Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Unstable

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Archives
Includes discussion on reference texts (collection of statistics or tables or charts. Not the kind you'd sit down for a good read with.) and verifiability
The argument here isn't so much whether to allow video game guides (they almost certainly do) but deciding the reason why they should be excluded.
This includes the short discussion whether the word "complements" is proper to use or not.
A macropedia book usually refers to a book that's mostly linked-to, or copied, wikipedia articles.

Contents

[edit] Reminder: read archives!

This talk page was huge. The problem was that it took a while to find all of the subject you want to read and write about. So I divided this talk page into a few primary divisions. I created these divisions after a ton of discussion has already occurred- for easy accessibility, the organization is set up around the issues that have been the center of discussion.

If you haven't read through the archive related to the subject you're talking about, please do so. (At least skim) before repeating others.

Afterwards, add new discussion here, preferably under this post so others are also reminded to check the approp. subject.

[edit] Duplicating contents

What exactly is the section "Duplicating Contents" talking about in its first half? Let me reproduce what I'm confused about here...

"New users may confuse Wikibooks as an appropriate place to duplicate contents in order to fork or provide an alternative version. As a result, sometimes they will write content on Wikibooks that is essentially not textbook material. Textbooks generally have a stronger organisation that builds knowledge from one module to the next with a suggested chronological order to the content. One of our sister projects, such as Wikipedia or Wikiversity, may be where you can find a home for what your trying to work on and has already been developed. Duplicating content from one of our sister projects is discouraged for the same reasons, but you are certainly welcome to copy some content from them so long as you or someone else is willing to develop it into appropriate textbook material."

Okay, so if the second half is discouraging copying GFDL'd material from wikipedia and wikiversity, what the heck is the first half talking about? What mysterious content source should we be asking not to duplicate from? I know that it's 1. It uses a free license (supposedly, or this would be chiding about copyright violation) 2. It's not a wikimedia sister product 3. It's written in a way which isn't textbook material and 4. Someone might try to fork it or provide an "alternative version". What kind of source could they be talking about? What are we warning users against duplicating text from? This is bothering me that there's this section telling me not to do something, yet I have no idea what they're telling me not to do.

This is confusing me badly. Any ideas? -Monktalk 23:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out by poring over history. Take a look at the changes in the encyclopedia article/Duplicating contents section in this diff. Okay, the first sentence did originally refer to sister projects, but has sort of been expanded to refer to all kinds of content dumping. Although a lot of the editing to this paragraph vastly (and helpfully) shortened the text that was already there, it cut out some context for each sentence. The resulting order of the sentences is confusing. I was going to reword it, but Darklama is one step ahead of me and did a fine job. :) -Monktalk 01:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

This policy, as it stands include no specific prohibition on original research. This seems like a significant omission, is this what is intended? --xixtas talk 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a mention that a book must be "accurate, verifiable, and peer-reviewable". This implies no original research. With brevity being a primary goal here, additional information about this clause can be located in a separate guideline, such as Wikibooks:Original research. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
While that may be an admirable goal, I think this still needs to be explict here in some way, and brevity is hardly the word for what this policy has become anyway. I added back in much of what dealt with original research in what I hope can be considered a positive tone that reflects the same general attitude. I will note that this is explicitly part of the current "stable" version as well. I don't know why I have to have an edit war over these couple of sentances here. --Rob Horning 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a off-the cuff question about this: I asked this somewhere on the staff lounge (I'm still ajusting to the multi-page thing here), but the book ATALL is unquestionably OR in the sense of "defining a new academic field or approach". The Wikiversity crowd is perfectly willing to host the book (their OR policy is radically different from ours), but on the other hand this wikibook has won some awards and perhaps provided some notoriety. With Robert's re-additions, we really would need to transwiki it (which either he or I could do, since we're WV admins with import toys), but should we? --SB_Johnny | talk 20:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes, which I hope will allow a limited amount of original research, by reintroducing the concept of reproduction as a valid means of verification as a clarification of peer-reviewable. As SB_Johnny pointed out and has been discussed previously its not as open and shut of a case as it once was. I think some research and new ways of doing things should be allowed and so I think ATALL should be able to stay if that is all it does. --darklama 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will say I think we are getting to something I can live with here. Thanks for these edits! --Rob Horning 09:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In regards to this specific Wikibook, I think Wikiversity may be a better place for original research. When the "charter" for Wikiversity was being put together, this in particular was something I felt needed to be a strong part of the proposal, and it was something that kept coming back over and over again. It was also one of the stronger and more compelling reasons I could give for why Wikiversity was inappropriate to be hosted on Wikibooks, as some sorts of genuine academic research needed some room for growth we couldn't offer here. Or more to the point, if Wikibooks had permitted research of the level that Wikiversity participants were seeking, it would be a very slippery slope to avoid having very dubious books be written on the principle that original research was no something prohibited.
Earlier I got into a major content fight with none other than the current chair of the Wikimedia Foundation, Anthere. Her contention was that the Wikimania conference proceedings ought to be hosted here on Wikibooks. It is very interesting that we were able to stand up to her and offer a rationale for why they didn't belong here, using original research standards as one of the major planks for its deletion. At the same time, even in the middle of that discussion, I mentioned that Wikiversity would be a perfect home for that sort of content, but unfortunately Wikiversity didn't exist as a seperate project at the time.
Wikiversity does exist now, and to what extent they will accept original research is still something that is being debated. As a child project of Wikibooks, Wikiversity will always have some strong ties here, and it isn't too far off the mark to say that the ATALL is merely a part of Wikiversity that got left behind. Just as we sometimes have to split hairs in regards to what is more encyclopedic content vs. book-like content, the issue of original research is one that IMHO helps to distinguish between Wikibooks and Wikiversity. --Rob Horning 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This topic just came up again, with OR being one of the reasons for a particular vfd. I urge that the ban on OR continue to be explicitly in the main text of the "WiW" document and not just a footnote. It's easier to justify "this book is OR and belongs elsewhere" than to justify "the information you're supposedly providing is nonsense." There are many people who would like to use WikiBooks as a soapbox for their personal, imaginary theories of how the world works. Some of those writers can be very persuasive and their theories very attractive to those readers who are unfamiliar with the topics. ...Selden 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Knowledge

It's tempting to look at the policies and practices of Wikipedia when trying to shape our own. However, the requirements for producing a valuable encyclopedia are far different from the requirements to producing valuable textbooks. A big point that comes up in the OR discussion, above, is that the definition of "verifiability" is far different between the two projects.

The encyclopedia really can't state any fact without providing a citation for it. Information in that reference needs to be properly referenced to help lend credibility to it. Traditional textbooks, however, tend to rely on the authority and expertise of the author, and the expected background knowledge of the target audience. With the proper background knowledge, and a little patience, results can typically be derived in the pages of the text, without having to reference an external source. Textbooks tend to contain significantly fewer (if any) citations or references. Frequently, these references are listed as "further reading", not as a "bibliography". The audience has particular background knowledge, the text derives the proper results, and whole thing then qualifies as "common knowledge" (especially if we have properly defined our target audience).

An issue arises, certainly, that Wikibookians tend not to post their credentials online, and books therefore cannot be reliant on the credibility of the authors. To this extent, we do need to walk the line between requiring citations (in lieu of an "expert" author saying so), and providing adequate derivations or examples. To make the system work, we need to be mindful of our target audiences, and requiring that all new books have a stated target audience, and stated educational prerequisites beforehand is a good start. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is still important that any information which is added to Wikibooks be verifiable. Even in the situation where a Wikibook is discussing philosophy or theology, it would be very useful to show that what you are writing about is existing ideas and not something you are creating completely from scratch just for this book.
On the other hand, I would have to agree that going for a point by point bibliographic reference that is now customary on Wikipedia is something we should avoid having as a manditory requirement. If a particular group of users wants to go that far for a particular subject, knock your socks off. Really. But it shouldn't be the only deciding factor for if the book is considered one of the "best of..." on that topic and even worthy of featured status. Some of the book styles will tend to be much more informal and have an appeal to readers that a strongly scholarly approach may not work with as well.
So in this regard, I think the degree of usage for citations is something that is to be decided within each separate Wikibook by those who are participating in that book.
One thing that does distinguish textbooks from other types of non-fiction literature is the "homework problems" that often accompany each major section. And this is also something very un-encyclopedic in nature as well. I'm not completely convinced that we should make this a mandetory requirement for Wikibooks (other books of strong educational value can be written without them), but this is perhaps something that may be useful to push for as books of higher quality are beginning to emerge here on this project. Strong exercises that help to evaluate knowledge comprehension and offer practical applications of the knowledge presented are something currently missing to a large degree with Wikibooks at the moment.
Another area that we could use some significant improvement toward is to encourage the use of published educational standards as a benchmark to establish why a particular Wikibook is needed. Some of these published standards are quite specific about the areas of knowledge that ought to be presented, but they don't go into details about how that information is presented. That is our job as textbook writers. Again, this is something that is unique to textbook development and currently lacking on Wikibooks.
The "killer app" that will give legitimacy to this whole project and be able to point out that we have completely succeeded as a group, is when we have something of high enough quality that meets the needs of an instructor in these two areas of textbook coverage. The question I would offer is on how we can phrase what we are saying here on this policy page to strongly encourage this sort of direction for new Wikibooks? --Rob Horning 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that how information is cited or reference is not something that makes sense to standardize at this time. That should be left up to the book writers. The homework problems thing sounds like something left best for what makes a book good enough to be a "featured" or "good" book. I've added "Textbooks are encouraged to follow published educational standards" near the beginning of this policy. I hope that provides an answer to your question. I think this policy may be just about ready again for discussion and voting for whether to move this policy to enforcement. --darklama 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that a good textbook is far better than it sources. For a textbook, for verifiability, it needs to cite only the things that the author does not give justification for. For example, in a physics textbook, if you derive the speed of light in a vacuum from Maxwell's equations and the permittivity and permeability of free space, you would not need to cite anything except Maxwell's equations and the permittivity and permeability constants. For example, by Wikipedia's definition of verifiability, Feynman's physics textbooks would be rejected, since he comes up with unique derivations in many places. In conclusion, I think that verifiability in the context of Wikibooks, should mean that external facts need to be cited (like the date of George Washington's birth) and internal facts just need to be explained sufficiently well that the intended audience can understand how the author derived them. Jrincayc 21:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quizes and Exams

I'm curious about the general attitude about quizes and exams. I don't see what would be wrong with having the actual test questions for what would be a unit review. As something which could be in an appendix of the book or at the end of a series of modules seems like a very sensable thing to do.... and something that is very common for many textbooks. Perhaps these would be in an "instructor's edition", but they are found as very typical textbook suplimental material.

On the other hand, Wikibooks should not be used as a "testing center". If there are essays or other material which is going to be somehow graded by an instructor and is requested by this instructor to be edited on Wikibooks as a hosting service, it seems to me as something inappropriate to our mission here. And this is exactly what Wikiversity ought to be directly dealing with as well if something like that is desired. A personal essay is something that shouldn't be edited my multiple individuals, and I could envision all sorts of headaches if some class put it on Wikibooks and then we decided to delete those test results... provided we didn't have this policy to tell them it shouldn't have been here in the first place.

Any other thoughts about this? --Rob Horning 23:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea behind this passage is that wikibooks is for textbooks, not other kinds of educational material such as stand-along quizzes or exams. We do, however, allow review questions that are integrated into the text. As an analog, consider that we dont allow dictionary or thesauri, but we do allow books to contain glossary. It's a mincing of words, perhaps. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is the point, so I went ahead and tried to make that point clearer. --darklama 00:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to enforced again.

(action started by User:Darklama)

I hope this isn't considered premature. I think sense this proposal's biggest critic, may now be satisfied with the text of this proposal, that it is time again to vote on moving this proposal to enforced status. In order to prevent a premature repeat, I would like to see a show of agreement to moving this policy to enforced status, by anyone currently monitoring this page, before bringing it up on the staff lounge again.

  • Support - I agree with the current text of this proposal. --darklama 14:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is long over due. This proposal has been in the works for a long time now, and it's far superior then the old version was. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems complete enough and can't see anything that can be improved at this time, I take the chance to remember that a proposal to add some historical references and trace the evolution of this type of texts was approved recently, with the intention to add some extra information at the bottom of the policies and guidelines pages.(with all the moves on the staff lounge I could not find the "tags" that were agreed upon in the end) --Panic 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- see comment below. While I think most of the changes made so far are positive, I'm concerned about its perhaps overambitious scope to address everything, and it's possible use/abuse as a deletionist strategy. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it abuse, but that it would be used in that way is guaranteed, we could add a clause that would let a VfD survival work that doesn't meet the criterials to be automatically referenced on the policy text (and so get some protection) and be the bases for an addendum to the types of works we accept (or requiring the complete overhaul of the policy). --Panic 18:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my concern (to a point) but then we'd have to somehow extend "VfD survival" to apply to similar (perhaps new) books, which would be incredibly hard to interpret. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting using precedents in place of policy statements? I like that idea "in principle", but the problem is that the defenders of "good" books would then be obliged to go combing through the VfD archives (which I personally don't find to be a nice pasttime), and defenders of "truly incompatible" books would use any closed VfD that has anything at all in common with their book to say "well, if you allow that, then mine's allowed too!" --SB_Johnny | talk 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We may word it that it would solve those issues (not be general but define books that survive VfD and don't fit a specific type as described on the text, this would reduce the need for general discussions of this policy and make it more versatile to deal with evolutions on that particular problem), as I said it all depends on how we stated it. Lets wait 3 days to see what others think of this and if no one objects add what you thought (even if you saw it as problematic). --Panic 18:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that is already how things work. VfD decisions to keep or delete book tend to set precedents for what is and isn't allowed and change over time. Perhaps an informal page could be created to summarize current practices based on VfD decisions, to help reduce the need for people to search through the VfD archives. Which could than be used for changing policy at some later point in time. --darklama 19:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We should be careful not to create to much policies and to fragment the information, all you say above can be done in this policy text (that is also a benefit its evidence is empowered by the Final Word on each policy/guideline) --Panic 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are free to write an essay on that view (it's the best informal way to state one's views) and add that info to every policy talk page it would concern, that would be indeed helpful. --Panic 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The separate page is not intended to be a policy page. Adding new entries to this policy right away will definitely be challenged and unrealistic, but creating an informal list that anyone can change, is unlikely to be challenged. I think decisions made on VfD usually take awhile to influence what is or isn't allowed, and even than trying to base policy on such decisions may be challenged. The only reason I mention this policy at all is that this policy could be updated when items that make that list have been consistently on there for some time and there is general agreement to do so. For this policy to even get passed, at some point, people are going to have to agree to stop and allow some things to continue to remain informal for now.
I can understand concern over potential abuse and removal of pages due to changes in this policy. However I don't think the best method for that is to try and get everything that people feel are at risk of being deleted into this policy, as a means of preventing it. I think people need to keep in mind we have a deletion policy and perhaps if people agree, emphases the need to follow it and not rush to speedy delete based on changes made to this policy. --darklama 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - history or revision to this draft :

  1. Move to Enforce - Whiteknight 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Move to re-start - Iamunknown 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Closed and motion to re-start approved - Whiteknight 02:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Will try to find but who did start the action in the first place ? --Panic 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I undid your last edit. The null and void bits were previously disagreed with and I consider it a major change. What I think you may be referring to as being previously potentially agreed to is listing who changed a proposal to enforced and on what date. Nothing else was approved of that I know of, and this proposal hasn't been moved to enforce yet, this is a vote to see if that should be done. --darklama 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"Final Word" clause (proposal) was made by Whiteknight to what you stated objection to the wording, they were corrected, I and Whiteknight did make 2 other final comments and you did not object, the proposal was archived without objections several moths ago, to what do you object now? (see archive for the null and void bits Whiteknight replied to you on those).
"Moving to enforced again" is the thread name you gave, you are indeed moving to enforce it (make it a policy) and it has failed once before as I've added info about (the proposals aren't the same). --Panic 03:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposal has gone through some changes since than, including the removal of the "final word" clause without objection, and agree this isn't the same proposal as before. I think adding it now no longer makes sense, because much has changed within this proposal, in other proposals and within Wikibooks in general. I think that it would be better to find out what everyone's current opinion on the matter is, opinions might of changed, before trying to include it again. This is mostly to avoid the same mistakes as before. that might invalidate people's support of the proposal again. I would rather see people write comments or vote opposed if they feel strongly that major changes to this proposal should be made, rather than voting support after making major changes and invalidating votes. Doing that ought to make it clearer whats supported and what, if anything, needs discussion to address opposed votes and reach compromise. If you want me to get more into why I oppose it I will.
I'm not making it policy. I'm trying to restart discussions and voting on whether this should be made enforced policy. Since a vote is needed to do so. If there are enough support votes and oppositions have been addressed, than someone will probably change the status from proposal to enforced. When the status goes from proposal to enforced thats the time to add who changed it to enforced and on what date, so its known who did so and when the policy went into effect. --darklama 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No Darklama, the Final Word was a separated proposal that would be applied to every guideline or proposal text (those lines have a global impact, they don't change in any way the policy where they reside, they empower the last decission above old ones, they provide a sense of progression to the texts) and the motion was technically passed, since you did not object to it ~(there was no straw poll) but consensus means no objections, and it was publicly discussed on the staff lounge. (your inaction may not be a good enough reason to rehash the subject, but is a good point, lets say rhe administrators that lost they flag due to the reform would use the same logic to invalidate the change)
And I disagree with you I think it makes perfect sense to use it everywhere, anyway about the removal of the text again I think you shouldn't have removed but expressed your objections because I added it and proceed from there...
To restart the discussion a straw pool is not the best way of doing it (what you will get is mostly a feel on who disagrees) and in case no one does it is indeed approved, without more discussions (that is why it is not the best way to go about it, if the intention is further discussion), this is a call to end discussions and approval of the text and making it a policy. --Panic 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
A call to approve the text and make it a policy, doesn't end discussions, it just makes discussion more formal and I believe it may be ready for it. Indeed part of the intent was to get a feel for if anyone disagrees before announcing it on the staff lounge again. I certainly didn't get the "final word" clause was intended to be put on every policy from previous discussions. That makes even less sense. I think that would need to be discussed on the staff lounge if thats your intention and/or turned into a proposed policy of its own. I don't think this is the place to do it. --darklama 18:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, what is the result of a non blocked move to enforced ? (approval, not discussion)
It is a requirement to make a policy/guideline decission/revision that it should be made as public as possible, this particular policy draft was added to the bulletin board and on the staff lounge, no further notification are required, but are certainly welcomed.
Final Word has gone by those motions, I was the one that posted on the staff lounge, the discussion started on the Deletion policy, you are rehashing the discussion, I can indeed see your reasoning but I'll not support alone a review of it on those bases. (The last post was in 5 Fev 2007 and after I expect 30 days it was archived uncontested). --Panic 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For a policy to become enforced, discussion has to take place in order to state approval or disapproval, otherwise its considered dropped and no decision has been reached. As I said if your intent was for your change to be a policy, than you need to make a new policy proposal. For example Wikibooks:Final_Word, which states whatever requirements your wishing to make and than this can be discussed there, where its more appropriate and then announced for voting. To keep this short, I didn't take Whiteknight's comments as disagreeing with me, but as clarifications for me and disagreeing with you, which is why I saw no need to continue discussion. Also other proposed policies that have become enforced since Feb 5, have included no such wording in them. As far as I was concerned, that discussion was for this policy proposal only and got dropped when this proposal was changed. --darklama 13:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Darklama the Final Word policy is only useful if it is to be used in every policy text (read what the lines that constitute the policy say or the posts themselves it's clear enough), since 5 Feb 2007 no new policy has yet been adopted (that is why I made a point in calling attention to this, because it was going to be closed.) Read the archive, start on the archive of the deletion policy and continue to the staff lounge. As I said you are rehashing the topic, I understand that you may have another opinion but will not support it only on it, if anyone shares your view then I will be willing to discuss it, you have yet to make a point about what you don't like on the Final Word, inaction is not a justification to rehash a policy, straw vote is not a necessity (we don't even have at the moment a decission policy), consensus means no objections, the policy was discussed and publicly posted (there is no other more public page than the staff lounge), rehashing the discussion will open a can of worms, lets take the example I gave above on the absent administrators that lost their admin flag, or for example a user that is blocked while a discussion is voted, what about if you go on vacations do we need to wait for you ? if you come back do we need to open again all passed policies ? (this is also great stuff to consider on the drafted decission policy, for instance the rehash/reversal of a policy can be started on a significant majority vote for instance 85% I would be fine with it, bad intentions, reading the archives would also have to be included.) --Panic 16:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Readers' guides?

Since this policy seems to be about everything, it really shouldn't go through without some mention of these. The much-loved "Muggles Guide" and the often beknighted "Annotations of the Complete Peanuts" are two examples of this that aren't exactly annotations, but seem to me to be the kind of thing that should be perfectly acceptable (similar guides to Tolkien's books, the Narnia series, and other influential works that haven't yet fallen into public domain would also (to me) seem perfectly acceptable, but they wouldn't be annotations as we define it in this policy). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your concern about using this policy as a deletionist strategy is very valid, as changes by at least one admin, as well as the controversial change to the previous incarnation of this policy by Jimbo, have indeed been used to remove many books and reshape Wikibooks policy. One particular change I wasn't happy with was when one administrator on this project (you can go to the history and logs if you want to find who I'm referring to here... it isn't you Johnny) changed the deletion policy and then proceeded to act upon that changed policy as if it was a long-established Wikibooks principle.... and deleted thousands of pages off of this project as a result. I would urge caution and suggest a more consensus driven approach if you do want to make policy changes, particularly if you want to act upon those policy changes.
As far as these readers' guides are concerned, I would agree that not only should they stay, but there is clearly VfD precedence to keep books of this nature (even if not completely unanimous). Perhaps just as valid is the Wikibooks:Annotated texts policy, which is currently considered an enforced policy. If this concept is mentioned at all, a reference to this more specific policy perhaps ought to be mentioned as well on this page. --Rob Horning 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Annotated texts are mentioned within this proposed policy. --darklama 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Darklama the point Robert was making is that the importance is the same. --Panic 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the annotated text policy doesn't address this either (it's for PD or otherwise free text that can be included wholesale, as opposed to the copyrighted works I'm thinking about (Harry Potter is not GFDL, for example).
I'm starting to wonder: why do we have a "what is wikibooks" policy, rather than a "what wikibooks is not" (or better perhaps "are not"). Having a policy that excludes very specific things is a lot easier to enforce and interpret that a policy saying "only these things are ok", because what if we forgot something, or someone comes up with an entirely new approach? Would it be completely silly at this point to split this policy into a guidline for what is, and a policy on what's not? WP:NOT has served Wikipedia rather well for this, and they amend the policy line-by-line when a change is needed, rather than rewriting the whole thing every time... seems a success worth imitating. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support that, making this draft a guide (some great work and care was already done on this text to just start over) and move all known references to what is not to a policy. --Panic 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Other wikibooks project have a broad spectrum on that choice, PT is only about what is not, Spanish is a mix, Italian version gives a very small intro tho what is and chose to create a [distinct and complete policy on what is not]. --Panic 00:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree this is probably better off being approved as a guideline rather than as a policy. I don't believe no matter how hard we try, defining what Wikibooks is or isn't, the definition will be incomplete and this policy/guideline should reflect that. Making it a guideline is one way to reflect this is more of a guide to go by rather than a strict list of all that is allowed. An addition could also be added to try to safe guard against abuse. Such as "This policy/guideline should not be used as a justification to speedy delete books that existed before this policy/guideline went into effect." --darklama 00:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines by default aren't enforcible, so yes if we decide to give this text a go as a policy a limitation needs to be used. --Panic 00:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that this policy should be about "everything", and I also dont think we need to mention every single possibility in this policy. Issues that need further clarification can be expanded upon in a separate guideline page, or even in personal essays. I do think that this should be made into a policy, considering the importance that this page has to the community. However, we can certainly stand to maintain some vague passages that are open to interpretation. The community's ideas about particular subjects should be able to change over time without requiring a complete rewrite of our inclusion criteria. This page should contain the fundamental basics, and we can expand on the ideas here in guidelines. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree this shouldn't be trying to cover everything or try to be everything to everyone. This is intended to be just the basic scope of Wikibooks as stated at the top of the proposal. I've made some changes to the enforcement section which I hope will emphases more that this policy proposal is for the basic scope and shouldn't be used to justify speedy deleting anything, unless otherwise stated in a policy or guideline. This should safe guard against people's concerns as well. --darklama 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a bit short sighted because things can be deleted if they aren't textbooks, etc. A better thing to say would be something along the lines of "this policy is intentionally left vague on a number of issues, and details are provided in supporting guideline documents", or even "This policy does not cover all specific cases, only the most general ideas about what does and does not belong on wikibooks". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annotated Texts

The WB:AT page is official policy now (a recent change), and because of that I dont think that we need to include specific mention of annotated texts in this policy proposal. A better choice would likely to have a section at the bottom of this proposal that points to pages that better describe all the individual specific cases that can come up (if such discussion is even necessary). Having information about annotated texts in two separate policy documents gives rise to the possibility that the two might disagree. Of some concern to me is the fact that making changes to the WIW policy is typically a slow process, and if we try to update the annotated texts section here, it will take some time to get approval. I am going to be bold and replace the annotated texts section of this page with a link to the relevant policy document.

If we had a policy about reader's guides, or other types of books, we can link to them as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think in general we shouldn't go into "acceptable genres", unless we have policies about how they need to be written (I think that needs to be done very carefully in any case, since we're always going to have occaisional migrations of Wikipedians who see nominating things for AfD (oops, I mean VfD) as a good way to help out. There's really only a few things we don't want (or can't abide), and just listing those is better, since it keeps the field open for innovative texts. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem here, just a minor correction or note, you added the policy under Special Guidelines and the policy gives a good image of what an annotated text is, but fails to clearly state that they should be considered good content for Wikibooks (makes some regards considering edition of annotated texts on Wikibooks and even provides a small restriction to what is not an annotated text and states it should become a candidate for deletion that is the single part of the text that I see as enforcible, the rest is basically a guideline), I think, given the actual flow of the text that the mention to the policy should indeed have substituted the part that replicates the intention but a specific statement should be used to state the content as acceptable for Wikibooks. --Panic 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
OMFG. You can't possibly think this is a helpful comment, Panic. People have better things to do than debate for the sake of debating. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well at least it has a better value that this one of yours. I think I was making 2 important points. Not debating anything, I could have done the changes myself without asking but I extended the same consideration WK demonstrated to me in the past. (anyway he is still making changes to the text and has already covered one of the points) --Panic 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I added this note to show that annotated texts are acceptable. Now that we know they can stay, people will be directed to the relevant policy.
I think that there really are alot more things that we dont abide here then things that we do. Look through the VfD archives for the entries White Heritage Security, BDSM, or Naturism, which are all unacceptable although they are both textbooks. Look also at How to cause havoc or even the Manual of Crime, the How to Rip a Karaoke CD, or any of the other difficult VfD decisions we've made over the years. It's just as difficult, if not more so, to list all the things that don't belong here then to list a broad category of things that do. Textbooks belong here, and though the definition is a little vague in places, it's much better then trying to list out all the nonsense that we dont want. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that any of the tasks is very difficult, but as pointed by the objection o SB Jhonny and why I changed my vote, covering what is accepted without stating a safety clause is in fact censoring anything that is not covered (that is the result, there is a note now but it isn't a bit clear) if we attack the problem on the other front we would be only covering what you know we don't want, take the examples above on the other projects the one that covers the 2 fronts is probably the best solution but then again if we are not restricting content why make it a policy "This policy documents the basic scope of Wikibooks and should not be used alone to justify deleting pages and books. Unless otherwise stated in a policy or guideline, pages and books that are in violation of one or more policies or guidelines, are outside the scope of Wikibooks as documented in this or other policies and guidelines, or found unsuitable for other reasons, must not be speedy deleted." (Can almost be resumed to use it but don't use it) the only exception is the reference to the VfD and the DP. So what are we enforcing here, the definitions ? Can't they be just defined on a guideline? --Panic 18:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Another solution would be replicate the annotated texts (and even merge it all in the future) so that all the works that aren't covered should be fit for a VfD, but again most people if on the know, will then avoid even steeping in it, by avoiding creating new works that could be problematic, so censorship will still be there. (I think that is why the wording of the annotated text is so careful, it is very well written to only cover exactly what is known not to be a annotated text, without overlapping other definitions). --Panic 19:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that as a community, we generally know what we want to keep and what we want to delete when we see it. We know if something should be here or if it should not be here, even if we can't write down specifically why we feel that way. The best way to proceed, i think, is to allow wikibookians to use their judgement. If we have a list of "thou shalt nots", or even a list of things that are acceptable, we are not able to use our judgement for things that appear on that list. However, if we include general guidelines, wikibookians can make decisions on a case-by-case basis at VfD. Remember, we dont want to all become robots that follow a list of commands, we want to be able to make our own decisions on matters like these. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think I have not expressed the problem correctly about the distinction of the 2 lists (do this and don't do that) it is similar to lets use an example of 2 laws, one states that in the US no one can speak foreign languages on national soil and another states exactly what languages you shouldn't speak. For any outsider or a person that doesn't have a deep understanding would probably have second thoughts about using Navajo or other Indian languages and what about archaic English ? That is the result if we only state what we want and no clear clue is given to what we really object in having as content. I think that was the point (or that was what I understood to be) when I changed my vote.
I even advanced another solution (remember the alteration on VfD) about creating a logic of precedents (if a book survives VfD that type of book would have some level of protection in the future, this would not decrease the proposals for VfD but would diminish the deletion of content based on a what is policy. --Panic 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've remembered a particular case, the "sensitive" technologies restriction list US uses on exports. I don't know if there are two list (lets call it white list and black list) but I know about the list of excluded countries. --Panic 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear on my opinion, I wouldn't object to have the text approved as a guideline or even as a policy if there was really something that could be enforcible and a proper safety clause was added. (but I'm now inclined to think that a what we recognize as good content guideline and what we don't want policy would serve better the objective of the text) --Panic 23:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Making this a guideline is a big mistake, and I wont support it if that's the road people want to go. This is vague enough that it shouldn't cause any problems as a policy, and more importantly we need the power to delete things that don't follow this policy. --71.230.253.48 23:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks is not paper

With regards to the statement, "Unlike printed books, our textbooks can include links if these are directly relevant to the textbook, and some textbooks are now including interactive features such as multimedia files and interactive features using JavaScript." It seems that this could create problems. Perhaps, supplemental sections on the table of content page and/or cover page that is clearly in a separate section may be a better option than having Java and links spread throughout the book. It seems that the value of Wikibooks would be diminished if readers could not print out a book in its entirety, containing only text and pictures. If a computer is a requirement to be able to fully utilize the power and knowledge within a Wikibook then this seems like something that could be a detriment to the project and the learning experience of the readers. Many people may not have access to a computer at their leisure, and also some probably would prefer to print out a book just because they like that experience better. --Remi 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree but what do you propose as a solution, a requirement to offer dual version of a book or just a notice? --Panic 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be foolish for us to try and tell people not to use hyperlinks, Javascript, or multimedia. The power of wikibooks comes from the fact that it's a dynamic electronic media. It's a lucky coincidence that some of our books are able to be printed, but it's not a requirement. That we would even suggest that people not use all the tools at their disposal to make the best possible books is almost unthinkable. Some books fit the printed book model, and when that occurs it should be encouraged to continue along that path. Otherwise, we should encourage books not to be constrained by such a model. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
For what I understood, the user is not opposing the inclusion of interactive features but making a point on where we put a line on multimedia content versus more portable contend and how we inform and manage it. Where do we put a line on what is a multimedia presentation and a book. (hyperlinks should be used as a reference they are valid even on print, javascript, animations and sound could be problematic and indeed makes the use of the content more restrictive not only for the reader but even for contributors) --Panic 02:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
From my viewpoint, that is something that is up to those contributing on an individual Wikibook, where there may be some intention to make a printed book or not. In other words, as a project policy, we shouldn't be drawing the line, other than content on Wikibooks is something that must be educationally related and somehow useful for the instruction of some educational experience. This is one of the reasons why Wikiversity was justifying its inclusion on Wikibooks, as it fit that rough concept. As for javascript, animations, java applets, and more that are interactive, I don't see what the worry is.
The main concern about having such applications is that it makes it very easy to exploit security holes in browsers and post what is arguably malicious code... particularly if we allow anonymous edits of the pages. I think that sort of problem can be overcome, but it is something that the "developers" of Wikimedia projects have been very reluctant to permit for what I hope are obvious reasons. With Ajax programming and other newer concepts for on-line content display, these are certainly areas we could explore as a project to see if we may want to encourage development in that direction. As a matter of policy, we shouldn't limit those things other than what are currently within the technical limits of the MediaWiki software. And even then, we could try to come up with solutions that would deal with the concerns of the development team if we want to increase interactivity. --Rob Horning 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] guidelines vs policies and text revertion

I disagree with the revertion [14:38, 22 March 2007 SBJohnny to the Draft], guidelines and policies [don't have the same value (see discussion and arguments)], guidelines aren't enforcible and it just takes a policy violation that requires a books to be removed from the project (in that particular case it should only be the Deletion policy, I don't completely oppose the generalization but would have pointed out to it at a proper time. (The Final Word clause would serve the same purpose) --Panic 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to address this concern. Hopefully all parties will find this to be an acceptable change. --xixtas talk 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It addresses my concerns, your changes makes it simpler but still complete. --Panic 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reworking meta:Wiki is not paper into something more Wikibooks specific.

I don't mind the reference to the meta page, and I hope that doesn't hold up getting this policy passed, but I am wondering aloud if either we should try to inject a Wikibooks viewpoint (and other Wikimedia projects as well) into this document on meta, or perhaps fork it and rework it to something that works better for Wikibooks. In reading through this page, it is very Wikipedia-centric (as is much of the content on Meta, but I digress there). I know this document is referenced on a great many links throughout Wikimedia projects, just as we've done here.

One point in particular that is grating to me as a Wikibookian is "A 100-page thesis on poker is useless to someone who merely needs an article summarizing the basic rules and history of the game. The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details." I know that the same section goes onto more details about how you could still do a detailed treatment of poker as a series of Wikipedia articles, but it still doesn't fit with what Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects have become.

A book about poker is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I can't say the same thing about Wikibooks. It is precisely because Organic Chemistry was VfD'd from Wikipedia that Wikibooks was started, as a place to host a "100-page thesis on poker" and other much longer content than would normally be considered a Wikipedia article.

There are other minor objections to this article, and certainly I can make the changes on meta to reflect a more sister-project neutral tone. Unfortunately, because it is referenced so much I think that would also open up a whole huge can of worms as well. For crying out loud, Larry Sanger himself "approved" some of the portions of this page, for those of you who knew when he had virtual god-king status on Wikipedia as well. It may just be easier to fork this page. This is a good reference item, but the content here is very dated and does need some sort of update, even if that is in the form of a Wikibooks guideline. --Rob Horning 20:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reorganized

I attempted to reorganize this since it seemed a bit weird to me, I tried to not change the meaning of the text but clarified it in some spots. The diff is here. Mattb112885 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Rules

The newest version #859749 is a step backward in my view. I imagine the author wagging a finger at me sanctimoniously as I read about all the things I must and mustn't do. Why would anyone want to start writing a book here when confronted by that list of musts? This is a *wiki* for God's sake. We should expect books to evolve over time. I wonder how many existing Wikibooks we'd have to delete if we took this revised policy to the letter? Dozens, I expect.

The word "textbook" is (over)used a whopping 21 times. There is no good reason that I can see to use the word textbook so frequently. --xixtas talk 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with xixtas on this one, just so we know which concerns were being addressed with that edit? Perhaps there's a less-terse way to address them. Mattb112885 (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try to to make it less terse, probably later today. I was trying to address some concerns that this proposal would have no real enforceability as a policy, trying to address some concern over some possible confusing wording in the "book defintion" section by turning it just into a list along with everything else and decrees, but not completely eliminate, the number of times textbook is used. --darklama 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've some done some more work on it. Instead of "must and must not do these things", its now "are these things". Textbooks are released under GFDL, are censored through community consensus, etc. --darklama 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
If people don't mind (and i dont see why anybody would), I would like to hijack the page Wikibooks:Textbooks (currently a redirect) and turn that into a proposal to define the word "textbook". Then when we make the WB:WIW policy, we can reference this other proposal, instead of having the WIW policy try to cover all bases. --Whiteknight (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point in trying to separate the textbook definition. Textbooks are what Wikibooks is all about, why Wikibooks exists, its mission. I disagree that a separation would be helpful. I believe to not emphases the importance of textbooks as part of what is wikibooks is to try to deny what this project is for. I believe the definition of a textbook is an important part of that emphases. --darklama 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Darklama, the textbook definition seems to be a fundamental part of what wikibooks is all about so I don't see the benefit that would come from separating the definition from the rest of it. I've tried to address xixtas' concerns here, also a few of my own... especially what worrys me about current wording is the statement that we can "copy stuff from the other GFDL sites", it is true that we can incorporate it but we don't want to encourage people to copy-paste from Wikipedia, that's what Special:import is for. If you like them I'll put the changes into the actual page sometime later... Mattb112885 (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how yours addresses Xixtas' concerns, your uses textbook 25 times instead of 21, and I've gotten the Unstable one now down to using textbook 12 times. I think my removing all the musts from Unstable, should address his other issue with it as well. As for your own concern, I removed "copied" from that statement, "Sometimes based on GFDL contents from Wikimedia projects and other sources" and included the bit from your sandbox about being properly attributed. From what I saw of your sandbox it look ok, but part of the motivation behind decreasing the number of sections there are, is to make it easier to add one line amendments in the future rather then having to do a complete rewrite like is being done now. --darklama 20:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I was more trying to reduce the "must" tone of the proposed policy than the number of mentions of the word "textbook", though you're right I neglected to address the latter point. I understand what your reasoning is for keeping one big header, my concern with the way that it is now is that as a new contributor, I would ask "what is a Wikibook? and how do I start one?", come on to this page and see a list of 20 things that I should do. While I agree that most of them are things we should look at anyways, we have to think about who we're trying to reach with this policy, and if a person sees all these things I'd imagine they might be daunted and shy away. A short list of fundamental necessities (NPOV, GFDL) I think would be sufficient, and then the rest would be suggestions (I attempted to do this but I know whats in my sandbox now is somewhat of a mess, just wanted to get the idea in place). We could add amendments to the appropriate section as necessary. Then again, is it possible to have both things that must be followed and things that may be under the same umbrella of a "policy" (or a guideline, for that matter)? Mattb112885 (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned with reaching people too. I know the "must" tone, was not good and was far from what I wanted, sense my goal all along have been to provide a very positive tone. I just did that initially to try to find a way to combine the "musts" and the "mays" together. Sure its definitely possible to add amendments to the appropriate sections, if it can be agreed upon what the sections should be. I think whether or not things which must be followed and things which may be followed can be in the same policy or guideline isn't currently an issue. I don't think your sandbox is a mess, it just needs some minor changes, I was just concerned that it might be going in a direction other then what people may want. Which seems to be, small, simple, understandable, positive toned and complete. With a few people wanting to get rid of the textbook emphases. --darklama 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) I didn't mean to imply that you're not looking to reach people, just thinking that perhaps the large list isn't the best way to do it. I would not however want to hold up the policy because of something like that, if the general consensus is that this is the way to go, as long as the list is understandable, simple, and complete as you said. It looks like its headed in the right direction in those regards; though I'm sure we'll end up adding or removing some things before its all said and done, the structure of it now hopefully will make it easier to make such changes. Mattb112885 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I didn't take what you said to imply I didn't care. I was trying to show we're both on the same page and in agreement, when it comes to trying to making it easier for the intended audience. I hope its headed in the right direction and I feel somewhat confident in that based on what was being objected to for the most part. I'm not sure how to address people's objections concerning textbooks or if it even makes sense to, and I don't see anyone whose got a problem with that proposing alternatives besides using a more confusing term like "Wikibooks is for wikibooks", which doesn't help any. --darklama 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There has to be some guidance about the sort of book that is appropriate and the advantage of a list is that individual elements can be removed or added as necessary. I like User:Darklama's current list because it is not prescriptive about the nature of a textbook but is prescriptive about how a Wikibook should be written and its goals. It allows us to say that there are books, textbooks and also Wikibooks. RobinH 08:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the reference of calling them Wikibooks, its very confusing. I was referring to the website when I changed it back to "Wikibooks is a collection of...". I believe that the text should say "censored" rather then edit, to satisfy people who were opposed to this proposal because it didn't say anything about being censored, in order to make that statement clearer as to its intent. I don't think the particular subdivision you made, makes any sense. To me every item in the list describes qualities of Wikibooks' books and are ultimately the goals of some or most books, which is dependent on whether it says "sometimes" or not. I also think the subdivision makes somethings seem more important then others, which may not be the case and may cause some Wikibookians to feel like they can safely ignore the "desirable qualifies". I think the list should treat everything as being more or less of equal importance and allow some judgment on the part of Wikibookians on the importance of each quality/goal. --darklama 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I forgot to mention the line "Wikibooks are free, open-content books that can be used as part of a course of study. This page defines English Wikibooks's basic scope", includes "part of a course of study", which I think is better covered later on with "Suitable for learning and teaching class or course curricula, and for self-learning." Curricula is defined as "courses of study". I used "Wikibooks is a collection of free open-content textbooks that anyone can edit", because its both true, and what is plastered all over the place in describing what Wikibooks is for. I don't think it would make any sense not to include that here at a minimal. --darklama 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be in favour of "textbook" if it were defined as "a book used in a course of study". This avoidance of the term "textbook" avoids discussion about whether "textbooks" should include guides, manuals, supplementary texts etc. etc. It also pins down what Wikibooks is all about: books for use in a course of study. So, why not dispense with "textbook" and just use "book for use in a course of study"? It will save hours of debate. RobinH 12:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the list basically defines what textbooks are allowed on Wikibooks and what they include. I don't think people have a problem with using textbook completely, since its in the current version of the policy. I think some people have a problem with its emphases maybe, or some perceived unconventional usage. I don't think textbook should be dispense with completely, its a major part of what Wikibooks is about. I think the current proposal is more like the current version of the policy in its avoidance of defining textbooks, while providing more information on whats expected from textbooks. I think it pins down what Wikibooks is all about with the use of textbook and in the list "Suitable for learning and teaching class or course curricula, and for self-learning." --darklama 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wikibooks is de Facto a resource for Supplementary Texts

Surprisingly few of the books on Wikibooks are straight textbooks. Many of the books are information that can be studied rather than mainstream courses. For instance:

High School Mathematics Extensions - a supplementary text

UK Constitution and government - a supplementary text for history/social studies

Rhetoric and composition - a supplementary text for english lessons

Consciousness studies - a supplementary text for neuroscience/philosophy

Learning theories - supplementary in teaching courses

Quenya, Arimaa and Chess - great books but...

etc..

I like this emphasis and feel that it is the central role of Wikibooks. It sounds great that we might be providing textbooks for the poor and needy but a better way of doing this would be to buy them in India at $3 a piece or much less in bulk. A good part of what we are really doing at Wikibooks is providing an outlet for people who have specialist knowledge to share this with the world.

In view of this "what is wikibooks" should make it clear that it is also for supplementary texts. RobinH 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add here that I am very sympathethic with the current vision of wikibooks is more than pure textbooks intended as the foundational text for a particular university course (if you want to go with a hardcore strict definition of a textbook). So little of Wikibooks even fits this hardcore definition that we might as well kill this project and start over again if that really was the goal. And it doesn't explain the strange additions to Wikibooks over the years by WMF board members themselves that seemingly seek to expand the scope of this project even more.
The concept of an educational focus has been quite prevalent in the VfD discussions over the years as a way to defend why certain content and not other stuff ought to be kept or deleted. The idea of defining Wikibooks as educational books (supplimentary as well as textbooks) is something very reasonable. In fact, I feel very uncomfortable when I see listings on the WMF website marking Wikibooks as only "free textbooks", as if the definition of what that means has been settled upon and is something that the Wikibooks community has agreed upon.
I should add here that the original textbook only definition of Wikibooks was something added by Jimbo himself, and never really expounded upon in any substantial format other than a broad excuse to be used by some admin to cull content in what he perceived was a too permissive policy of accepting content on Wikibooks. I'm still not thrilled by the culling of the video game guides, especially as the rationale for their removal (they are not textbooks!) is not well defined. By getting rid of the textbook concept entirely except as an example of permitted content on Wikibooks, it makes significant progress to at least acknowledge what is currently on Wikibooks and to mark where, perhaps, the scope of Wikibooks would be expanded if we allowed other types of content.
I've tried to fight both an expansion of the scope of Wikibooks (Wikijunior was one of those I fought in the past... and its foundation and creation still doesn't make sense to me) as well as those who try to redefine Wikibooks to a much smaller subset of content. Over the years we have been the recipient of a great deal of content, and this is a special trust that we guard that content where reasonable and not let it get thrown away without some serious considerations as to its fate. --Rob Horning 22:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with RobinH. Saying "Wikibooks is for textbooks only" has lead to some very convoluted and non-standard definitions of what a textbook is that seem unnecessary. I like the addition of "supplementary" texts because it preserves the educational focus of the project, but enables us to avoid such a tortured definition of the word "textbook". --xixtas talk 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_talk:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstable"
Personal tools