Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Origins

Initial text adapted from w:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --mav 08:12 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And it's caused us much confusion ever since. ;-) - Aya T C 16:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for major policy overhaul

Original e-mail from User:KelvSYC at: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2005-July/002415.html

Reply from User:Robert Horning at: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2005-July/002416.html

My original plan was to try to get all 'policy' pages such as WB:WIN, etc., onto Meta, but I don't think it's going to be practical. The alternative is that each Wikimedia project remains autonomous, and has its own policy pages. It just seems a shame that many (at least en.wikipedia.org and en.wikibooks.org) shared common policies (such as w:WP:NPOV and WB:NPOV) which become desychronized over time. One of the keys rules for a DBA (database administrator) is that each datum should have one, and only one, canonical location, otherwise you end up with contradictary data. But how did things end up so confusing?

A brief history of Wikimedia

First of all, I haven't been around that long, so some of this is guesswork.

It all started with the project now hosted at en.wikipedia.org. The idea being to collaboratively create a generalized encyclopedia with no (apparent) limitation on its scope. That is to say, entries in any natural language were considered 'fair game', and some users felt it was appropriate to create extensive entries such as 'How to play chess', and the like. The scope also allowed entries pertaining to concepts which were very specific to Wikipedia, its users, and their culture.

At some point, someone (perhaps Jimbo?) decided this was going to get in the way of creating an encyclopedia, so a number of other Wikimedia projects were set up, in the hopes that this data could be transferred to a more appropriate location.

The Wikipedia project was split up into different language codes. This was probably a good idea. It would be impossible to administer a site containing text in a dozen languages you don't understand. I realize that some people speak multiple languages, but I doubt anyone speaks all of the languages for which a Wikipedia current exists.

Meta-Wiki was put in place to take on all the Wikipedia-specific concepts, including policy, but it was only used for a short while, after which it all moved back to Wikipedia. The only roles it now serves are as a host to pages about the myriad 'associations of <something> Wikipedians', and as a place to post news about, and arrange translations between, projects. It also ended up as a dumping ground for content that users were told was 'inappropriate for Wikipedia'.

Wikibooks was created for the much larger articles which had enough text to constitute a whole book on the subject, but has also ended up as a dumping ground for encyclopedia-length articles.

Wiktionary was created for the shorter, dictionary-length entries, which were felt to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. This project has actually worked quite nicely, although it will always have minor scope overlap with Wikipedia, since the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is generally a dictionary-length definition, and where multiple meanings exist for the same word, they generally exist as both a Wiktionary entry, and a Wikipedia disambiguation page.

Over time, some content was transferred, while some was not. Since each project had its own 'what <project> is/isn't' page, users changed its scope over time as well. The endless cycle continues today:

  1. Create a new wiki
  2. Create a badly-defined scope
  3. Fill it with inappropriate content
  4. When it becomes unmanagable, goto 1

What the projects need is centralized management, but with the flexibilty and freedom to post what you like, where you like, combined with the fact that there's a negligable amount of responsibility as to who should be sorting it out, I don't think it's ever going to work.

But what is a wiki anyway?

I guess at its most basic, it's a mapping of key/value pairs. The key is the name of a page, and the value is the text on that page. For some wikis it's pretty obvious how this mapping should work. The page named 'Programming' on Wiktionary and Wikipedia are fairly obvious, but what about Wikibooks? Should it be a book on programming? Or should that data fall into a subpage of a book on computers? e.g. 'Computers/Programming'. The point is that the MediaWiki software is a poor choice for a project intending to create books.

Back on topic

First of all, using a 'What <project> is not' page as a means to determine scope is a rather strange idea. See the paragraph starting with 'The asymmetry of not' at http://abelard.org/category/category.htm#zero_error for an explanation. Personally, I think something along the lines of User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks#The goal of Wikibooks might be better, which is really just an elaboration of the fundamental policy that 'Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks'. That's all you really need. I don't know where you got the phrase 'instructional material' from, but looking in a dictionary, the word 'instructional' would not preclude biographical material. Creating more pages such as WB:IM and WB:RM in addition to WB:WIN may just make things worse, as there is always the possibility that a user will find one of these pages, and not the other.

My own view is to throw away the page WB:WIN, and use the page Wikibooks:About to define the scope in a more positive fashion. The exclusions listed in WB:WIN could still be a part of this page. The advantage of the page Wikibooks:About is that it's highly visible (just click on the word 'Wikibooks' on the Main page to get there). Most new users will probably just read that, not bother reading anything else, and just get on with their editing. Meta uses the page m:Meta:About for this purpose.

WB:HNS should be merged into WB:NC, and the colon separator should perhaps be dropped completely, since many users are too lazy to provide backlinks to their book's main pain. As for WB:MOS, that doesn't even exist. I don't recommend creating it, since it will be a fork of w:WP:MOS. Remember forks are evil. My own view is that any parts of Wikipedia's version which are relevant to all Wikimedia projects (most of it in fact) should be moved to Meta, and a new section added which pertains only to Wikibooks.

I noticed a lot of people are creating their own standards (MOSs) for individual book projects, and including the standards in subpages of the books. This is perhaps a better idea than having one big MOS containing everything.

I could go on for ages, but I'll stop here for now, to put a bit more thought into the problems. I still believe that the 'all policy should be on Meta' is right (just read m:Meta:About). I think what I need to do to fix it, is to get admin privs on meta, and tidy up the whole damn thing. I've made a start (m:Directory and m:Policy), but I'll need to make changes to m:Main page to make it much clearer as to what the hell it's all about. - Aya T C 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is time for some more organization and policy review. "What Wikibooks is not" also seems kind of strange to me and I like the idea of simply stating it in positive terms in the "about" page. I was thinking about an organizational division between
  • textbooks,
  • study guides,
  • non-textbook books and how-to's, including non-serious material,
  • lesson plans and other didactic materials.
I might mention that it always seemed to make more sense to me to house everything on the same website, the encyclopedia, dictionary and textbook materials at least. Maybe someday it will all move to Wikipedia and we can just click a tab to switch between the different sister projects. --Karl Wick 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
We certainly need a more clear cut definition of what Wikibooks is, and hence what it is not. The current definition has been causing problems on VfD. But, that's part of a wider problem with VfD, whereby some people vote to keep or delete a book depending only on how much they like it. Our most important polices (permitted content, naming conventions, rules of conduct, etc.) should be more visible, and presented in a concise form for newcomers. Neglecting to complete edit summaries seems to be the rule, maybe we need to apply some pressure to change that. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Personally, empty edit summaries don't bother me for the most part, since I don't necessarily trust that they match the actual edit. That is to say, I will always check the diff. The only time they're important is when the edit is contentious, especially when removing content from a page. I will almost always revert an unexplained deletion. - Aya T C 16:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of policies

All those pages about policies should be categorized, and those categories should be subcategories of another category like Category:Wikibooks policies and guidelines. Maybe we can get some ideas from Wikipedia, for example the w:Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is also a subcategory of w:Category:Wikipedia. --surueña 11:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you read WB:PAG, you will notice that the following categories already exist:
Pages are automatically added to those categories when you include the appropriate template in the page. I have made all those a subcategory of Category:Wikibooks policies. That should suffice for now. - Aya T C 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behavioral policies

After seeing a three-year old version of a Wikipedia policy be revived and reading the above comments, I propose that:

Wikibooks should treat the behavioral policies listed on w:Wikipedia:List of policies as one entity, and vote on whether to enact them all and use the next versions of those policies, created on Wikipedia (provided that they aren't radically different, sort of like agreeing to license your work under the next GFDL version).

Benefits:

  1. All behavioral policies are written in the same spirit, and with the same goal in mind
  2. Wikipedia's policies have had several years of field-testing and corrections
  3. Behavioral policies are general, all-purpose rules that are not unqiue to any wiki

--अagin·ძaz 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea, I agree with you. We should not waste time trying to invent something that is ready on Wikipedia. I don't think wikietiquette should be different on Wikibooks and Wikipedia. --Derbeth talk 12:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Eleven new, somewhat verbose policies taken from a sister wiki that is not noted for its friendliness? I really hope not. What about one single concise behaviour policy (if we really need to have something formal). After all, what do we really need to say? My thoughts are:
Rule 1: Be nice.
Rule 2: If you break rule 1 then other wikibookians will take appropriate action to encourage you to be nice.
Rule 3: If you really do refuse to be nice, you will end up being blocked (though may be unblocked later if you offer credible evidence that you will abide by Rule 1).
Ok, we might need a bit more than this, but probably not too much, Jguk 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
One single policy is also a good idea. Really anything is better than having a dozen various policies, with half being enforced and half only proposed. But a simple three-rule policy runs the risk of growing longer and longer to handle upcoming circumstances. Of course we may be able to keep it simple, but there's a reason Wikipedia has all those policies. Assuming Wikibooks is eventually going to become as large as Wikipedia, we need to be prepared for the future. And a reasonable set of time-tested policies already happens to exist. --✉haginძazt\c 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

there's a reason Wikipedia has all those policies. Yes, but what is that reason? People like me suspect that reason is apathy: old policies tend accumulate like barnacles long after they become irrelevant, and there is no pressure to get rid of them. --70.189.77.59 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganising this page

I'd like to reorganise this page quite dramatically and, therefore, have deceided not to be too bold and consult with the community beforehand.

I think the page would be more sensible for the user if the page grouped policies and guidelines according to their status, rather than treating them one after the other (in its present form, we might as well split the page in two).

I'm thinking:

  1. Definition of terms.
  2. Procedures
    1. Formulating policies and guidelines
    2. Enforcing policies
  3. Enforced policies.
  4. Accepted guidelines.
  5. Proposals
  6. Obsolete
  7. Rejected

--Swift 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, this page always has been a bit of an eyesore, in my opinion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of terms

I've cleaned this up for clarity. I commented the "Wikibooks * ..." parts out since I don't really think they are necessary. Their meaning is simply so obvious. As for the must/should, these have a subtle difference which is good to clarify. I'd still like to slim that section down a bit.

I'm still not sure how to word the official/obsolete/rejected/proposed definitions. --Swift 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also acted on my slimming down on the must/should definitions as threatened earlier. --Swift 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to categorization

Currently, we have several categories which I'd like to see changed/merged. See table:

Category Template New category New template
Category:Wikibooks enforced policies {{enforced}} Category:Wikibooks policies {{policy}}
Category:Wikibooks guidelines {{guideline}} same both
Category:Wikibooks obsolete policies {{obsolete|<new one>}} Category:Wikibooks obsolete policies and guidelines same
Category:Wikibooks rejected policies {{rejected}} Category:Wikibooks rejected policies and guidelines {{rejected}}
Category:Wikibooks rejected guidelines {{rejected guideline}}
Category:Wikibooks proposed policies {{proposed}} Category:Wikibooks proposed policies and guidelines {{proposed}}
Category:Wikibooks proposed guidelines {{proposed guideline}}

The rationale for merging the proposed policy and guideline categories is that, at least recently, proposals have been switched between the two, and being able to discuss which it should be would be a useful option without much beurocracy. The category page could also be used to coordinate which PAG proposal was currently being discussed. As for the rest of them, I think seperating them into seperate categories serves little purpose (except in the current official ones).

The names begin to sound a little odd, though, so I've been wondering if there is a nice collective term for "policies and guidelines" (and even essays?). The best I've come up with is "principles", but that might just confuse and complicate. --Swift 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is now mostly done. There is now an over-arching category, Category:Wikibooks policies and guidelines, for all PAG matters. It should contain everything.
The only two outstanding issues are to run through everything and make sure there aren't any typos, mistakes and inconsistancies, and to make sure everything is categorized properly (pipe what needs to be piped so that it appeas at the correct place in lists etc.) --Swift 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforced and Official

I'm inlcined to start using "official" instead of "enforced" when referring to a policy or guideline. It seems odd that a policy should be enforced without being official and vice versa.

Essentially, there are some policies that are simply "generally accepted" without having been voted on (these would be enforced, but not official; though the page makes it seem that these aren't labelled as enforced). I'd say, we brand these as "official" as well (and, if need be, vote on them).

Using the term enforced for guidelines (as is currently done) also seems a little odd. --Swift 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}} now use "official". --Swift 06:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] these need some explanation

Under style guidelines, there is listed

# Use color sparingly
# Use subheads sparingly

why?? I'm not going to follow arbitrary guidelines for no reason whatsoever. Subheadings provide structure. Colour can be very illuminating. Why not do what works? Other similar 'one liners' are also owed some explanation. --pfctdayelise 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The color one, i think, just makes things more readable, especially for people who are colorblind, or who need high-contrast settins in their browser. Sometimes manually setting the colors using HTML directives can override the disability settings on the person's browser. Perhaps it's a small reason (and possibly contrived), but it's something to consider before you turn your page into a terrible rainbow.
As to the subheadings one, I think the point is to use "deeply nested" subheadings sparingly. High-level subheadings can actually be smaller then the surrounding body text, and pages with so many levels of sub-headings should probably be broken into sub-pages instead. Also, pages with dozens of headings and subheadings will have an obnoxiously long TOC on the page, which can be annoying. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Policies and guidelines sections

I'd like to merge the policies and guidelines sections. They are topically identical and only differ in how strickt they are. I suggest the following structure (sublists contain which current sections should go where):

Official policies and guidelines

  • Copyrights policies
    • Don't infringe on copyrights
  • Project scope
    • Wikibooks is an instructional resource
  • Structure
    • Wikibooks structure
  • Content
  • Behaviour
    • Respect other contributors
    • Behavior guidelines
  • Maintainance

Comments appreciated. --Swift 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "guideline" usually means a weaker form of policy. So, yes, gudielines are less strict policies. The reason policies are separated from guidelines in general is to highlight the fact that the policies are strict rules. I am happy with the current division - it draws a clear line in the sand: on one side are guidance notes and on the other side there are rules. RobinH 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging policies and guidelines into one category

Currently, our policies and guidelines are seperated only by strictness. Some are policies actually have some parts that have "should"s in them and some guidelines might have some "must"s (haven't checked the latter). Anyway, given the definitions given at the top of the page, we really don't need to distinguish between policies and guidelines; a policy can contain both requirements and recommendations.

I'd really appreciate a discussion on this as it would be quite a drastic move. --Swift 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to Merging policies

As I have stated elsewhere, I personally prefer several smaller policies that are short and to the point as opposed to a single monolithic policy. Here are some reason why:

Individual Policies are....

  • Easier to reach a concensus. If the topic is focused, you can usually get a number of people to agree to individual points.
  • Easier to change. If a policy contains just a few words and the justifications for the policy are weak, it is easier to change a single small policy instead of a huge monolithic policy document.
  • Easier to write. By keeping a policy to a specific point where there have been issues raised in the past, you can usually come up with come very clear wording that doesn't try to be everything for every situation.

This IMHO is where Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks/Unstable is falling apart as it is trying to become a single monolithic policy for a whole bunch of things at the same time. My experience is that such policies rarely gain community concensus and often languish for years before acceptance, if ever.

My comments I made earlier with Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform#Style over Substance still apply here. It is possible (and it works rather well) to ammend policies one section at a time, making overall very minor modifications. That precludes such massive overhauls such as what is being done with the What is Wikibooks, which really need to have stronger attention by the Wikibooks community for such a massive change. Smaller changes, while significant over time, can also be reversed easily. --Rob Horning 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that it would be far easier to get acceptance of smaller policies. Indeed all three points of Rob's seem entirely valid to me. The sheer content of a single (or small number) all embracing policy is quite worrying never mind being all things to all people --Herby talk thyme 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood Swift's suggestion (if thats what this is in response to). Swift was suggesting only the merging of categories and I think getting rid of the distinction between policy and guideline. Not about merging any current policy/guideline. I agree with your pointers, but disagree with your use WIW/Unstable as an example. It has a focused topic, what contents of Wikibooks consists of. Its about the same size as the current WIW. It does address problems now and in the past. It doesn't try to be everything to everyone. Before I did some major editing of it, the proposal was a lot longer and I think a lot less focused and didn't really address a specific point. It tries to be a more general policy (or guideline if you prefer) to address some confusion over what Wikibooks is for. I do admit its a major change in approach and probably the best solution which has already been suggested on its talk page is to discussion and deal with each section one at a time. --darkYin yang.svglama 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Rob here, and even though I appreciate your vision, Darklama, I don't think it's a method that's going to work in the long term. There are two options that I would like to consider:
  1. A small number of policy documents, reasonably large, but vague. These documents would be supported by a number of smaller ancillary guideline pages, that would detail the specifics of the policy, as needed.
  2. A large number of small policy documents, specific to their own topics, and not requiring external supporting documents.
WIW is an important policy I think, but if we try to make it the only resource, or the only policy document, we are going to fail. I say we make it more simple, and use guidelines to fill in the details. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo

I've removed the following text from this page:

In extreme and unusual cases, Jimbo Wales has stepped in to ban a user who has proven to be unusually disruptive. Jimbo has also declared certain policies to be, essentially, official Wikimedia policies; see this Wikien-l post.

I did this for a few reasons:

  1. Jimbo has never really been as big an authority here as he has been at wikipedia (although many people, myself included, highly value Jimbo's opinions)
  2. Jimbo is generally less active in WMF things then he used to be.
  3. If anybody has the ability to dictate policy, it is likely the WMF board as a whole, not just Jimbo.
  4. To the best of my knowledge, Jimbo or the WMF has never dictated a policy to us that we must obey.

I'm hoping that this removal won't upset anybody. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the key aspect here is that Jimbo is not really active with WMF projects (although I've seen some recent posts by him on Foundation-l). Part of this is (I think) to give Florance the chance to take the helm of the WMF as the current chair and not overshadow her. Jimbo does maintain a seat on the board of trustees, but is concentrating most of his efforts on Wikia, in terms of making policy decisions and such.
As far as the WMF or Jimbo "dictating policy", I'll leave that subject alone. I've spilled far too much ink on that subject. --Rob Horning 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Mm, not me. I like the occasional improvement of this document, and wish to see more.  :-) --Iamunknown 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:Policies_and_guidelines"