go by some fixed rule of thumb for deciding what I think makes an improvement, just depends on whats present. I continue to fail to see how rewording deletes contents. I have no problem adding explanations. I just think since we had agreed on something that it would of been better to add the parsing explanation to my changes rather then what looks like a revert and add, which I disagree with. I have no problem with more information, my motivation is that certain information can be explained with less words and that less time it takes to explan something and to read the explanation the better off everyone is. So I try to improve the quality of the information by balancing it out with the quanity it takes to explain it. More information is always good, quality information is never bad either. I rather read a book that has 1000 pages that explains 500 concepts then a book that only explains a few concepts that takes 1000 pages to explain it. My motivation is in trying to improve the quality of the book, not to decress the size of the book.

Wikibooks tend to have more then one author at some point. If change is enough to piss somebody off I think this is the wrong place for them. I can understand trying to give a new module time to grow by its orginal author, but how much time that should be is hard to say. I don't see how the number of changes made in any given time frame should matter. I can't agree with all rewordings and reformatings as being major changes if nothing is lost. A writer can never become known and attempt to be part of the community of maintainers if potental writers just sick back and do nothing which is why it seems reasonable to me that people should be bold and not hestitate to contribute as is suggested. Otherwise books become orphaned when people stop wanting to contribute or worse new writers stops trying to contribute out of hesitation. If I wasn't committed to trying to make this work and to the quality of this work I probably would of been another aliened person who would of left by now.

There doesn't seem to be a real requirement for being listed as an author by wikibooks or GFDL. I won't comment on weither thats a major change or not since its so vage what the requirements are to consider an opinion on it. I had thought of adding myself as an author since it seemd like I had done enough to qualify as one, but then decided I rather let somebody else decide weither I had done enough to have my name added to authors section. I agree with what you consider minor changes with the exception of boxing which I'm still thinking about since in a way they can discrupt the flow of the text much like pictures do.

I think it would be a good idea to try to develope some helpful guidelines for this wikibook that is stated in the talk pages of the wikibook, rather then assuming everyone agrees and shares the same opinions. Which means discussing it with anyone whose contributing to the wikibook and coming to some community consensus and realize that such guidelines may change if consensus changes or new wikibook policies are made that take precedence.

I use firefox as well. A <br/> is going to be needed if you want to force a line to break because the wiki software interprets two ajoining lines to be part of the same line if there are no tags that normally make two lines disjointed. If your trying to break text into paragraphs its far easier to use a blank line between them. --darklama 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rep.

About the MFC part

Ok and what prevents you from doing the inverse option as I requested? (I will show you that you did violate GFDL in your action)

Haa, did you give any credit? :) But that is not the problem, You agreed that it wasn't probably the best way of going about it, but is it your view that people that were not involved with a work should have the same decision power as a person that was contributing to the work for over 1 year ?!? (I could get several users, even without asking for new registries to show that your view could be very dangerous)

But I think it's also morally self evident, even as a newcomer to wikibooks I tried to go by the rules that existed, when that did prove impossible, dialog failed and moderation was missing, for myself I didn't get involved in a revert war so I had 2 options, just quit contributing or "forking" (I still claim that it was not a fork as identified on the fork policy).

Not so, I did not relinquish any rights, I still do own the content, I provide a copy under the GFDL but the content may still be protected, for instance check about the dual licenses and the BSD problem with he GFDL.

As for the wikimedia steps for protecting content check the buzz about the German wikipedia.

You should also take a look at the GFDL as it does make distinction in contributors and rights. If you wish I can probably copy paste here but I think its evident.

And wikibooks also makes distinction in users/contributors, did you cast your vote on the last election here ?!?

I think we are all cooperating here... If for nothing else just to trade some ideas and check about different view points...

I'm one of the book authors, I don't recognize you as part of the community of the this particular book since you did not contribute content (as for the GFDL).

Ok you must provide/clarify your view above. I'm willing to help/correct and be corrected/work on comments, criticism and debate with users (readers) and give credit to any real contribution to the work (book).

I don't want any place on the wikibooks/wikimedia community structure nor to advance any policy or be involved in it (I will vote one them), but as you should have understanded by now my problem is with what gives you the wright to claim more editorial rights on the book that the ones I have (I don't agree that we should even have equal rights at this time), as stated prev. you did no small changes to the book, was it intended to start a revert war as I requested you to make corrections and you didn't act on them most basic course of action would be having me reverting them (I did and will not take that step).

I don't recognize your right to ask me that, I will not revert your changes as stated above, but I WILL continue to provide content, I will expect only the same from you.

Agreed, but your reformats doesn't fall on the contribution being asked, writers are even asked NOT to do it.

Check your own changes for example on the OOP part.

Gezz, I think the this is one of the books were the guidelines are more evident. In the chart, even in the introduction they could be better written probably, but until you clarify your view on editors to a book this is a mood point as a superior number of editors (I think you agree that users will not do) can trash any work on wikibooks.

It does, and even give you a magic number 5, as I said even in the GFDL there are levels...

There is. You should refresh your GFDL :)--Panic 04:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Only concern that since its already been moved that moving it again could be an issue now for those involved with the Windows Programming wikibook and your own assertion that it would be moved when it gets big enough. You also said you were asking to move what they had on MFC into the C++ Programming wikibook. No biggy, but to me that seems to be a bit of a contridiction of what your plans for it are . There is also that nagging forking policy to consider. Also I think it would take an admin to revert this action since the page it was moved from still exists. The best I think I could do is replace the redirect with an inclusion. Since you said you were wanting to have the other contents added, wouldn't it make since to have them as inclusions as well? Whatever is done to achieve it, I'd add the template suggesting its merger into the Windows Programming wikibook and then include my reasons on its talk page, since I haven't changed my mind on it being best to have it there. Even though you probably don't recognize any right to do so.

I don't think there is an explict need to do give credit on the page itself. The history of the page acts as a sort of revision history listing the people who contributed to its making. I'm also uncertain if enough has been done to give proper credit to other contributors on the C++ Programming authors page. This properly giving credit issue seems to be an open debate that hasn't been resolved yet as whole when it comes to applying the GFDL to wiki documents from what I have seen. The only solution I've seen suggested is not using GFDL as a way to solve the problem.

My view goes beyond just "should have". My view is people "do have" the same equal right in the decision making process. See Wikibooks:Decision_making#Community_consensus as well as "Following the Guidelines" thats right below it, for what I mean. My point in all this is no I don't think you have more right, only equal right to disagree and debate and like anyone else try to come to some consensus. This doesn't mean to say I think your opinion don't mater. I think its good to state and discussion, just tired of this "what I say goes" attitude I sence from you that I think clarily goes against guidelines, policy and community cooperation. It also suggests to me a level of unwillness to negotiation and compromise, which can make it difficult to get additional contributors.

I think you relingquished some rights or gave some rights to other people when you pressed the submit button and agreed to provide it under the terms of the GFDL, including right to modify. Since its not dualed licensed I don't see the relevency of comparing it to any situation involving dual licensing. BTW you said you got permission to use some work by other people, did you get there permission under terms acceptable to wikibooks (eg public domain, GFDL), such as using Boilerplate request for permission? Otherwise that could be a potential problem too. Which I only bring up because we disagree with what this license means and what people are allowed to do.

Its not in german is it? I only understand english. I would also hesitate to consider anything related to German wikipedia for two reasons. This isn't wikipedia and I think different language wikis hosted by wikimedia foundation each have there own situations and policies to deal with even within the same general project. Like the German wikipedia may have different policies from the English wikipedia.

I see no distinction made. There is only one reference to contributor that I could find:

Which would suggest to me only applying to the "Authors" section on wikibooks, that it may not be changed only appended to, unless its the author who added the achknowledgement or dedications who changes only their own achknowledgements or dedications.

Do you have some references you could point me to that make a clear distinction? I haven't seen any clear distinction made.

Hmm the only lost contents I can see is perhaps encapsulation. The rest was covered in Classes. I could add encapsulation back by adding it at the end of Classes to fix that lost contents. Anything else?

I'm going to need those references. I've read the GFDL, in fact again on the 29th, to refresh my memory. Here's what I consider relivent:

I don't claim more editorial rights, just equal rights as anyone has. No I have no intention to start a revert war. Trying to prevent one. There is some guideline/policy/recommandation somewhere I read that said in the event of a dispute don't revert, discuss it first and try to come to a consenus to prevent revert wars from happening. Thats why I have not been reverting and we've been getting sidetracked on "rights" and the like, presenting from a discussion that could lead to a compermise. So to me, reverting is the wrong course of action. I'm trying to follow reasonal recommandation. I'm not sure what you mean by "I don't want a place on the wikibooks/wikimedia community structure".

Well the best definition I can think of to explain my view on editors is somebody who in good faith tries to contribute to a wikibook in an attempt to improve it, regardless of how major or how minor the contribution is, and tries to cooperate, discuse, compermise, etc when disputes arrise with other editors. And before I'm asked, I consider contributions to be any change thats attempts to improve, even such things as spellchecking, grammar correction and format corrections.

P.S Do you know if any good spellchecker for firefox other then SpellBound, appearently there hasn't been an update yet for newer versions of firefox. --darklama 13:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Nope I don't think there is one (spellchecker that works inside the browser for firefox) there are for explorer (you could probably use IETab and one of those for example, but I use SpellBound, I hate the way it jumps arround the edit box after a check or the slider going mising from it window some times, but could't find another.

As for our private discussion we should move it to the public forum, the best way it to state what our divergence is and ask for third party participation, this can also be useful to others as if your point was the valid one I doubt most projects would get bilt on wikibooks.

I will edit this post later and provide the point in witch I think we diverge and after you check them we will move the discussion.--Panic 17:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Ya I tried to give SpellBound a try and install it, but its not compatible with this version of firefox. I guess I'll have to wait for a new update and I can't use IE because I don't use Windows and wouldn't want to.

As for the other stuff, I was going to suggest similar moves. Trying to see if we can agree on a summary of what the issue is we disagree with in regard to policy here first and then move it to Staff Lounge or some other place/forum. I think thats the main issue here that needs attention and not our disagreements with the wikibook content, because we are both trying to be reasonablein that respect. I think the issue causing the problem is both our interpretation of Wikibook policy. I'll try to summerize my POV on this.

Let me know if I'm wrong on this last bit and how. feel free to correct me by clarifing your view:
I say the problem thats arrising here is that you think some people are more entitled and are free to force there POV on wikibooks without discussion and that choosing to discuss things with people you don't recognize as being entitled to an opinion, is just a matter of courtesy.

--darklama 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

You can force the compatibility, on my page go to my page at http://del.icio.us/Panic2k4 check for the firefox+inuse tags, the one that does make it easy (no javascript editing involved) is Mr. Tech local install, you can check google for it also. I'm running the last version, so if you are not running a beta that will work.

I would have liked if you had been less "politically correct" (even if its for public consumption, but I'm not running for office), some of the text includes wikibook/community stuff that you and me do agree, but if you do remove that part we have in "common", I would also remove my last sentence and some other "political correct" text from my statement as it's pointless for the discussion at hand.

Any how, if you don't want any changes, you can move the declarations to the public forum and ask for participation for the clarification of the matter (if you don't want to be the poster I can do it also, no prob.), it should be mentioned that this should be probably used to create a global wikibooks guideline or policy, a link should be provided to this copy to state that none of us are altering each others words and I will move the discussion part (not the declarations) to a separated archive page, if any one does have a need to check what we have said.

--Panic 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I think its a good idea to try to show where we both agree too, it shows we have been reasonable and have tried to discuss it by ourself and that there is some issues we simply can't seem to agree on that we both agree could benifit from outside input. BTW are we in agreement that the issue isn't so much about what either one of us has done, but with how Wikibooks works? I'd like to try to keep this from becoming "finger pointing" of specific things that have been done and having to clarify that both of our views may have changed and that this isn't so much an issue about a specific wikibook, but interpretation of current Wikibooks policy. I think we both can agree that one way or another specific things that have been done can be resolved on our own once this issue about policy has been resolved and clarified to both our understanding. --darklama 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

No prob., but please avoid counter arguing my points, just state the facts you defend and make your own points, keep you statements small and less confusing. And take notice that in your first statement I almost agree entirely with it, the point in question is your understanding on the level of contribution needed to become part of a specific book community and that can't be understood by reading it, I have added a common statements on thing we agree and disagree, to remove some of double talk. --Panic 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Not sure I like the last bit about "call for opinion vote". Did you notice the General voting rules/Proposals you refer to is a rejected policy and if you go up to General voting rules it redirects you to Wikibooks:Decision making ?!?. If thats not enough to convence you of my point at the very least you should try to refer to a policy thats accepted and not rejected in calling for people's opinions, because I cannot agree to such a statement being used when it refers to a rejected policy. --darklama 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to put in its place, I think it may be too early to suggest that it needs to be voted on or needs to be turned into a new policy. There may already be an established consensus or policy that covers this neither of us are aware of or that needs to be clarified. I think for now we just need to ask for people's opinions and for clarification and go from there. --darklama 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

You are right, but as the GFDL is an enforceable policy my point is valid (on our disagreements), I'll remove the reference to the General voting rules later on you can continue in establishing a policy (I will be content with a decision by at least a 60%+ in global votes on our problem), if you win I will probably fork the books I was creating to another location (not wikibooks) and probably not wikibased (I was about to do that as the merge was forced on me, this will be the tipping point...).

Well since I didn't change any other points (feel free to edit the format of the proposal of vote), I think we are done. Can you post it on the Lobby or do you prefer that I do it. ? --Panic 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

We were both editing at the same time. I was about to add to my last comment. Which may effect this. --darklama 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say we both agreed that we needed to get input and opinions of other people and try to get clarification and that this is a summary of what the dispute is about and if people would comment in order to help us try to resolve this dispute. --darklama 02:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes to reflect this view. Hows it look? It is late here, so I won't get a chance to see any changes you've made until later. So this will need to continue tomorrow before we are finished. --darklama 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Call for comment is not a vote, we will not get a clear response, there may even be people with other views, it will take much more time to even understand what various factions will be saying and your interpretation my be different than mine a clear and simple vote is what is needed. A discussion will be needed to create a policy but a proper page must be created. --Panic 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Well, a vote is premature, until we know what other people's views are. We both could be compleatly off or both somewhat right. We just don't know. A vote now assumes people agree with one of our views 100%. Obviously a discussion will take more time, but a discussion is what is needed and what will have to happen anyways before a vote for it to have any meaning twords a new policy or changes to existing onces to be more clear, if thats what your after. I would just be satisfied with some clarification, one way or another even if I'm wrong. Did you not read on the Decision making page that policies are high impact changes? Even if you can't agree that the same process applies to book discussion, surely you agree it applies to trying to change policy or to have policies clarified? --darklama 22:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We could say we disagree with this too, if you don't agree, and make it clear that its you who believes it should be voted on now and give a third choice. The third choice being that it needs to be discussed more before being voted on yet. --darklama 22:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't want to know other peoples views are, I only wan't to know if the majority agrees with you or with me, if we take your option you or I can shape our views along the way, restate or reformulate them, this can lead to a endless debate. (Made a small clarification on my points),Btw it is not my intention of creating a policy (one is needed) but to solve this differences with you, as I stated before I don't have the time or will to be involved in general wikibooks debates, my concern is only "my" works, if you will only accept a lengthy discussion, I can live with it, if you can accept that I could revert some of the changes you made to the book to its original status (if your view wins a future vote, you can then restore them), then I will have no problem with the time frame, if this is acceptable then move the points to the lobby. If not I must request a moderation vote on our views as this will be the quicker path.--Panic 04:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It is my intention to solve these differences with you as well. I have no interest in politics as you have refered to it either. I've tried to understand your POV to better understand where we differ in opinion, but it is difficult to do. I've tried to rephrase what I've thought you point is on more then one occation, but you have not really commented on them. I don't see how the GFDL relates to our difference in opinion, you have not even stated specifics from the GFDL that you believe validate your view. Which in turn makes it hard to explain why I think you are wrong or right. All this seems to be the result in difference in opinion of how we are suppose manage differences in opinion and what should or shouldn't be done in the mean time.

I can't stop you from reverting my changes nor from not explaining why you think reverting my changes was necessary. However without input, I may continue to make changes you disagree with, simply because I can't read whats going through your mind. I don't expect you to seek approvel from me any more then I expect to need to seek approvel from you. As this is a community effort, for people to work together it seems like a good idea to try to avoid rediting each other's work if its only going to lead to a revert war by discussing our differences to come to some comparemise that works for us both. I choose to prevent a revert war by trying to limit my edits to what I think won't cause reversions by you, what you do is up to you.

The only issue I have here, is what to me appears to be your belief that the GFDL and/or certain policies gives you more say or greator control over the book contents then other users for whatever reasons you have, which haven't been made clear to me in a way I can understand. The only thing that has been made clear to me so far is that you don't think you own the wikibook as I use to think. I'm not sure what you interpretation of my POV is either, but it seems to suggest to you that wikibook could not work if things are as you think I'm saying things are, which may mean you misunderstand my POV.

This is partially where we may have a difference in opinion or interpretation. While I don't urgue with your changes being your work, I do not understand what your concern is. Are you concerned with people editing your contributions? Are you concerned with what your rights are here on Wikibook concerning your contributions? Are you concerned with what is done with your contributions? This is why I tried (perhaps not clearly) to suggest this may not be the right place if thats what concerns you. By putting you work under the GFDL you allow anyone to use and do with your work as they please so long as credit for what you have done is maintained. Perhaps you could clarify what your concerns are?

It has been suggested to me, that what is needed is a mediator to interven in our discussion here and try to help us resolve the problem. Its also been suggested to me what our problem is has not been made clear. Are you be open to a mediator? Are you open to trying to explain the problem so its clearer? I'm not even sure how to explain the problem clearly myself, which means to me they got a good point. --darklama 05:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This is exasperating, we have by now shown each other to respect wikibooks and recognized its rules and you now ask me "Are you concerned with people editing your contributions?"... ?!?? wtf ?!?

I respect the views of wikibooks probably more than you (as only I seem to understand the moral and legal rights it has to stand on) and have been contributing content for two years, please don't use that kind of wording/remarks on your comments, I am not a kid, as I said before if you are running for a job/more power on wikibooks please don't make me waste my time, what I write here is for your consumption not as a platform to show how righteous I am, I am human and I do make mistakes and like to be corrected but I will refuse to be made into a vilan...

"I and others painted a group swimming in a pool over a wall, later, you saw it and decided that the person jumping into the pool needed tree nipples and painted over it..." that is the core of our discussion...

We have established our divergences, I don't recognize you as an author (if you prefer an equal part to the work, some of the reformatting were welcomed, but copyright law, at least were I live, doesn't give you author status) and I claim that you made changes (witch I have listed to you) to the work I didn't like (as author, even in you view I was an author before you), I claim you had no rights in doing some changes (you've granted me that you at least failed to fallow protocol) and I claim that even if what I say is not expressed as a policy in wikibooks (which I claim it is), I and others at least have the moral rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Moral_rights) to the work and form the book community that should steer that book development, if you wished to have an equal decision/participation what you needed to do is make content contributions (see GFDL), then I would recognize you equal rights even thant natural raking should be respected, I would respect the opinion of one that made greater part of the work.

"in other word, if you had contributed as mutch to the painting as the other artists you should have an equal rights on deciding its evolution"

Ok will you move our points to the lobby and ask for a simple vote ? If not I will move my declaration and ask for a show of hands...

--Panic 18:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't mean to come off sounding like I think your a kid or to offend you. I know I'm no diplomat and far from sounding like one when trying to discuss with people who have differences of opinion. I can only do my best and I'm not sure how I could phrase my question any better to not offend you. I'm not trying to make anyone out to be a vilan here. I'm just a bit confused.

So your saying because I haven't been contributing as long you, that I don't have any right to be involved in any decision on the book and that I should just accept your decisions as being final when we disagree? I'll leave it at that so as not to have to address too many things at once.

As for the moving to the lobby and asking for a vote, I don't think thats such a good idea from what I'm being told. --darklama 23:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Gezzz, you clearly don't seem to comprehend that it is not the time (that should also count, but it is more sign of respect to others that came before or have done more work) but the quality of the contributions, content (simple edits to a work is not contributing content to it), since you did not contribute to a work yes you aren't considered part of its community the decision process and should respect its opinion, this to me seems to be basic and morally right (even if we disagree with the legalities of it, right is right...), I can't be more basic that the example I gave.

You should read about "game theory" you would see how wrong your POV is and why it wouldn't work anywhere. --Panic 04:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

---

Who determins weither contributions are quality contributions then? Is it those who are listed on the Author's section? If so who determins who can be on the authors section? Is it those who are already listed there? Who determins who is part of a wikibook community? Is it also determin by those listed in the authors section? If its not who determins these things, then how or what determines these things?

I'm trying to refrain from urging with you on things I disagree with again and trying to just focus on understanding what your POV is, by asking questions and restating what you say based on my interpretation so you can correct me where I'm getting your POV wrong. For the sake of trying to speed this up more, I'm going to try to ask more questions. Ignore any questions which don't fit in and try to explain why if you could please or explain further where you think I'm getting your POV wrong.

I'm a bit confused on what your POV applies to. Does it apply to contributing at all? It doesn't seem so, since you seem to agree that any one can contribute. Are these suppose to be under what conditions you believe someone can edit a wikibook? Perhaps this is suppose to apply to when there is disagreement in order to resolve disagreement? I'm thinking you believe its for when there is disagreement and for certain exspects of contributing, from what I think I understand of your POV.

Using the painting analog to somewhat explain what I think I understand of your POV as being "a painter should only add new coats of paint, until the painter has shown enough respect for the painting to be able to keep the artist's intentions and vision of the painting the same." Is that correct? --darklama 13:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Who determins weither contributions are quality contributions then?

The book community (note that the book community can only make its will stand on wikibooks if no rules to GFDL are broken, anyone can ignore thier decissions, author is defined in the copyright law so its simple to force a legal action if legal laws are broken in this case you could probably get help from the Mediawiki as the "editor" of the work).

• Is it those who are listed on the Author's section?

Yes and others that can prove contributions to content (GFDL).

• who determins who can be on the authors section?

The GFDL, even if the book community refuses the place you can fork the work (not on wikibooks) and add your name, or request FSF to make a legal claim to correct the Wikibook (if you write to Wikimedia and request a review they will do it if the history logs are there).

• Who determins who is part of a wikibook community?

The book coomunity itself or the author (creator).

• "a painter should only add new coats of paint, until the painter has shown enough respect for the painting to be able to keep the artist's intentions and vision of the painting the same."

Well respect is a good thing, for your elders, for people that have more experience for the rights and liberties of others, etc... but that is no enforceable, it falls on the motivations and morals that should guide ones life.

Basically the new painter should respect the previous work, not to vandalize it or make unwanted alterations to it try to see if the ones that made it agree, if not and the painting is GFDL, copy it to another wall and do as he likes (even then he should respect the others VP but GFDL removes any obligation to respect the original work, you could for instance get a GFDL book on WW2 and rewrite parts of it to make Hitler a hero, this is probably why people refuse to be added to the author list and some movements against the GFDL are emerging), we have to remember that authors are liable for the work. --Panic 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Hmm I think we almost agree here.

I almost agree with this. I think the issue is there's no universal copyright law and definition for author. The closest we can get is International Copyright Laws. Other then that yes I agree, if you can prove laws have been broken, you can seek legal action. Perhaps one disagreement is over definition of authors as it applies to wikibooks? Could you meantion what rules of GFDL your referring to? You said awhile ago you would try to show me how the GFDL proves you are right. I'm a bit interested in this again. Do you believe I have broken the GFDL requirements somehow?

What proof of contributions would that be? I think the edit History acts as a sort of proof as well as satisfies History section of the GFDL. Am I correct in my understanding that you disagree that the edit History is not same as an Authors section and is not proof of contributions?

I agree the GFDL determins this. Perhaps we disagree on how the GFDL determins this? Could you explain how the GFDL determins this from your POV or would you rather we try to seek clarification of this from a third party? OK your reference here to the history logs suggests you do consider the edit history to be important in determing authors and disputes over authorship. Am I correct?

So the community decides who is and isn't part of the community? How does the author fit into deciding this?

I agree. My motivation and morals in regard to wikibooks, is that its a community effort, some changes are expected and people's contributions may not always be preserved except in the edit history if people wish to look back on it, because wikibooks are always changing. Some changes last longer then others, but nothing lasts forever. When people disagree with changes they should try to work out a solution that will satisfy everyone involved. Obviously some changes are more important then others, but that can be hard to work out when its best to discuss before hand and when to just do it. Obviously thats something I'm still trying to learn through making mistakes.

Is that what you think I've done? Vandalized and made unwanted alternations to try to see if its a problem? I agree that vandalism should be avoided and unwanted alterations, but it can be hard to determan if its so until its been done, more so when its a community thats judging whats unwanted. I have to disagree with the last bit about authors being liable for their work. I think GFDL removes reliability or at least tries to. I guess this is another area we disagree with?

I think I may have managed to figure out where we disagree a little better. Which is also whats confusing, since you said you agreed with me for the most part on what I said before about contributions being welcomed. Care to explain some more about your POV on the distinction between users, authors, editors and contributors? I think we might be able to make it clearer whats disagreed on this way and reducing what our differences in POV are exactly, taking this approch. :)

Another recap of my understanding of your POV. Both authors and the community decides who is and isn't part of the community (a "contributor") based on both the quality and amount of contributions (the "weight" of contributions) made to a wikibook. It is up to the community to decide or vote if there is disagreement with a contribution made. Users are people not part of the community as decided by the community and authors. Users don't get to make any decisions if there's disagreements. Is this correct?

My POV for the sake of something to compare to if you want to explain your POV, is that authors, contributors and editors are the same thing here on Wikibooks and all are members of wikibook community. Users tend to be readers and may occationlly make comments on a talk page or the like about how great the work is or make constructive criticism about how a wikibook could be made better, while everyone else actually works to try to make the wikibook better rather then just saying what could be done to make a wikibook better.

I hope I haven't sidetracked away too much from trying to understand your POV better. BTW do you have any questions for me on my POV that you would like to understand better? --darklama 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---