Book creator (disable)

Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 8

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

This is an archive for historical purposes. When moving threads here, add them to the bottom of the list (or start Archive 9).


Contents

[edit] Why I have resigned as Administrator here on Wikibooks

The next post by Rob Horning is interrupted by...

replies of Jimbo Wales...
and reply of Kernigh.

User:Jimbo_Wales continues to do personal assults upon me as a person, and dispite repeated attempts at trying to get input as to why he made the decisions he has done here on this project, he continues to rail against me here.

Where have I made any personal attack of any kind upon you? I have been writing daily about various things regarding Wikibooks, and I am happy to continue the dialogue as long as is necessary.

Most important, as the current policy for deletion is mainly whatever Jimbo decides does not belong on Wikibooks, regardless of any other rationale or general community input on the decision. As an administrator I cannot possibly enforce this policy mainly because of its arbitrary nature.

In addition, with the kinds of actions that he has been doing here on Wikibooks, if it were anybody else besides this person, I would be posting a notice on the Wikibooks:Requests for adminship page asking for de-adminship of this user, for several reasons. Arbitrarily deleting content that is already under a vote for deletion that is still being decided and has ongoing comments, especially multiple instances, would be a major factor. Publicly threating to block users, especially specific users, is another major factor. Making policy decisions without community comment is still another.

Basically, I am right now in an edit war with Jimbo, and I know I'm on the losing side of that fight. I am trying to stand up to this individual who IMHO is abusing his position, and has apparently little understanding of how to run a volunteer organization. Attacking individuals who are making genuine contributions is not a way to grow a volunteer organization. Having arbitrary policies and policy changes without apparent cause or rationale is still another way to cause the people you are "leading" to lose faith in you.

We are not in an edit war of any kind. In order to have an edit war, it takes two parties, and I am not going to take part in an edit war.

Also, I see little content that is currently safe here on Wikibooks. There is no more point in my making any more contributions here as I feel that it is just as likely, perhaps even more likely due to my public dispute with Mr. Wales, to be removed or essentially made irrelevant.

I do not see us as being in any sort of public dispute at all. I very warmly encourage you to continue the dialogue, since as far as I can tell, we are on the same side on every substantive issue.

Wikibooks is an awsome project, and it will likely survive this current spat. Still, I can't in all honesty continue here, and as long as Mr. Wales decides to run this project with an iron fist, I can't continue to advocate for those individuals who feel that they are being run roughshod by other admins and people in "higher power" within this project. Wikibooks is a lesser place than it was, and the damage has been done.

What 'iron fist'? No one has been blocked, no pages have been protected, there have been no edit wars.--Jimbo Wales 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Remember, all of the content belongs to you, the contributors, not the Wikimedia Foundation nor Mr. Wales. If you have written anything here, in Jokebook, or Getting a Date or Wikijunior Solar System, the content belongs to you and nobody else.

(It is at Getting a date. --Kernigh 02:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

I may come back to editing here in a while, but I am going to take a very long Wikibreak. Perhaps a few years or more. I would love to participate and make this project grow, but I also know I've said my piece. If the community here would like to fork Wikibooks and take it somewhere else besides the Wikimedia Foundation, look me up. I would be interested in helping to grow an on-line textbook community. Just not with the current leadership as demonstrated by the actions of Mr. Jimmy Wales. --Rob Horning 00:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize very deeply for anything I may have done to offend you. Please reconsider and let us continue this dialogue.--Jimbo Wales 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Rob, the point of WikiMedia is to create a "better solution." Jimbo has certainly done that. It isn't a perfect solution, but I think that even you would agree that it is better than anything else the world has ever known for the purposes it espouses. As such, I personally support any system that is a step in the right direction. You can't expect the hierarchical system used throughout the ages to be replaced by equality overnight. Refusing to back down, even when you know that you will lose, is a sign of integrity and I have respected you for that for some time. Your integrity has inspired many others to take a stand and fight for equality too. If you stick to your principles and post a notice on the Wikibooks:Requests for adminship page asking for de-adminship of Jimbo, you will be saying that you consider him to be an equal in this project. When enough people consider Jimbo to be an equal, he will be free to assume that role. Until that time, for the stability of WikiMedia, he has no choice but to assume the role we give him. --Zephram Stark 03:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
"Only textbooks" is an interesting idea, but has it worked that well? Lots of unfinished books. Why not just say "only textbooks are allowed to suck"? Wikipedia allows all sorts of unencyclopedic things, like the recent reatured article "Cool (song)". But you need a better article if you want to stray from encyclopedic. Nyarlathotep 12:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Rob. Please don't go. I enjoy and learn from what you write and will miss you if you leave. David H 14:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Dammit Rob, if the people who care as strongly as you do leave we are in deep trouble. --kwhitefoot 19:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
If the page in dispute is Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, then I do not Rob Horning in the edit history. I noticed that my "disputed section" marker at Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks#What Wikibooks includes disappeared in this edit. --Kernigh 01:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
However, Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks has seen no major changes recently, other than the addition of "Wikibooks is not censored for the protection of minors". There is also the proposed addition (summarily "Wikibooks is not a thesaurus") currently at a vote on Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks.
Jimbo Wales has left policy essentially the same as it already was. Lots of books (soapboxes, encyclopedias, ...) remain unpermitted at Wikibooks. --Kernigh 03:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The edit war

Here is part of the problem. The deletion log for Jokebook shows that Jimbo Wales deleted the front page of Jokebook, then Robert Horning undeleted it.

The deletion was not appropriate because the discussion on WB:VFD#Jokebook remains open. Some users want to delete Jokebook, but they also want to move it somewhere, so it cannot be deleted yet.

If you only look at the page history, then you see no sign of deletion or undeletion. You must use the deletion log. --Kernigh 18:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar problem at deletion log for Getting a date. Robert Horning and Guanaco, thank you for allowing discussion to continue! --Kernigh 18:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects for bookshelves?

I've been reading wikipedia lately, and have been introduced to the concept of WikiProjects- groups of people dedicated to improving articles related to a topic. I'm wondering if an equivalent wouldn't be a good idea for wikibooks. I see a lot of books where content is duplicated, in many cases poorly. Or where 1 book tries to hold the entirety of a large subject, and ends up becoming a survey of the subject rather than a good text on one topic of it. The bookshelf that I saw that drove me to this post was Math, but I'm sure its happening in them all. I wonder if a place where editors on a subject could talk, ask for help, give suggestions, etc would help improve the average quality of the books. Does this make sense to anyone else? --Gabe Sechan 20:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly sounds an idea, especially if it makes compiling a book less likely to stall (as currently seems to be the case with Wikijunior Solar System...)  David Kernow 20:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if we should rework the general philosophies here that instead Wikibooks bookshelves become Wikiprojects. This is Wikibook bookshelves as Wikiprojects. Each bookshelf has its own discussion page, and is in many ways just like a portal for many Wikiprojects on Wikipedia as well. It isn't a perfect fit, but it is a way that you can get several like-minded individuals to work together. Also, even each seperate Wikibook is more organized along the lines of a Wikiproject on Wikipedia anyway, so this is more a meta-project space as well. --Rob Horning 14:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyone having a deja vu? I could have sworn that Wikiversity went down this path. (then again, I didn't frequent this site when wikiversity was starting up). --Dragontamer 20:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "100% finished" list

I can't find a page listing all of the completed books. Does such a page exist? Thanks - Xed 20:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you define completed? For some books it isn't too difficult: a high school textbook, say FHSST Physics, is complete when it covers the official national (in this case South African) syllabus. But for others such as Visual_Basic_Classic which is an evolving text treating programming through VB6/5 it is much more difficult because no one declared a list of topics to be covered at the beginning. In fact it is something that I have on my to do list: an outline of the book briefly listing what it is and is not intended to cover. You can get some idea of which books are regarded as complete by looking at the links on the page for the 100% graphic: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Image:100%25.png. --kwhitefoot 22:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It would be difficult to say if a book is done. A nice place to look is in the Book of the Month page. Note: most are not 100% finished, but they are generally well-done. Feel free to help out. :) --Gflores Talk 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

For most users of Wikibooks (i.e. readers), a page listing the completed books would seem to be essential. - Xed 19:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a category listing could be added to the completion percentage templates. But, it probably won't work (haven't actually looked at the templates, it looks like it's just one though) and you'd just end up with 5 very cluttered categories. Xerol Oplan 05:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Now that I look at it, actually, if you look at the "Links" section here, that does exactly what I was describing. Now, it won't help for modules that are complete (as much as you can use the term on a wiki) and NOT marked with the 100% stage, but it's a good start. Xerol Oplan 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborative editing

Please review the projects listed at Engineering Acoustics. There appears to be module ownership occurring here. At least one of these has sported a notice claiming that the page must not be edited by anyone other than its creator, which I have twice removed with a prominent link to the MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning notice that "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Whilst a class project to write a textbook is a laudable one, it should embrace our collaborative editing process, not oppose it, and should embrace the principle of freedom that underpins the GNU Free Documentation License that we use. Wikibooks is not for proprietary works (indeed one of its fundamental aims is to be non-proprietary) yet this is exactly what is occurring here it seems. Uncle G 06:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If it becomes a sore violation of policy, and the contributers resist reasonable participation in the community, this page could easily be hit with a VfD. Of course, we don't want to stand in the way of a learning opportunity, but we do have policy here that needs to be enforced. I will also leave a message on that page, and see if I can get a response from them. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
As they can't prevent anyone editing the page why should anyone care what they want? All that need be done is to notify them that they are misbehaving. If they won't behave it's the contributors who need to be excluded not the content (some of it could be deleted on the grounds that it is just a lab. report). --kwhitefoot 22:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FREE textbooks... can/should they be integrated into Wikibooks?

I've just found some FREE textbooks on the internet, and I'm wondering if these can or should be integrated in the Wikibooks project.

Textbook Revolution (http://www.textbookrevolution.org/) has a lot of Creative Commons licenced books on various topics.

Motion Mountain (http://www.motionmountain.net/) is a free Physics textbook, but is copyrighted, and so it might not be able to be part of Wikibooks.

I haven't looked at the quality of these sites, but I just discovered them and wanted to know if any other Wikibook users knew they existed.

Singingwolfboy 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The ones under copyright definately raise a red flag, but the ones licenced under the Creative Commons licence might be okay. I dont think we should attempt to merge those books into wikibooks, but if contributers happen to gather information from sources online (or better yet, if they reference these FREE books), then i dont think there is a problem. In general, I would warn against any use of Copy+Paste. --Whiteknight TCE 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say that unless someone wants to make significant changes to them they do not belong on Wikibooks. On the other hand if they are good and there is a risk that they might disappear from their original home then they could be copied to Wikisource. Of course this applies only to those that have a GFDL compatible licence, but don't forget that authors want readers and that the author might well be willing to license the book under the GFDL if asked. That's how I got the coding guidelines for Visual Basic Classic, I just asked the copyright holder and he said yes. --kwhitefoot 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Forgot to say that Motion Mountain is an excellent book but is not really a textbook in the modern tradition. Mind you it is all the better for that. Unlike most textbooks Motion Mountain can be read for sheer pleasure as well as the hard information it contains. Instead of exercises it has challenges which are much less amenable to parrot fashion answers. The reader is expected to think as well as read, to examine the subject in depth and develop an understanding rather than merely learn procedures. I'd be surprised if Christoph Schiller were willing to relinquish control of a book that has so clearly cost so much time and effort. --kwhitefoot 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum to Missing Policies

I have started a list of missing policies that would be helpful for Wikibooks to develop and start enforcing. So much that is decided and done around here is based on policies that have never been established. The list is on my user page if you would like to see it. I know some of the policies are perhaps briefly mentioned in other policies, but they should really be explicitly spelled out for people to be able to read and understand. I would appreciate any comments. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked at most of them, and cast my votes on the ones that had open voting. I think that many of these pages arent particularly needed right now at wikibooks, but many of them definately could be of use. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Some may not be absolutely necessary right now, but as WB grows, it is important to have policies decided upon and enforced, or else we fall into the whole "Wikibooks is only for textbooks" thing. Right now there is no policy even saying Admins can block or ban people. I think this needs to be reconciled. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

How is the best way to handle disputes here at Wikibooks? I know the dispute resolution process over at Wikipedia, but am unable to find one here. I don't see Wikibooks as needing anything close to the level of processes over at WP, but I think it is necessary to establish some sort of process early enough before we really need it. I would be interested in working on some sort of dispute resolution process development with a few other people if WB doesn't already have something in place. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What kinds of disputes are you talking about? I guess we dont have much mechanism to solve problems, but it also hasnt come up much before. you could author a new policy on dispute resolution if you have the time and inclination. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Like if two editors have a fight, or an Admin wrongly blocked someone, or a module is in a constant edit war and needs a third opinion. Basically how are we supposed to solve problems that come up? Eventually bringing problems to the Staff Lounge will be unmanagable. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I created page Wikibooks:Wikibooks maintenance, there are some links to disputes. --Derbeth talk 23:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Not exactly the dispute resolution process I was looking for. If I have any time, I'll draft up something more like I had in mind. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 大三夜

I am trying to add a navigation template to the pages here, however they look shite! I would appreciate it if someone can improve the template used, or replace it with a suitable substitute template. Thanks, Gerard Foley 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The template seems to be Template:第三夜Nav. --Kernigh 15:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the one. Any advice? Gerard Foley 22:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CREATIVE COMMONS

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0

I want to add stuff I found I a website to Wikibooks. It uses the Creative Commons License. Is it OK to add? Gerard Foley 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately no. Unless you can arrange with the authors for their content to be cross-licensed under the GFDL (ala GNU Free Documentation License, the license we use) their content cannot be used here. :( GarrettTalk 09:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Over at Wikicities:c:Gameinfo:Battle for Wesnoth, I added some non-GFDL images to a GFDL wiki. I tried to claim "aggregation" because the two licenses (GNU General Public License, GNU Free Documentation License) were incompatible. A similar strategy might work with the CC-BY-SA license; one would insert a small amount of CC-BY-SA text into an existing GFDL wiki module, and mark which text was CC-BY-SA. --Kernigh 15:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
But the CC-BY-NC-SA license is a problem because it prohibits commercial use. Try Garrett's suggestion of asking for a GFDL license, which allows commercial use. --Kernigh 15:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Gerard Foley 22:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answers to copyrighted textbooks

I'm not really sure on this one. Would a WikiBook of detailed methods to solve the questions in a specific copyrighted textbook be legal/appropriate on WikiBooks? I only ask because I already have quite a lot of Maths work already in a TeX'd maths format, which would seem a shame to waste if this would be OK. Odd bloke 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that would fall under the umbrella of "Annotated Texts", which is allowed under current policy. Check out WB:WIW to make sure, but i think you should be fine. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fleecing of Students with Textbook Buyback Programs

Greetings,

I was wondering if there are any organized attempts to increase the amount offered for used textbooks when students attempt to sell them back at the end of the semester; and/or controls on publishers making new editions for minor changes within current editions for the purpose of putting a new product on the shelf? As a student, it's not uncommon to hear each semester of students forced to take a tremendous loss on a book in excellent condition, for a new edition of the same book with only minor changes or renumbered homework problems. I'm sure there are others out there that see something wrong with this system. Any feedback...

Kim, AKA, "Baffled Oldtimer"

One solution is not to buy the books in the first place, and do all your reading on wikibooks! Seriously though, the college textbook market is a travesty of the educational system. Worse then the publishers putting out new versions every year on 100$ books are the professors who insist that the students buy the current version each year, so that all the page numbers line up. I've had 2 professors in my educational career that actually authored their own textbooks, and threatened to fail any students that didnt buy the current version at the beginning of each semester. It's all a shame, That's why i spend so much of my time contributing to wikibooks: because I want to try and alleviate this problem for future generations of students. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
'Tis a shame and a sham. I remember being so excited to get back 40 bucks on 300 dollars worth of new textbooks that were barely touched. I think it has somehting to do with the monopoly some book distributors have on buy-back programs. It might be wise to look into starting a selling program at your school to buy books back from students at a little more than currently offered, and then sell them back to students taking the class next year at a lower price than the bookstore. Not really sure what to do with classes requiring new textbooks every year though. Perhaps just use Half.com or the like. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
What I did was use college newsgroups and similar free advertising sources to announce the books I had, and offer them at a fiar price. Generally I split the difference between the cost of a used book at the bookstore and the price they were buying used books for. I made a bit of cash, he saved a bit, we both went away happy. --Gabe Sechan 21:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I used a combination of techniques and probably spent no more than $300 on textbooks my last two years of college:
  • See if the professor has a copy available on reserve at the library. If not, ask them to put a copy on reserve. Some will, some won't. Usually that will allow you to check it out for a few hours at a time. Beware, though, this can get frustrating during finals week.
  • If you have a friend (or friends) in the class, split the cost or borrow the book.
  • If you won't have to *turn in* homework problems, get an old edition. Sure some of the stuff is different, but it's good enough to pass the tests. Ask former students who will usually sell dirt cheap, go to the discontinued section of your bookstore (they're often steeply discounted, as in 90% off), or look in the library for an old edition.
  • Even if you will have to turn it in, buy an old version, then borrow a new version from a fellow student for a day and photocopy just the homework problems. I believe that's fair use. And if anyone argues it isn't, smile and nod (and do it anyway). Another alternative (for non-shrinkwrapped books) is to buy it, copy the homework problems, and return it.
  • If there's no alternative market at your school for used textbooks, create one! Post up billboards all around the campus with a catchy marketing message such as "Screw the bookstore before they screw you!" then below it, in smaller print, "Buy and sell your books directly to other students to avoid giving the fat pigs at the bookstore a chance to profit off starving students such as yourself." Then end with a website: groups.yahoo.com/U-Mich-Used-Books, and watch the traffic start to come in. Of course, you'll have to create the group first and write a simple introductory message.
Maybe somebody can make a wikibook out of this.--Aaronsama 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I actually keep about 8 out of 10 textbooks I've purchased, and only sell the ones back for dead-end courses. It's a pretty good idea to keep textbooks in your field of study, as they can be good references for future coursework, study guides in general, or just plain relics. I also do tutoring in Accounting at a community college and have an old edition of the textbook in use there--the text material is identical (with the exception of the combination of chapters one and two - which threw off all the page numbers) but the problems are different, which gives me a good amount of supplemental study material to give to my tutees. Xerol Oplan 05:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reiki

Is it OK for Wikibooks to have a book on how to do reiki? Gerard Foley 22:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as it is written as a textbook, that should be fine. Maybe start an overall book of Holistics or Natural Medicine and have that as a section? Just my thoughts though. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I have no interest in Reiki, it's a lot of crap, but I know someone who might. I just don't want to tell him he can write it and then see his work deleted. Gerard Foley 02:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well as long as it is written as a textbook, it should be fine. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. So long as it's a textbook, and it doesnt violate the NPOV or soapbox rules, then it should be okay. Just tell your friend to keep his sentences in the form "Reiki is performed as such...", and not "Reiki is super awesome because..." or even "Reiki is better then the following things...". --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 20:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Gerard Foley 23:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

I notice a systematic occurence of redundancy. ...

Yes. When I see it, I try to follow the advice in Wikibooks:Duplicate_modules. (moved text to Wikibooks talk:Duplicate modules.) --DavidCary 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Programming:Visual Basic .NET

Why is the VB .NET book located here, and not at Visual Basic .NET --Gerard Foley 02:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Because using the Programming namespace for a programming language makes eminent sense? Odd bloke 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether it makes sense or not (I don't particularly like it), the programming books are all located in the Programming: namespace. It's the way it's always been done here, and by having everything uniform, makes pages easier to find. All we need is a few pages to break the mould, and we will have total CS chaos. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Ada Programming moved out of the "Programming:" pseudonamespace; that seems to be the trend. --Kernigh 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there a consensus yet on whether or not to drop the the "Programming:" pseudo-namespace? When I created Programming:Visual Basic Classic it seemed it was almost universal but now there is a drift away from it. So what do people think? As far as I am concerned it is perfectly reasonable to drop the pseudo-namespace but it will mean renaming a lot of pages. As an aside: this illustrates perfectly why relational databases are not necessarily very good at manipulating hierarchical data (Wikibooks backend is a MySQL database I think, (alright MySQL isn't a classical Cobb relational database if you are a purist but it's close enough for engineering purposes :-)). I made all the internal links relative so I shouldn't have to edit many pages, just rename them. Does everyone use relative links? --kwhitefoot 11:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the Programming: namespace, but i can't see a reason why we would want to go out and rename all those pages. I mean, unless you had a bot to do it all, it seems like a huge waste of effort. Just leave well-enough alone I suppose. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
With Opera and tabbled browsing you can rename about a 100 pages in one hour. With middle click you open about 10 pages at once, rename them, close them, next 10. --Krischik T 08:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Still, that's an hour that could otherwise be used to improve the pages, rather than shuffle them around, and I think even one good edit would be a better use of the time. Xerol Oplan 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
If I start working on some book in the "Programming:" false namespace, then I might move it out of the namespace. --Kernigh 04:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This book only has about 5 pages. I don't like it in the programming namespace when other books are not put into a namespace. I am going to rename the pages anyway so is it OK to drop the Programming bit? Gerard Foley 05:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. After all if it's only five pages it can easily be undone. --kwhitefoot 11:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Naming policy and Wikibooks:Policy

There are two point to this. The Wikibooks:Naming policy and Wikibooks:Policy - chapter 4 and 5. The first considers all pseudo-namespaces as obsolete naming convention and while we have not jet agreed on WB:NP this particular point is undisputed. The later outlines a possible future of Programming: - a book to containt all the programming language which have not yet enough support to support a book of there own. I know this is harsh but live is harsh.

Then there is also wikistats which can only detect books which follow Wikibooks:Naming policy. Statistics might not be all - however they can serve as a motivating factor. Especialy since the Stat is sorted by size ;-) .

--Krischik T 08:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raising Hell

I know it seems like I am raising hell, but I think I am going to nominate the entire Pokedex, and related pages for deletion. They are not a textbook, are not a source for academic information, and no class will be taught on Pokemon. There are about a billion modules connected and I just thought I'd give you all fair warning. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants a suggestion of where to send the material, please see the Pokemon Wikicity. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that's a bit rash, especially considering that we havent come to a concensus yet as to whether or not to keep the game manuals. It might not be a bad idea to alert the people who have put so much effort into it that it might come under the proverbial axe blade, but i dont think we need to be rash. I would actually cast a solid vote to keep the game manuals, if it came to a vote. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Game manuals are not textbooks. A book perhaps on Game Theory might be, but have you even seen modules in the Pokedex? They are not textbooks, and never will be. Wikibooks is not a place for random game's walkthroughs, cheat codes, or indices. It is for textbooks. Wikibooks needs to be more serious, and the Pokedex hurts our reputation as a valid resource for educators and students. This should be able to be used as a resource in low-wealth areas such as parts of Asia and Africa as well. What good is the Pokedex going to do a 12-year-old Nigerian boy trying to learn? What about that 8-year-old Thai girl? This just isn't the place. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it is some people's beliefs that wikibooks should only be textbooks. That is not the original mission statement, nor has it ever been how wikibooks has operated. Not even in its earliest days, when the point of wikibooks would have been well understood as it was just created. There is no consensus at this time that wikibooks is textbook only- if anything it seems to be the opposite.
Hell, if we go by 12 year old Nigerian boys and 8 year old Thai girls, we need to delete just about everything? What good is a book on Calculus or Quantum Mechanics to them? We'd need to limit our wikibooks to "How not to starve" and "Working in a sweat shop". <sarcasm>Of course neither of those would qualify, as they aren't taught in classes and thus aren't textbooks either. </sarcasm>--Gabe Sechan 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you know what I mean. This should be usefule for teachers and professors and especially students (no matter how old). And to quote the history of Wikibooks, "Wikibooks, previously called Wikimedia Free Textbook Project and Wikimedia-Textbooks, is a sister project to Wikipedia and is part of the Wikimedia foundation, begun on July 10, 2003", so originally it was just for textbooks. Somewhere along the lines, the intent and purpose was corrupted. Saying it wasn't for textbooks is just a fallacy. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Example: I have many non-fiction books on my shelves relating to wolves, wolf biology, history, etc. Despite never having seen a textbook on them, I think I would get support for a The Wolf Wikibook. But what about a book on something more specific, like the history of the wolves since their reintroduction to Yellowstone? I have books on that subject, but calling them textbooks would be an incredible stretch. Where do you draw the line? (I think without a very solid line very, very clearly defined somewhere, this discussion will be extremely difficult to advance.) --Telamon 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't. You have conflicting arguments, one of which is dead wrong, the other of which is asinine. The dead wrong one is that this site is or ever has been textbooks only. It is not, and never has been. The purpose of the site is instructional books, not merely textbooks. Textbooks are a major part of the site, arguably the most important part. But not the only part. The asinine part is that if an instructional book is not useful for third world nations, then it isn't applicable to wikibooks. Even ignoring the fact that what third worlders need to know most would eliminate most wikibooks that both of us think should be here, this is still not a prerequisite for wikibooks. Third worlders don't need english lit or US history- yet we have wikibooks for each. They also don't need instruction manuals on how to use obscure electronics- yet we have those too. The fact that they are unlikely to play pokemon does not mean that its a reason for it to be eliminated from wikibooks. Hell, not even wikipedia would agree with you- there are articles there on pokemon. If you followed that line of thought, it would need to delete every article on every movie, game, book, TV show, musician, artist ever written from both sites- a significant amount of material and time spent. And much of it useful under the right circumstances.--Gabe Sechan 23:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, stop it. By this time, we all know what Wikibooks is for. It has specifically been outlined by Jimbo.' As Jimbo has the right to speak for the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation, I am inclined to agree with him on how their website should be run. And I quote, "This is for textbooks, not joke books, not random books on any subject you like. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." (emphasis added). And I don't mean that only people in third world countryies should be able to use Wikibooks, and to try and paint my comments in such a light is dead wrong. I simply meant that the purpose of this project (to provide free, open-source textbooks) ties in with the overall mission of the Wikimedia Foundation (to provide the sum of human knowledge and to be accessible by everyone... even those in third world countries). Stop trying to continue this fallacy that any random subject matter is appropriate for Wikibooks. We get crap dumped on us from Wikipedia, and for too long we just said, "Hey, why not? We might attract more editors here if we had this. I know it doesn't really fall into line with was Wikibooks actually is, but who cares... we need more editors." Well this thinking has to stop. And if that means losing editors (even great ones) then so be it. This might not be the wiki for them. This is for editors who want to help write free textbooks. Everyone else is expendible. I know I am harsh and am probably losing any chance at adminship here, but someone needs to stand up for Wikibooks and it might as well be me. Sorry for the diatribe. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Apparently we don't all know what wikibooks is for, as for some obscure reason you insist its only for textbooks. It isn't. Its for non-fiction books that follow a series of other criteria (NPOV, no original research, etc). This includes, but is not limited to, textbooks. It also includes a variety of other book types. Seeing as how Jimbo hasn't been back since saying three specific books ought to be deleted, the only one on a crusade to change the site and what it accepts is you. Please just stop and go back to doing something useful for the site- like contributing content. Maybe even on a textbook.--Gabe Sechan 17:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

(De-indenting) First, let me call your baloney. There are a few others trying, or even want, to hold up the integrity and reputation of Wikibooks.

Second, did you not even read what I wrote? What exactly do you think Wikibooks was founded for? As a retard-dump for out-of-place Wikipedia articles? I'm sorry that I am the one who has to be so vocal about this, but I'm not about to let you and your kind ramrod this crap down my throat. Let me quote again, since you apparantly missed it the first time: "This is for textbooks, not joke books, not random books on any subject you like. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." (emphasis added) I think Jimbo knows a little bit more about the goals than you do.

Third, I am doing something constructive for this site. Do you have any idea how many missing policies are around here? You quote "no original research", do you have any idea what that actually means? No, because there is no policy defining it. Should we even be deleting anything? Porbably not, because the Deletion policy isn't even approved of yet. I could tell you to "die, mother fucker, i'm coming to stab you", because there is no "No personal attacks" policy. I could threaten to sue you if you even write on this board again, because there is no "No legal threats" policy. I seem to be one of the few that actually cares what happens here. I am trying to keep Wikibooks as a serious project that can be used as a useful resource. Sorry if you want this place to be shoddy, I don't. I can edit where I please, so don't try lecturing me on being useful. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So you continue to quote a page that was recently edited and under dispute. Much of the quote isn't even by your hero Jimbo (check the history). It proves nothing. Wikibooks is, and always has been, a repository of non-fictional books. It has never been restricted to textbooks. Its you who are undermining the integrity of wikibooks, by trying to change its definition and thus eliminate large amounts of good, solid content with your narrow views. And you are the only one- I don't see anyone else with you on your crusade. If you want to bring it to a vote, try it. You'll lose badly. Otherwise drop it. We get that you think that wikibooks should be textbooks only. Your wishes doesn't make it so.--Gabe Sechan 18:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not even going to argue with you any longer. You are just the kind of person that will never get it. I get that Jimbo didn't say the entire thing, but obviously he didn't have a problem with it. Jimbo is not "my hero", but I think he knows a little bit more about this project than you and your ilk. Your wishes that Wikibooks should include shoddy pieces of crap like the Pokedéx and other general junk doesn't make it so either. I don't doubt there is a lot of content that we would lose, but this wiki might not be the place for it, or you. Try the Pokemon Wikicity... it might be more your level. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Keep Wikibooks Pokédex

If the Pokedex goes to VFD, then I will vote keep.

  1. The Pokedex is essentially a macropedia (banned by WB:WIW). A typical page like Wikibooks Pokédex:Farfetch'd contains tables, but it does not give instructions. However...
    • The Wikibooks Pokédex module explicitly says that it is a part of Pokémon. As part of the larger strategy guide for these video games, the macropedia is acceptable.
    • The main reason for the WB:WIW rule is to put encyclopedia information on Wikipedia, which has a Pokemon article. But Wikipedia:Farfetch'd does not contain the tables from Wikibooks Pokédex:Farfetch'd, and WB:WIW allows Wikipedia articles to be extended into Wikibooks in this manner.
  2. To quote LV: They are not a textbook, are not a source for academic information, and no class will be taught on Pokemon. It is a textbook; the information might not be academic but it is useful to certain video game players. A school class might not teach this material in lecture, but could still use it as a textbook. Some schools have classes for video games (studying the games themselves in addition to making new ones).

I created the page Wikibooks talk:Game manual guidelines for a discussion on whether Wikibooks should ban game guides. However, most opponents of game guides only associated them with Jokebook, Naturism, and Getting a date, the three books that Jimbo Wales wanted to delete. Those three books had problems that the game guides did not; they were debated at WB:VFD and WB:VFU.

I had argued that game guides (1) are textbooks (2) are allowed by WB:WIW. --Kernigh 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is, are they allowed by Jimbo? He's tightening policy and all that. And here I quote from one of his diffs, "This is for textbooks, not joke books, not random books on any subject you like. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." Judging by that line, game guides are definite goners, as they are certainly not the subject of classes other than being examples of game design or violence in media or whatnot. Hm. Wasn't someone (LV?) going to ask Jimbo about this? Anyway, we need an answer from him, and the policy page needs to be amended to reflect that. GarrettTalk 06:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried contacting him, but people here don't seem to care what Jimbo says. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you are getting a little too worked up about this. We still havent put the issue to a vote, and game manuals have not yet been officially declared to be against policy, not even by Jimbo. I do admit that perhaps the pokemon wikicity might be a better place for this, but until we lay it down as policy, there is no sense throwing a fit about it. Live and let live for now, we don't need to step on anybody's toes unnecessarily. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

' A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class' is a ludicrous definition of the word textbook. My personal library is full of books that I consider, and are often described by the publishers, as textbooks but which would definitely not be usuable in their entirety for study in an 'existing class'. A better definition is 'a book used as a standard work for the study of a subject' (from http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=textbook&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname), unfortunately for most of us that is in some ways an even more restrictive test than Mr Wales'. It does, however, have the advantage that it does not not tie you down to a narrow definition of study. To give one example: 'The Handyman's Complete Self Instructor' published by Odhams. This is definitely a textbook, it has theory, practice and exercises but what class would use it? It covers house building, decorating, radio receivers (theory and practice), the theory of internal combustion engines, and much more. It was published in the heyday of self-improvement when an enthusiastic person might expect to make serious progress through independent study. No class would ever have used it as its principal text and quite likely no one person would be interested in every chapter. If we are to take literally the constraint that a book must be usable in an existing class then we must have a description of the syllabus that the class follows in order to determine whether or not the book qualifies. For me a much more telling objection to the Pokemon modules is their lack of exercises, they read more like an operating manual than a textbook and the user is merely informed of facts, never challenged to use them to generate anything new. --kwhitefoot 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A class might not be a class at school, nor one with a syllabus. It might only be "a group, collection, category or set sharing characteristics or attributes", for example, the class of all Pokemon users, instead of the class at school that studies whichever type of game includes Pokemon. --Kernigh 05:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Dispute resolution

I have started a page to discuss various methods of dispute resolution. Community input would be appreciated. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starting a Wikibook project

I am looking at the option of developing free-open source training materials for the fire service. I am trying to figure out how does one start a project. How do I do that and where can I go to read more about it?

Thanks

You may want to start here: Help:How to start a book. However, Wikibooks is under some dispute over what content should be allowed. Try to keep your book as academic as possible. That will probably disuade any argument. See you around. By the way you can Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Helps with the reading a bit. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am new to this snakepit of endless wrangling. I am interested in editing a crummy old public domain translation into a modern edition. (A novel by Tolstoy.) Obviously, a translated version of a novel by Tolstoy could be used in a classroom, so it appears to fit the definition of a Wikibook mentioned several times above. This could turn into a whole series of modernized, public domain translations of classic fiction (and non-fiction, later). As I explained when discussing this over at GP, this would involve changing the mode of expression of a translator, not editing Tolstoy. The Gutenburg folks try to faithfully reproduce old works, not create new ones, so they suggested I try here. Is this within the Wikibook concept of itself? ~~~~ --Gene (sorry, I am not conversant with all these codes; I just got here.)

Well, annotated works are allowed, but if you want to put a full work, you might want to try Wikisource (another Wikimedia project). They are a repository for complete works. I hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another Language

Before I say anything, I just want to say that I love this site, it's so awesome and has great information...keeps me really busy at work when it's slow. I just find this part of your website, wikibooks and notice that you have an area on learning a different language which is cool. But you don't have an area on learning Latvian, which is strange considering you have an option to change the language format of Wikipedia to Latvian. My wife is a Latvian and I always wanted to learn how to speak her language to her as a surprise gift without her knowing I learned it. I was hoping that you could start including that language in the Wikibooks too. Well I hope that it happens, if not, I'll still keep this in my favorites.

Thanks

Craig

We don't have one because noone who knows both Latvian and English has volunteered their time to write one yet. It would definitely be welcomed content. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Latvian is limited to the fact it exists. Maybe you could talk your wife into writing it to help us all out :) --Gabe Sechan 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another controversial subject

I draw your attention to How to troll. Uncle G 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering what to do with this issue. I initially wanted to mark it for speedy deletion, but it seems to be... well, quite funny. I decided to mark it as controvercial with {{attention}} template.
BTW, should we discuss such issues here in staff lounge? There are already some pages for such cases (WB:WM). Maybe we should make a clear policy what to do with problematic pages, rethink pages like Wikibooks:Accuracy dispute and their templates. --Derbeth talk 09:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
If someone wants to fix this module, then I might change my vote at WB:VFD#How to troll. It is current 6 delete, 0 keep. --Kernigh 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User JackHagrit ask a question

User JackHagrit] Thanks for the swift reply back. Thank You.Jack Sorenson.

[edit] Proposed Sexual Health Wikibook

I threw together a proposed outline for a book on sexual health on my user page. I think that a book like this could be a wonderful resource where people with serious questions about the subject can come to get serious and helpful answers. I do realize however a few important facts:

  1. I am not exactly an expert on the topic myself
  2. Such a book would probably invite a higher-then-average amount of vandalism
  3. some of the topics (birth control, STDs, sexual education in general) are hot-button topics, and would bring in alot of controversy.

Despite the hardships, I think that this book could still potentially be an excellent resource, and the type of serious, helpful book that could really help wikibooks out in general. I wanted to get some feedback on the current outline (which i threw together pretty quickly) before any motions were made to actually introduce this book onto a bookshelf. Comments and suggestions are welcome both here and on the page itself. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 20:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a Sexual Psychology book with some of the same topics, but almost no actual content. --Kernigh 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I have seen that book. Unfortunately, sexual psychology just can't cover all the same topics. Especially topics about hygene, contraception, disease, etc.. just can't be covered in a psychology book. Now, we could rename and expand that book to cover all these topics, but i dont know if that's the best idea. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This book sounds like an excellent albeit difficult idea. I have some comments.

  • The "Transmitting disease via Anal and Oral sex" subtopic is misplaced under "Fertility and Infertility". I assume that that's basically a typo.
  • Consider adding material on circumcision and so-called female circumcision. The latter is not so relevant in the US where presumably it is rare—however, we have a world-wide audience. Be aware that (male) circumcision is far more a hot button topic than you might expect. There is an amazing amount of near-insane fanaticism, both pro and con, over this little snip.
  • Consider adding material on abortion and selective reduction. Well, out of the frying pan and into the fire concerning hot button topics.
  • Consider adding material on such abortifacients as Mifepristone (RU-486) and emergency contraceptives as Levonorgestrel (Plan B).

Note that, for the last three items, you should take the "consider adding" (as opposed to "please add") part seriously. I did not intend them as topics that need to be added, but rather ones that could possibly be worthing of adding. I could very well see you thinking some or all of them as too tangential to include, or too controversial to be worth the headache or whatever. --JMRyan 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to add a heading for abortion, but i realize all too well that that page could quickly get out of control. It would be hard to add a page that is completely non-biased. The emergency abortifacients could be mentioned, but we can't recommend them as good ideas: that would only start a flame war. Also, if you see any typos on that page, feel free to edit them out, or to add your own ideas. It's only an outline afterall, and the more pre-planning we do now, the better the book will be when (if) we introduce it --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 23:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at Amazon, there are dozens of fertility books (for women who want to get pregnant) and ZERO birth control books (for women who don't want to get pregnant). Seems like a big need there. The best birth control info I've seen is the chapter in "Our Bodies, Our Selves." I would be happy to let you use a section about STDs I wrote for my book "Hearts and Minds." My advice re. avoiding STDs differs from the "conventional wisdom," you might find it interesting. I can e-mail the chapter to you in MS Word format. If my signature doesn't appear, e-mail me at kehoe@casafuturatech.com.

[edit] Anon users can't create new pages

On wikipedia, Jimbo has established a new policy that anonymous users cannot create new pages, but are instead restricted to only editing current pages. This change was enacted after some amount of controversy involving a vandalized page that remained un-reverted for a very long length of time. I don't propose that wikibooks has all the same problems as wikipedia, but I am wondering if perhaps we don't need a similar safeguard. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. We have to few contributors and anons are creating many pages. If more sysops watched recent changes, there would be no problems with vandals. --Derbeth talk 23:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Derbeth, anything that discourages contributors is definitely not a good idea. I can easily imagine good reasons for a contributor wanting to remain anonymous (think about writing a book that discusses abortion, Scientology, etc.). On the front page of Wikibooks it says 'Welcome to Wikibooks, a collection of open-content textbooks that anyone can edit.' Let's cross that bridge when we reach it. Also, did Jimbo Wales establish that policy unilaterally, or was there a consensus on Wikipedia for the change? --kwhitefoot 07:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know all the specifics of the action, but i know that it was deemed news enough to appear on slashdot. I also did a quick test where i signed out and tried to create a new page on the 'pedia and i couldnt. I think Jimbo may have made that decision unilaterally. Also, nobody is saying that anonymous users can't contribute, they are only saying that an anonymous user can't create a new page. Why would we want a bunch of vandals being able to come in here and create a bunch of pages like Wiki is stupid or UR GAY ROFLS? Ordinary users then can't help to revert this vandalism, it falls on the backs of sysops to fix this stuff. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 13:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Not just slashdot, it was on the BBC too: . --kwhitefoot 07:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Ordinary users can help. That's what the speedy deletion tags are for. Uncle G 18:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's expressed intent with this change is to slow the new page rate at Wikipedia down to a level where the current level of new page patrollers can manage it. I disagree strongly with the notion implicit in the change that anonymity implies bad faith. As someone who does New Page Patrol both here and at Wikipedia, I can report that there is no need for any such measure here, if reducing the new page rate is its aim. Wikibooks does not suffer from the deluge of rubbish that Wikipedia does. Uncle G 18:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Seconded. Wikibooks does not suffer Wikipedia's problems. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, when this change was mentioned on foundation-l (which I now read), it was described as an experimental change. The most significant problem is that anonymous users now cannot contribute to Wikipedia through red links. Also from reading foundation-l, I get the idea that a few English Wikipedia users now think that it is OK to deter new users instead of welcoming them when the new users make mistakes.

Jimbo was smart to try the experimental change on English Wikipedia, which has almost no need for new users and new pages when compared to other wikis, such as this one. --Kernigh 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User styles and monobook.js

I think that perhaps we could use a guide for creating style changes using monobook.js and monobook.css. for that matter, maybe we could just use a good guide to the skins here on wikibooks. on the 'pedia these kinds of tools and things are relatively popular, but on here they are unheard of. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 23:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should invent something already exists. We can just give links to Wikipedia articles. --Derbeth talk 23:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines that this topic could go into a "how to wiki" wikibook. This way, we could cover lots of topics. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 23:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If the scope of the book would be using wikis in general, and not just editing in the wiki-project style, it could be VERY helpful. In the last few weeks I've help set up a few wikis for certain communities, but a good portion of the users aren't using the wiki markup to anything near its potential, and so far I've only been able to link to scattered wikipedia/meta pages. I'd be glad to help out with this. Xerol Oplan 05:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that meta is essentially the "how to wiki" handbook. It doesnt make alot of sense to reinvent the wheel. I admit, however, that meta can be a little difficult to navigate, it doesnt have the format of a good textbook, and it requires users to navigate over to the other server. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 05:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The difference is that it's not really organised as a handbook, merely a collection of syntax references, and is also specific to the style guidelines of wiki-projects. As such, a lot of the material is only relevant to that, and you have to slough through that material to get to the general wiki-editing information that's useful on ALL wikis. Xerol Oplan 05:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can I advertise a Wiki site on Wikipedia?

Hello! I'm currently working on a website that is part Wiki, but will also present non-editable information (a compilation of experts' opinions) in HTML help format. Naturally it will be free to all visitors, but because I have to eat, I hope to sell advertising on it. When it's ready, I'd like to make current Wiki users aware of it -- what is the best way to do this? Can I buy an ad? If so, how much would it cost?

Many thanks!

67.185.211.249 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)Becky Scott, Lansing, Michigan, beckyrps AT comcast DOT net

  • While this question would be better suited for Wikipedia (since that is what you are asking about), I think I can answer it. Wikipedia does not sell ad space. If your wiki is a valid source or resource, you can just add it to the bottom of the article on the topic that your wiki covers. WP does not allow too many vanity links, so make sure it is germane to the article. But, no, there is no rule stopping sites with ads from being placed on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks does not endorse any business and it does not set up affiliate programs.. And the same is true for Wikipedia. Uncle G 18:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see that several other wiki already sell advertising. The biggest one I know of is http://wikicities.com/ . Wikicities sells advertising in the form of Google ads. To get an ad posted there, I think (?) you buy them from Google http://www.google.com/ads/ .
Please do add a link to your wiki in the appropriate location.
--DavidCary 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backing up and working offline

Hi. After spending a not insignificant amount of time on a wikibook that I am largely running, I am scared about the possibility of a wikibooks crash and the loss of all my painstaking work. Is there an easy way to locally back-up a wikibook (without going into edit for every page and copying the text and pasting it into a word file and saving it). Also, is there a way for me to make and see the results of wiki on my computer when I'm not online (obviously I can write the mark-up, but I can't see what it looks like). If there is a way to make a wikibook locally, is it possible to have the images all ready locally and then upload them all in one go? At the moment the image upload page is a one at a time job, which is a little labour intensive.

May I also take the opportunity to say thank-you to whoever it is that deserves my thanks in making and maintaining this site. It is truely amazing and beautiful. Demipomme 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to locally keep specific modules, but you can get all of them from a database dump. That's probably not what you are looking for. I don't think there is a way to view wiki programming outside of a wiki. If you are really worried, perhaps create a user subpage on Wikipedia or another wiki much less likely to crash. But saving them as a word file would work too. Sorry I couldn't be more of a help... it may have been better if I had just let someone who could explain better tell you.
As to the thank you... everyone maintains this site (even you, so thanks). Just keep up the good work. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
You might want to look at Wikibooks:Mirrors and forks; there are some sites that have copies of everything from Wikibooks. Also MetaWikipedia:Wikimedia servers describes the servers, which are the same ones that host Wikipedia. There are at least 100 servers in different parts of the world, so this wiki does not fail easily. --Kernigh 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

is there a way for me to make and see the results of wiki on my computer when I'm not online? Well, in theory you could install w:MediaWiki on your personal computer. There are a *lot* of people who install wiki software on their own personal computer ( http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PersonalWiki ) -- most wiki software is fairly easy to install. Unfortunately, the MediaWiki software is (according to rumors I've heard) too complicated for most people. (Is there some other, simpler-to-install wiki that uses MediaWiki-style markup?)

image upload page is ... is a little labour intensive. Unfortunately, that's true on most web sites -- but people are coming up with some clever ideas to simplify the Visual:LongImageIncorporationProcess.

--DavidCary 05:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll feel a little safer knowing there are "at least 100 servers"! And I'll create a back-up page as per the post below to back-up the html. Cheers.

I use a local cacheing proxy server called SmartCache to keep a local copy of all my web browsing (well, not quite all, just the important bits). When I want to keep a snapshot of part of a web site I use HTTrack. SmartCache lets you browse the pages you have visited just as though you were on line, HTTrack can copy entire web sites or parts of web sites to your local disk and rewrite the internal links so that the site works just by opening the files in a browser. I haven't tried HTTrack on WikiBooks yet so I'm not sure how easy it is to confine it to a single book. You could also use wget. These techniques will give you the rendered pages so they aren't exactly backups of the source but they would be enough to recreate the content. Please use common sense when using such mirroring tools so that you don't overload the servers. --kwhitefoot 21:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] easy way to locally back-up a wikibook

There is an easy way to back up the rendered HTML output for an entire book in one fell swoop. For example, you can go to Programming:C_plus_plus:All_Chapters or Python/Print version and tell your browser to save that one page, which contains the rendered HTML output for the latest version of every page in the entire book.

I'd be happy to help you set up a similar page for any other book. (Check out how the w:Wikipedia:Transclusion "transclusion" is done if you want to do it yourself).

Alas, I don't know any way to back up the raw Wikitext other than going to each page manually, hitting the "edit" button, and copy-and-pasting it into a local text file.

--DavidCary 05:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a datadump service somewhere... here it is: http://download.wikimedia.org/ That includes all wikimedia projects. --Dragontamer 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archive_8"