Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

See also Archive 1, Archive 2


Contents

[edit] "Wikibooks is not an encyclopaedia"

There are a few things I would like to change about this section. I will itemize them below and we can discuss them on a per-item basis:

  1. I would like to remove instructional text about the use of interwiki links, and the cautions about copy+paste transwikis. While these are important issues, they are more matters of enforcement, and not issues of what wikibooks "is". The text I am referring to is:
    To reference encyclopaedia articles use interwiki links. Internal links here on Wikibooks link to other Wikibooks modules and between chapters of books. If you see a Wikibook with red-coloured internal links ("redlinks") pointing at top-level Wikibooks modules that do not exist, it may have been copied here from Wikipedia, where the links would originally have linked directly to encyclopaedia articles. (In some books such as the Cookbook and the book on Bartending, individual recipes have been transferred here from Wikipedia. Additionally, some books, including many on the how-tos bookshelf, were educational texts written on Wikipedia, before the creation of the Wikibooks project, and transferred here.) You can help Wikibooks become a better place by changing the internal links in such articles into interwiki links that link to Wikipedia articles.
  2. In the second point, I would like to remove many of the references to wikipedia, because we want people to write books here, not attempt to write macropedias at wikipedia. The text I want to remove is:
    Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic. This is sometimes called a Macropedia, and is discouraged because most projects of this nature can be dealt with directly on Wikipedia itself anyway. ... You may also want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject as an alternative to starting a Wikibook, which would allow you to organize and index several encyclopedic topics under one general subject.
  3. I would like to make mention that a macropedia, or imported wikipedia articles can be used in the book-making process. That is, that we can import pages from wikipedia in order to start a book, but that the end result should not be a macropedia (even if the intermediate development stages of the book are macropedia-ish). Specifically, I would like to the text of the second point to say:
    Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic. This is sometimes called a Macropedia. Books generally have a stronger organization that builds knowledge from one module to the next with a suggested chronological order and inter-dependence between book pages. While macropedia's are discouraged, it is common for a developing book to import content from Wikipedia or another source, and organize that material in an encyclopedic manner while it is being developed into a proper book.

What do people think of these changes? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I feel like the new version is more focused, and it is less like a blatant advertisment for wikipedia. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikibooks is not for developing new Wikimedia projects"

I would like to remove the second paragraph from this section, because it is more of a how-to in creating a new wiki, and not a discussion of what wikibooks is. The text I am referring to is:

In addition, you may find it useful to start a wiki outside of the Wikimedia Foundation, which you may be able to use to develop a prototype of your project. You might want to look at Wiki Science:How to start a Wiki, Wikipedia:Comparison of wiki farms or Wiki:WikiFarms to find a place to start your wiki. You might want to start your wiki at Wikicities because Wikicities uses MediaWiki and the GNU Free Documentation License to host their wikis; this is similar to what Wikimedia uses.

I don't feel that this content is helpful in this policy, and If we insist on keeping this around it should be moved to a help page or someplace. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I made this change because it doesnt affect the policy, and it actually makes things more focused and easier to read. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Videgame guides revisited

Based on some of the comments posted at the staff lounge a while back, the general (although not unanimous) opinion of the community appears to be in favor of removing video game walkthroughs. However, several people (myself included) were very clear that scholarly books about videogames (annotated versions, critical analysis, design and engineering guides, etc) should be allowed to stay. With these issues in mind, I would like to add the followint text to this policy:

Wikibooks is not for videogame strategy guides and walkthroughs. Walkthroughs and strategy guides for videogames are not acceptable textbooks, and do not belong on Wikibooks. However, other books about videogames, such as scholarly analyses of videogames or guides on the design of videogames, are allowed here.

Also, since there are some fears that the addition of such a passage would cause a frenzy of deletionism, I also will suggest the addition of a limitation passage:

Historically, Wikibooks has allowed videogame strategy guides. New videogame guides should be created on another wiki, such as strategywiki. Old game guides are allowed to remain at Wikibooks, although it is encouraged that they be transwikied to a more appropriate location. Videogame guides that are moved to a more appropriate location should not be deleted outright, but instead should be replaced with a redirect to the new location.

This accomplishes two things:

  1. Finally settles the issue of videogame guides and
  2. Preventing the existing videogame guides from being deleted.

I would like to think that this is a compromise that should be generally acceptable to most people. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the limitation passage. I think it should read something like:
Materials which may not be appropriate for Wikibooks, should only be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy and if transwikied to a more appropriate location, include a temporary soft redirect to the new location.
--darklama 00:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine too, all I wanted to do with that second passage is to try and calm down some of the fears that we are going to be mass-deleting the existing books with torches and pitchforks. So long as we go through a normal VfD process for each book, make attempts to properly transwiki them, and provide adequate soft redirects, I think we should be fine. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not censored for Minors"

I would like to reword this passage because it's become obvious that there are some large ambiguities that cause people to make radically-different interpretations of it. The passage, as stands, appears to be self-contradictory. There are two primary goals of this passage:

  1. Disclaimer: Wikibooks cannot guarantee that it is properly censored, because all edits to the wiki are live immediately. The sentence "Wikibooks is not censored for the protection of minors" serves as this disclaimer, currently.
  2. Censoring policy: Wikibooks is censored by consensus. We are not completely censorship-free, and we do not propose to be. We generally do favor a wide latitude when it comes to freedom of speech, but we have put our foot down about certain topics in the past.

I propose that we rewrite this section to try and keep these two ideas intact, but try to reduce ambiguity:

Due to the nature of wiki software, wikibooks cannot guarantee that all pages will be completely appropriate for all viewers. However, Wikibooks books and modules are censored by the community over time. Inappropriate material that is found can be removed, or it can be reported to the administrators.

Of course, this is just a first draft, but it should make obvious my intentions for how to fix this problem. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Due to the nature of wiki software, Wikibooks cannot guarantee that all pages will be completely appropriate for all viewers. and think it would make a good addition to one of Wikibooks' disclaimer pages. I however question whether a disclaimer was the actual intention of this section of the policy, because it seems to me like it would of been put in either the general disclaimer or one of the other disclaimers, if it were its intentions rather then put into this policy. The rest of it I don't really like the wording and was one of the reasons raised for opposing the Unstable branch. I think this should stay as-is without some considerable discussion and agreement by the community, because I think it will effect everyone greatly. --darklama 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why i am trying to start a discussion about it here. I disagree, i'm decently certain that the passage in question was intented to be a disclaimer. Otherwise, the passage is self-contradictory because it says both that wikibooks is not censored, and then later is says that wikibooks is censored by consensus. The only way those two statements make sense together is if one is a disclaimer of liability, and the other is a statement of policy. They can't both be one or the other. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I don't think its self-contradictory. I think it can be read as something like "Books aren't censored simply because a child might see it, even if books might be censored in other ways through community consensus." Meaning Wikibooks might have books on subjects that parents or guardians might not considered to be appropriate for their children. --darklama 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename in order

The needed question mark is omitted from the page's title. It looks incorrect, and this is a key page. Thoughts? (I can't move the page; too new) --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've often thought that, actually. If we're not alone, I'll go ahead and move it.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a technical problem with trying to do that. The question mark is part of a query string for passing information from the browser to the server using the GET method and won't be interpreted as part of the title. People trying to access the page by typing in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/What_is_Wikibooks? will be directed to this page instead. You can even use ?useskin=chick to come here plus change what skin will be used for viewing the page. The question mark could be encoded to work around that limitation, but people would have to remember to use the encoded form or always use a link. Being a key page its been this way a long time, and where people expect it to be. I don't see any benefit in doing so, for so little gain. --darklama 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How would it be any different than First Aid/What needs to be done?, which seems to work just fine?  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
An external link to that page comes out as:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/First_Aid/What_needs_to_be_done%3F
Notice the "%3F" at the end. If you posted a direct link to:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks?
It wouldn't lead to the correct page. This is, of course, a small problem, but better not to introduce small problems in order to correct a slight annoyance. Use {{Displaytitle}} instead. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can fix this anyway - how about a rename to "What Wikibooks is all about" or something. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know {{Displaytitle}} existed. The page now appears with the ? and there is a redirect from that title. Fair enough?  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instructional fiction?

Could anyone please explain me this sentence "Most types of books, both fiction and non-fiction, are not allowed on Wikibooks, unless they are instructional." Does it mean that fiction can be permitted too, provided it is instructional? Any examples? Thank you in advance Undine (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of an example, but in principle, yes, instructional fiction is permitted, though narrowly construed.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What about instructions on how to react in case Spaghetti Monster Army invades planet Earth? Or instructions defining a woman's place at home, which is based on someone's superstitions and does not exceed Kinder - Kuche - Kirche (this one was in fact written in Lithuanian Wikibooks before I initiated its deletion). Is any of these suitable to Wikibooks? I want to understand this rule very well before writing Lithuanian "What is Wikibooks" page.
I would say "no" to those. Instructional fiction is something more like this. In First Aid if I told a story about some situation where I had to do first aid for bleeding, but without proper gloves, so I had to improvise something - so the story serves to illustrate some important point related to First Aid/Protective Precautions. If it's fiction, it can still be as effective as a real episode, and can teach the reader about some topic in a way which they can easily relate to. Actually, I may well incorporate something of that sort later; I think it would be effective. But this is my understanding, and others' may vary.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mike. Instructional fiction is using fiction to illustrate some point about a topic being taught. --darklama 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are some examples of "allowed fiction": William Shakespeare's Works, Creative Writing, The Once and Future King, Atlas Shrugged, Science Fiction Literature, Of Mice and Men, Accelerando Technical Companion, etc., and perhaps The Voynich Manuscript and Indian Mythology.
These things are the subject of scholarly study, and students take college classes dedicated to those subjects. Hopefully a wikibook will be helpful to those students.
It's not obvious to me how the fairies in William Shakespeare's Works/Comedies/A Midsummer Night's Dream "illustrate some point about a topic being taught" -- do those fairies have a place at Wikibooks? --DavidCary (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As the William Shakespeare's Works book states, it is for Annotated texts. Creative Writing, however, is an excellent example of a book that could include original fiction for instructional purposes. --Swift (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks"