Difference between revisions of "Wikibooks:Reading room/General"

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Regex: new section)
Tag: MassMessage delivery
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
  +
|minthreadsleft = 1
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
 
}}
 
}}
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
+
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
  +
== Request from WMF T&S to review the book [[Suicide]] ==
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
 
  +
  +
I have moved this discussed from [[WB:RFD|Requests for Deletion]], where I originally posted it, as it isn't strictly a deletion request. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
{{Ping|CSteigenberger (WMF)|Pi zero|Leaderboard}}
  +
  +
===Background===
  +
In early August the WMF Trust & Safety team contacted (some / all?) admins on Wikibooks requesting a review of the content of [[Suicide]]. They noted two concerns: much of it had been created by a globally banned user in violation of the Terms of Use; some of it may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. They specifically requested the deletion of [[Suicide/Amitriptyline cocktail]] as crossing the legality line. The Terms of Use allow the Foundation to delete this content without community involvement. However, they requested instead that the community takes action, which for this one page I was happy to action pending a wider conversation (i.e., I have removed the potentially illegal content on precautionary grounds without prejudice to it being restored later). For the rest of the book we face a dilemma (as we do for all content here) - how do we ensure the content is accurate and, above all, legal when we lack the knowledge and skills to do this? If a subject is "on the border" so-to-speak, should we take the risk and allow it, or remove it? [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
===Discussion===
  +
  +
: {{comment}}
  +
::* The community has considered this book for deletion [[Talk:Suicide|at least twice]], and has consistently chosen not to delete it.
  +
::* Looking at recent events, Trust and Safety —as a collective entity (I've nothing to say atm of any individual person)— I do not trust, and makes me feel very unsafe.
  +
::* Ultimately if the Foundation says we have to do something, all our principles and policies (regardless of whether supposedly shared by the Foundation) count for nothing.
  +
: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
: {{comment}}. This book is one that has been controversial on Wikibooks (see [[Talk:Suicide]]), and I remember conversing with users who were concerned about such books. That being said, I would still keep the book. This is a scientific discussion about suicide, and there is a clear disclaimer on the front page about the scope of the book. Nothing in the book explicitly promotes suicide e(and it isn't telling 'lies' either). To remove this book would be a sign of censorship on the part of WMF, and I would want WMF T&S to provide a '''clear''' rationale on why they think the book does not deserve to be here. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:They have provided a clear rationale for the single page I have deleted. However as I'm on a phone editing this week I can't be bothered to try and type it all in. I will do so on Monday. For the wider issue, which I will also expand on, they have the right to delete it but have instead deferred to the community. I will expand on this next week too but for now I'd say they are being very reasonable and consultative. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
: {{comment}}: How about adding more warning materials to hopefully stop unjustified suicides? I have added some ways.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:: I distantly recall a suggestion that the book can help to talk down someone who is considering suicide by speaking to them rationally about the subject, rather than patronizingly. Warnings need to not lose that scientific honesty. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:: That would dilute the meaning of the subject. [[w:Suicide|Wikipedia's article on suicide]] does not have a warning, so why should Wikibooks? [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
::: A cogent point. Likewise Wikipedia's article on [[w:Suicide methods|suicide methods]]. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 16:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::: (I see that one has an RFC about adding a hatnote.) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
::::: My take is this, T&S most likely will like to prevent people from learning how to suicide. I chime in as in Chinese Wikiversity I once AFD an article on how to kill someone in an enclosed room on the basis of it being unethical. The community decided to keep it. I find similarities between my thought as per what T&S are thinking, let's not teach people to do harm. However, the arguments then presented in the AFD is that there are ways many sites out there teaching the same, the article is just something that summarize ideas out from the web. Hence, my take is this, for those contents that are original research i.e. some manner to commit suicide - I don't know is the amitriptyline cocktail is available on the web or not but these should be deleted per TOU of ensuring a safe environment. We can have a book focusing on suicide, but not to teach people how to suicide, at least not more than what the enwp article have. Regards,--[[User:Cohaf|Cohaf]] ([[User talk:Cohaf|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cohaf|contribs]]) 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
::::: I now tried to read some of the pages and stop at 2 pages, the detail is making me uncomfortable as an adult. The main page is ok for me, but once I clicked into the methods of suicide, it makes me very uncomfortable (I have no issues reading the enwp version). I think these should be trimmed down. --[[User:Cohaf|Cohaf]] ([[User talk:Cohaf|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cohaf|contribs]]) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::: There should be something sobering for a Wikibookian about the idea that it's okay to provide a shallow treatment —which ''is'' the purpose of an encyclopedia article— but it's not okay to provide an in-depth treatment — which is the purpose of a book. I'm not saying some of the book content doesn't make me uncomfortable; I'm saying that when I recognize in myself an impulse to censor, that ''also'' makes me uncomfortable. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::::Concurred, I dont wish to censor either. However, I'm trying to understand what T&S is thinking and trying to get a win win solution. Be aware that even if we dont agree for deletion, they could still summary delete if they wish to although I dont think they will given the recent FRAM issue. An approach will be to look up into some of the books in this category on Amazon or etc, if they cover the same content, ours should be safe to keep. I remembered something along the lines of [[:commons:COM:PORN]] or Wikipedia WP:NOTCENSORED can be ways we set the boundaries of what can or what cant be included in a book. Regards, its indeed sobering and I wish we never have to discuss this kind of inclusion issue with T&S involved.--[[User:Cohaf|Cohaf]] ([[User talk:Cohaf|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cohaf|contribs]]) 03:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::::: We must make our decisions based on our own ethical principles. We can listen to concerns expressed by T&S, as we would to any intelligent party raising such concerns, and weigh those concerns in the light of our ethics; but if we compromise our ''ethics'' because we feel intimidated by T&S, then our behavior is unethical. If we consider concerns raised, make an ethical decision that T&S doesn't agree with, and T&S then decides to override us, ''they'' are violating our ethical principles but ''we'' are not, and we can hold our heads up high. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 04:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::Just to note that I did ping T&S (at their request) so they could see and comment on this discussion. Given their failure to do so, I will email them as we really need their input. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 09:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::{{re|Pi zero}} Sure, this seems a fair approach. I just don't want things such as FRAM to happen here, when we hold our heads up defying them, we simply don't have the ability to do any form of civil disobedience, so my approach is to try to reach a compromise as far as possible. I seen summary deletion and even protection on zhwp by T&S, the feeling is really very bad. I seen CU rights being yanked away with superficial explanation of safety and the Ombudsmen Commission have yet to finish the report for 1.5 years leaving stewards having to do CU which is a horrendous but necessary arrangement. I have always stick to my principles and will oppose what nonsense I don't believe in (like I did on meta regularly) and will sure to do so here using an approach that will not be that sour. {{re|QuiteUnusual}} Is there anymore T&S share with you or just this is it? Then they should really elaborate on what their concerns are and I think we should wait for their response before discussing any further. I will also email them too.--[[User:Cohaf|Cohaf]] ([[User talk:Cohaf|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cohaf|contribs]]) 12:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
:It was specifically [[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)]] who emailed and I think I have provided all of the relevant info from the email. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
Dear Wikibook community,
  +
  +
First of all thank you all for taking this matter seriously and taking the time to look into it. Also thank you for getting back to us with your questions.
  +
  +
We are highly concerned that the kind of detailed descriptions given in this book, especially in the pages around methods, could create a risk of harm to readers and is not within the scope of educational content as it reads almost as a how-to on suicide methods. We've seen studies that people do go to Wikimedia projects, when researching methods of suicide, and that when they find this kind of specific information, it makes the harm worse, so these pages are a serious risk.
  +
  +
We also have serious doubts on the educational value of parts of the book - see for example the page on [[Suicide/Immolation|“Methods/Immolation”]].
  +
  +
Another concern we have is that this kind of information is illegal in many places in the world and raises the chance of Wikibooks and other projects being blocked in those places.
  +
  +
This kind of information hurts the projects overall and makes it more difficult for us to defend the community governance structure from harmful legislation.
  +
  +
I hope this information is helpful to you for making an informed decision about the ongoing deletion discussion. If you want more background, feel free to ping me again and I will try to provide whatever you need to make a good decision. --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/CSteigenberger (WMF)|contribs]]) 07:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
: {{ping|CSteigenberger (WMF)}} Misuse of statistics is, alas, a very widespread problem. "We've seen studies that..." is hearsay; we'd need to examine the studies and assess what they actually mean, if we're to take such claims seriously. Can you direct us to information about these studies? --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
: Thanks {{u|CSteigenberger (WMF)}} for clarifying, and I got the gist of T&S concerns right in my guess above. My response: Per {{u|Pi zero}}, can we have some examples of these studies, preferably blind studies for those who read wikibooks and then committed those acts vs those who don't, in a large enough sample and random enough sampling. The demographics will also be helpful as I know we can present different content to different audiences (based on mediawiki extension). On per educational value, this is something we can discuss and improve I guess.
  +
:For legistration and illegal, I don't buy this. I know these firewalls personally as I interact with people living under firewall on a daily basis. I will say that if we censor our content just to make sure the censors don't censor us, we are quasi bowing down to the censors. Let it be IP Block Exemptions, paid VPN subscriptions or etc, we should use these rather to trim our contents and values to satisfy the censors.
  +
:I suggest we examine the entire book page by page to see how we can make sure people don't get hurt or there isn't false information. An approach can be having warnings on every page (my homewiki does this for every medical / legal article) or a landing page for people to get the warnings before diving into the books?
  +
:However, I would like to thank T&S for their good handling of this situation by talking and not arbitrary summary deletion as office actions. Commendable and Kudos to the team. --[[User:Cohaf|Cohaf]] ([[User talk:Cohaf|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cohaf|contribs]]) 15:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  +
::Hi Cohaf and Pi zero,
  +
  +
::Thank you both for your continued interest and the good, respectful discussion.
  +
  +
::I really appreciate the idea of going through the book page by page, leaving hatnotes where it makes sense and either improving content or deleting pages, where there is no educational value to preserve. After our initial review, there are a number of concerning paragraphs that include personal advocacy, do not include reliable citations, or cite repeatedly to the same limited, unbalanced sources, and have other issues. Part of our concern about the legal and policy issues is that these articles, in their current state, do not reflect Wikibooks policies. Ensuring that potentially harmful content is treated with utmost respect and care helps us defend the projects. Do you have any idea about the time it would take to do this kind of review? --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/CSteigenberger (WMF)|contribs]]) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) <small> I am almost tempted to jump in and help in my volunteer capacity, as several of those pages offend my professional knowledge in that field, but I am aware this would be outside our standard practice. </small>
  +
  +
::: {{ping|CSteigenberger (WMF)}} Please note, you have not yet responded to the question that I and Cohaf both asked, regarding studies. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
::::I have one study that is specifically about content on Wikipedia about suicide—{{cite journal | last=Gunnell | first=David | last2=Derges | first2=Jane | last3=Chang | first3=Shu-Sen | last4=Biddle | first4=Lucy | title=Searching for Suicide Methods | journal=Crisis | publisher=Hogrefe Publishing Group | volume=36 | issue=5 | year=2015 | issn=0227-5910 | doi=10.1027/0227-5910/a000326 | pages=325–331 | ref=harv}} There are also studies that discuss the way people consult general information resources on suicide—{{cite journal | last=Biddle | first=Lucy | last2=Derges | first2=Jane | last3=Goldsmith | first3=Carlie | last4=Donovan | first4=Jenny L. | last5=Gunnell | first5=David | editor-last=Harris | editor-first=Keith M. | title=Using the internet for suicide-related purposes: Contrasting findings from young people in the community and self-harm patients admitted to hospital | journal=PLOS ONE | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=13 | issue=5 | date=2018-05-24 | issn=1932-6203 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0197712 | page=e0197712 | ref=harv}}—and the effects of media coverage of suicide-related topics—{{cite journal | last=Gould | first=Madelyn | last2=Jamieson | first2=Patrick | last3=Romer | first3=Daniel | title=Media Contagion and Suicide Among the Young | journal=American Behavioral Scientist | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=46 | issue=9 | year=2003 | issn=0002-7642 | doi=10.1177/0002764202250670 | pages=1269–1284 | ref=harv}} There are extensive bibliographies of research in this field available at [http://reportingonsuicide.org/research/ Reporting on Suicide] and the [https://www.13reasonswhytoolkit.org/research 13 Reasons Why Toolkit]. I appreciate your interest in looking at this issue closely. --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/CSteigenberger (WMF)|contribs]]) 07:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::{{ping|Pi zero}} and {{ping|Cohaf}}, did you find some time to look at the articles I linked? If you need more time for reading, this is perfectly understandable! I just would love to continue this discussion, so please let me know when you feel up to coming back to it. --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/CSteigenberger (WMF)|contribs]]) 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::: For my part, I've not yet gotten to them but fully intend to. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:{{ping|CSteigenberger (WMF)}} I've been there. I've had a rope around my neck. So please, listen. Every second a depressed person is reading about suicide, including methods, they are ''not'' cutting their wrists. That's a win. I'll look at the studies you linked, but it's extremely difficult to get such research right. I bet none of them will take into account how many badly informed botched suicide attempts that resulted in permanent damage were replaced by more successful attempts when better information was available. It's even less likely they will consider the ethical implications of that. If I had to guess, better information would result in some botched suicide attempts become successful suicide attempts but also some botched suicide attempts becoming '''no''' suicide attempt. But the latter is really hard to measure. Many botched suicide attempts are followed up later by successful ones. If such a succesful attempt is replaced by a botched attempt, researchers would likely consider that a win because the heart of the patient is still beating. But it's a shallow victory. All you've won is a little more time in now even more pain.
  +
:If you want to reduce suicide (in the US), restrictions on gun ownership would likely be effective. Guns allow for very impulsive actions. Getting a chair and a rope, tying a knot, etc. simply takes more time. Making any kind of death cocktail takes more time. Getting in your car and driving off a cliff takes more time. You wouldn't even have to ban them, putting them in a safe that takes at least 20 seconds to open would help. (but this is difficult to enforce) Even just storing the weapon and ammo in different rooms would help. WMF can't do much about this, but maybe that should be added to the book. A depressed person who reads it may actually separate their weapon and ammo to protect themselves from an impulsive decision. You might save someone. And this isn't patronizing.
  +
:But now, the book. If you tell a suicidal person they are not allowed to kill themselves or try to keep information from them, they'll become ''more'' suicidal. They already lost control. Control over their lives, their destiny, their happiness. People don't become suicidal because they're too lazy to fix their problems. They become suicidal because they believe they ''can't'' fix their problems. You need to respect their decision. It's a [[w:Chinese finger trap|Chinese finger trap]]. If you try to talk them out of it, you're only pushing them further away. Don't censor the book. The information can be found elsewhere, and anyone looking for it will go there. And if you think that's a good thing, consider this: if they are reading stuff here, chances are they will make a contribution. You may think that's insignificant, but it isn't. If they become a member of this community, they will gain both some respect and control over something. (their contributions) So maybe after all there ''is'' something the WMF can do. Figure out how to reach out to people who feel depressed and get them involved in a WMF project. Let the community embrace them. And yes, this is an alternative account. You have almost certainly seen a contribution of mine. But that's how much of a taboo still exists on being depressed, even more so on being suicidal. Chinese finger trap.. [[User:Suisock|Suisock]] ([[User talk:Suisock|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Suisock|contribs]]) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:: Thank you for sharing those thoughts. I'd sensed the discussion was lopsided due to something missing on that side of the ledger. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::{{ping|Suisock}}, thanks for weighing in and bringing your own, individual and emotional perspective.
  +
  +
:::However, I still think we all, staff and volunteers alike have the same responsibility here - and that is to ensure that the content we present is correct and presented responsibly in alignment with all the policies of our projects. Looking at some pages of this book, like e.g. [[Suicide/Firearm]] or [[Suicide/Toxification/Diazepam]] we doubt this.
  +
  +
:::Please let us discuss what we can learn from the studies linked above about how content on suicide can be presented in a responsible way. Let us discuss if the book and all its chapters can be redacted in a way that meets such criteria.
  +
  +
:::Please also be aware that we as WMF staff are not the only ones concerned with the book in question and the impact parts of it might have. We have been contacted by the Samaritans, a major suicide prevention organization, and they have expressed concern over several pages of this book. I really think we should listen to the experts in the field, bringing their professional expertise and either improve the book or delete it. --[[User:CSteigenberger (WMF)|CSteigenberger (WMF)]] ([[User talk:CSteigenberger (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/CSteigenberger (WMF)|contribs]]) 10:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::: {{ping|CSteigenberger (WMF)}} You appear to have missed some important points re Suisock's remarks and the overall situation. (And yes, I'm very aware I still have to examine the documents you recommended.)
  +
::::* Their remarks were evidently highly rational and carefully thought out. Don't stray down the road of labeling things you don't want to hear as "emotional"; I've seen institutions do that to trivialize their opponents when the institution doesn't care what anyone else says except as a nuisance to be overcome.
  +
::::* A major theme of their remarks, and a major problem for the Foundation generally for (many) years now, is that statistics are usually misinterpreted. People who claim (often sincerely) to be basing their decisions on statistics are likely to be seeing in the statistics what they want to see rather than anything actually there. So when you talk about "what we can learn from the studies above" &mdash; what that is remains to be seen; and Suisock's remarks bear on what can and perhaps cannot be learned from the statistics; and there are things to be learned directly from Suisock's remarks, so that it's not safe to think of a decision here as being based solely on statistics.
  +
::::* A pessimistic reading of your remarks would suggest you'd force us to decide to do what you have made up your mind to require us to decide to do, and you want to be able to pretend (perhaps even to yourself) to have given us a voice in the decision. (Remember Henry Ford, offering the Model-T in any color as long as it's black?)
  +
:::: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
====Content added by Leucosticte====
  +
[[User:Leucosticte]] added a great deal of content in a very short time. Some of it appears to have been published before they added it here making all their additions suspect. For example:
  +
  +
*"[https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide/Toxification/Hydrogen_sulfide&oldid=2714942 meaning that it can poison several different systems in the body, although the nervous system is most affected. The toxicity of H2S is comparable with that of hydrogen cyanide]" can be found in this source from 2010 http://www.silverspringvfd.org/apps/public/news/newsView.cfm?News_ID=40&Print=1
  +
  +
*"[https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide/Toxification/Antipsychotic_drugs_and_SSRIs&oldid=2715001 NMS is caused almost exclusively by antipsychotics, including all types of neuroleptic medicines along with newer antipsychotic drugs]" is copied from Wikipedia without appropriate attribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuroleptic_malignant_syndrome&oldid=214303194
  +
  +
*This edit[https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Suicide/Toxification/Obtaining_drugs&oldid=2714990] was made a minute after there prior one and added more than 16,000 bytes of text. It is unclear if the emails that that page contains were released under an open license.
  +
  +
Additionally the content is not really educational in nature. Together with that and the copyright concerns I believe we should delete their contributions.
  +
[[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
  +
({{ping|Doc James}} Moved it here as it is relevant to the deletion discussion going on here. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC))
  +
:100% agreed. Nathan has some serious issues that he needs to work out in a venue other than our wikis. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
::{{ping|Koavf}} Who's Nathan? [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::The person we were just discussing. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::: So, is there a potential ''copyright'' issue with some of the material? If so, that ought to be removed first so we can contemplate what remains without that complication. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::[[User:Pi zero]] The thing about picking up copy and pasting is it is not always easy to detect especially years later. If a number of a users edits have concerns and they are adding text faster than a human can reasonable write such text than based on the cautionary principle IMO it is reasonable to simple delete it all. Expecially when you add in the fact that the contributions are not educational / are fairly unsavory. Seriously Wikibooks should not be a "how to guide" on how to die by suicide. [[User:Jmh649|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Jmh649|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Jmh649|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Jmh649|email]]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
:::::: Now, that's clearly mixing the issues; I was especially hoping to separate them, so we can get a clear reading on each. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
   
  +
== The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started ==
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
The advantages of this system is that the papers would be created and remain in the public domain. Publication might also be faster than through the established printed journals. Academics like myself want the widest possible distribution of their work but this gets blocked because the publishers of academic journals normally take the copyright of the papers away from the authors.
 
  +
<div class="plainlinks">
  +
Hello,
   
  +
In a [[:en:Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Official_statements#Board_statement|recent statement]], the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees [[:en:Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Official_statements#Board_statement|requested that staff hold a consultation]] to "re-evaluat[e] or add community input to the two new office action policy tools (temporary and partial Foundation bans)".
I am new to Wikibooks and Wiki space in general, so I apologize if I'm way off track with this. It is just an idea, hopefully it can gain substance if other people are interested. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Accordingly, the Foundation's Trust & Safety team invites all Wikimedians [[:m:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019|to join this consultation and give their feedback]] from 30 September to 30 October.
Thanks for all the comments. It seems that wikibooks is not the place for this idea. However, I will continue the thread for a moment longer, if only for the benefit of others who are lost in wikispace. At wikia I found a page that has been set up to do almost exactly what I proposed. It seems to have been in existence for some six years and, although all the infrastructure is there, there is virtually no content. It seems that an "academic publishing" page is just too general to attract participants. It needs to be more focused on a specific area of study. Also, I think it needs a strong group to start it off. I do not think it can be started by just one person with the expectation that others will just drop in (it will end up as dead space). I might pursue the idea further at wikiversity if I can put a group together.[[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
How can you help?
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
   
  +
* Suggest how partial and temporary Foundation bans should be used, if they should (eg: On all projects, or only on a subset);
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* Give ideas about how partial and temporary Foundation bans should ideally implemented, if they should be; and/or
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
 
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
 
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* Propose changes to the existing Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans.
As someone who recently repurposed a small portion of his undergraduate honors thesis [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|here on Wikibooks]] (perhaps unwittingly in violation of policy!), I would like to say something. I can attest that there were at least 100 honors papers coming out of Emory University every year in the late 1980's, and one would estimate with near certainty that easily half of them never reached a "digital age" reformatting. It seems an utter waste of talent and labor to '''''not''''' reach out to people with honors research "collecting dust", and ask them (plead with them!) to consider scanning the work for OCR, then releasing it under a free license to share with the rest of the world. Multiply my experience at Emory by at least 200 (or 400, or 800!), to cover the many outstanding universities worldwide that have featured honors papers, etc. We're talking about a great deal of content and information that really should be gathered up and made digital. If not on Wikibooks, why? And where? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not peer-reviewed, but this material would presumably be fine for Wikiversity, no question, and some of it might be okay here as well. It's likely to be of better quality than the average. Great idea, Thekohser. The problem with great ideas is, frequently, too many Chiefs with great ideas and not enough Indians. I'd suggest this as a project on Wikiversity, to get the papers in a place which is pretty safe from deletion based on arguments of POV, etc., and then review them for transfer to Wikibooks. But I have no problem with placement here first, and then a move to Wikiversity if that seems more appropriate at the time. What I don't like is the raw deal of you do all this work on a page or set of pages and then they are deleted because Randy from Boise and a few drive-bys thought it wasn't notable or was something else Bad. (It's hard to imagine a submitted degree thesis or an honor paper that wouldn't be appropriate, at least, for Wikiversity. But the world is big.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
Concerning Thekosher and Abd remarks on undergraduate honors thesis, I am very confused about where papers can be uploaded on the various Wiki Foundation sites. I have a lot of papers that I would like to make more available to the general public. These are undergraduate thesis, Masters thesis, PhD thesis, a collection of working papers published by University Departments, an even larger collection of papers published in academic journals. The copyright of the published papers have been hi-jacked by various publishers, so there seems to be nothing that can be done about these - they will be locked away in print libraries (where nobody will ever read them) until long after I'm dead (which is why I suggested academic papers could be produced on a Wiki). Going one step back, there are the working papers upon which the published papers are based. They are not as polished as the published papers but are a valuable research resource that could be placed in the public domain. Working papers are peer reviewed within a University Department. When I brought up the question publishing these at Wikisource I was told "We would only look at the papers following peer review" by which I understand them to mean that the working papers would have to be peer reviewed again. This requirement would, I think, be difficult to meet because I know of nobody that would be prepared to spend their time reviewing a paper that has already been reviewed. Now Thekosher suggests collecting undergraduate thesis (I do not think this is a bad idea), when papers that are far more developed, and only one step away from being lost for 100 years, have nowhere to go. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
We offer our thanks in advance for your contributions, and we hope to get as much input as possible from community members during this consultation!
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
</div>
:If it is in the Public Domain and has been published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", it is welcome at wikisource. The Wikiproject can be found at [[s:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers]]. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div>-- [[user:Kbrown (WMF)|Kbrown (WMF)]] 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Trizek (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=19302497 -->
   
  +
: {{ping|Kbrown (WMF)}} The first two wikilinks on your message are broken, because they need an additional <code>Wikipedia:</code> prefix; at least, that's how it misbehaves on this project (and, I see, also on en.wn). --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:: <s>I think, thought I could be wrong, that wikisource requires the material to be published elsewhere before they will accept it. I suppose this keeps people from posting their rejected papers there straight away without correcting the flaws.</s> [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project ==
== Goodbook ==
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
{{Int:Please-translate}}
   
  +
{{int:Hello}}. The Readers Web team at the WMF will work on some [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements|improvements to the desktop interface]] over the next couple of years. The goal is to increase usability without removing any functionality. We have been inspired by changes made by volunteers, but that currently only exist as local gadgets and user scripts, prototypes, and volunteer-led skins. We would like to begin the process of bringing some of these changes into the default experience on all Wikimedia projects.
== We need another bureaucrat ==
 
   
  +
We are currently in the research stage of this project and are looking for ideas for improvements, as well as feedback on our current ideas and mockups. So far, we have performed interviews with community members at Wikimania. We have gathered lists of previous volunteer and WMF work in this area. We are examining possible technical approaches for such changes.
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
We would like individual feedback on the following:
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
 
   
  +
* Identifying focus areas for the project we have not yet discovered
The comment above inspired me to nominate myself as a bureaucrat. As per [[WB:CRAT|policy]] I am advertising my nomination here. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
* Expanding the list of existing gadgets and user scripts that are related to providing a better desktop experience. If you can think of some of these from your wiki, please let us know
  +
* Feedback on the ideas and mockups we have collected so far
   
  +
We would also like to gather a list of wikis that would be interested in being test wikis for this project - these wikis would be the first to receive the updates once we’re ready to start building.
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
 
   
  +
When giving feedback, please consider the following goals of the project:
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
 
   
  +
* Make it easier for readers to focus on the content
There is [[wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#colspan, etc.|an ongoing discussion]] about the existence of individual entries for HTML tags. As notable examples, on Wiktionary, there are ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/img Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]'', ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/h1 Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/h1]'' and ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/title Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/title]'', to define, respectively, the tags ''img'', ''h1'' and ''title''.
 
  +
* Provide easier access to everyday actions (e.g. search, language switching, editing)
  +
* Put things in logical and useful places
  +
* Increase consistency in the interface with other platforms - mobile web and the apps
  +
* Eliminate clutter
  +
* Plan for future growth
   
  +
As well as the following constraints:
However, especially since the creation and maintenance of HTML tags at Wiktionary is a fairly new project, it depends on further consensus. All these pages may conceivably be kept or be deleted from Wiktionary, according to the development of possible discussions and/or votes.
 
   
  +
* Not touching the content - no work will be done in terms of styling templates or to the structure of page contents themselves
One particular argument for deleting these pages from Wiktionary is that there are already pages on Wikibooks, including ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]]'', ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/option]]'' and ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/table]]'' for similar purposes, therefore Wiktionarian versions would be redundant.
 
  +
* Not removing any functionality - things might move around, but all navigational items and other functionality currently available by default will remain
  +
* No drastic changes to the layout - we're taking an evolutionary approach to the changes and want the site to continue feeling familiar to readers and editors
   
  +
Please give all feedback (in any language) at [[mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements|mw:Talk:Reading/Web/Desktop Improvements]]
Since the particular message "Given this book is a user guide, it is organized around topics from the user's perspective, not around the names of the tags." is displayed at the top of [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List]], am I right in assuming that individual pages for each HTML tag would be better placed in Wiktionary? Or, perhaps, there are reasons for keeping them at Wikibooks, that I am unaware of?
 
   
  +
After this round of feedback, we plan on building a prototype of suggested changes based on the feedback we receive. You’ll hear from us again asking for feedback on this prototype.
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
{{Int:Feedback-thanks-title}} [[mw:User:Quiddity (WMF)|Quiddity (WMF)]] ([[mw:User talk:Quiddity (WMF)|talk]])
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div> 06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Quiddity_(WMF)/Global_message_delivery_split_1&oldid=19462889 -->
   
  +
== Community Wishlist Survey 2020: Proposal phase opened until 11 November 2019 ==
:: Since Wiktionary is already more reference-like, it makes sense in that view to put them there. But Wikibooks would be a more logical choice given the content and purpose of Wikibooks itself. I can't, however, imagine that a separate book would be created for the reference of each computer language. Which, in turn, means that if they were to be placed on Wikibooks, they'd necessarily have to form part of some sort of appendix within each wikibook on their respective subjects. In either case, a reference list for HTML as well as for other computer languages is certainly extremely useful. I really think we should at least have references for computer languages ''somewhere'' on Wikimedia. But where, I don't know. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Hello,
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
I though it'd be good and interesting to let you know that [[m:Community Wishlist Survey 2020|the Community Wishlist Survey 2020]] is now accepting proposals until Nov., 11.
: I think "HyperText Markup Language/Tag List" with all its subpages should be separated again into a standalone book, named along the lines of "HTML Reference". I do not think a reference book should be presented as an appendix of a guidebook; these should be two standalone books instead. On the other subject, this seems to be a Wikibooks material rather than a dictionary one. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
This year's survey will only focus on non-Wikipedia projects, so it might be a good oportunity to raise the technical issues and needs Wikibooks users do have.
I think "which project" is the wrong thing to focus on. A dictionary explains how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses. Books may have a glossary, which usually only include unfamiliar words that people in the field should know without details usually found in a dictionary. Books should have glossaries. I think what Wiktionarians should focus on is if explaining how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses for programming terms is relevant to Wiktionary's scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Best regards, --[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarcoAurelio|contribs]]) 11:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages ==
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
 
:::If one particular goal of Wiktionary is to explain the grammar of many natural languages, it may as well conceivably explain the syntax of programming languages similarly. Since Wikibooks has [[Subject:English language]], in addition to the coverage of English from Wiktionary, I assume each project may treat the same subjects from different approaches, without them becoming redundant to each other. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
== Five-year WMF targets ==
 
  +
<em>[[m:VisualEditor/Newsletter/2019/October|Read this in another language]] • [[m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter]]</em>
   
  +
Inside this newsletter, the [[mw:Editing|Editing team]] talks about their work on the [[mw:Mobile visual editor|mobile visual editor]], on [[mw:Talk pages project|the new talk pages project]], and at [[wikimania:|Wikimania 2019]].
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
=== Help ===
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
<strong>What talk page interactions do you remember?</strong> Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!
   
  +
Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. <mark>Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the <strong>[[mw:Topic:V8d91yh8gcg404dj|talk page for this project]]</strong>.</mark> The team wants your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
   
  +
=== Talk pages project ===
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
The [[mw:Talk pages consultation 2019|Talk Pages Consultation]] was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The [[mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Phase 2 report|Phase 2 Report]] of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: [[mw:Talk pages project|Talk Page Project project page]].
   
  +
The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the [[mw:Talk pages project#Getting involved|<strong>"Getting involved"</strong>]] section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
=== Mobile visual editor ===
::Yes. It's not surprising to me, however. It just gives me all the more motivation to prove them wrong. Also, a relevant slide from Wikimania 2010, where Erik Moeller above took a look at the other Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=23 Slide 23]. Slides before and after cover the others, for comparison. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile|visual editor on mobile]]. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at [[mw:Talk:VisualEditor on mobile|Talk:VisualEditor on mobile]].
   
  +
==== [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Edit cards|Edit Cards]] ====
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
[[File:Edit Cards-before-v3-comparison.png|thumb|486x486px|What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.]]
   
  +
* On 3 September, the Editing team released [[:File:Edit Cards comparison v2 and v3.png|version 3 of Edit Cards]]. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
:I thought Moeller founded Wikinews... Anyway, but how can the WB community prove them wrong? It's not like WB will get much more traffic even if we make it 100% perfect... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
* There is an [[:File:Edit Cards comparison v2 and v3.png|updated design]] on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Edit cards#2 September 2019 - v3 deployment timing|combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target]].
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
* Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the [[:mw:Topic:V5rg0cqmikpubmjj|Edit cards talk page]].
   
  +
==== [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Toolbar refresh|Toolbar]] ====
:::Indeed, I would think that high quality textbooks would attract more readers due to gaining higher rankings in search results. The moral of the above is that if we want to succeed, we have to do it ourselves and the WMF cannot be relied upon for support. We prove them wrong about our prospects by not giving up even if the head honchos have forgotten where Wikipedia once was compared to where it is today. It's apparent that they have not heard the idea that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As Wikipedia has matured, the potential for greater percentage of growth lies in the other projects. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
[[File:Toolbar-comparison-v1.png|thumb|486px|The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. [[mw:Topic:V79x6zm8n6i4nb56|Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar]].]]
   
  +
* In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
** <em>One toolbar:</em> All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
  +
**<em>New navigation:</em> The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
  +
**<em>Seamless switching:</em> an [[phab:T228159|improved workflow]] for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  +
* Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the [[mw:Topic:V79x6zm8n6i4nb56|Toolbar feedback talk page]].
   
  +
=== Wikimania ===
:::::But that is offset by the fact that textbooks are way different than encyclopedias. Something like [[Excel]], [[PHP]], or [[HTML]] wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
The Editing Team attended [[wmania:2019:Program|Wikimania 2019]] in Sweden. They led a session on [[wmania:2019:Community Growth/Visual editing on mobile: An accessible editor for all|the mobile visual editor]] and a session on [[wmania:2019:Community Growth/After Flow: A new direction for improving talk pages|the new talk pages project]]. They tested [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Toolbar refresh#v1 prototype|two]] new [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Edit cards#v3 prototype|features]] in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile#Wikimania Stockholm: Overview|the team's report on Wikimania 2019]].
   
  +
=== Looking ahead ===
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.)
 
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* <strong>Talk Pages Project:</strong> The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: [[mw:Talk pages project#Getting involved|<strong>Getting involved</strong>]].
:::::::http://www.ck12.org is our main competitor on the secondary education front as it is aiming for approval by California's schools. Their licensing was changed to noncommercial a few months back, but I was able to pull content from their site under the cc-by-sa license before that and upload the PDFs to Commons. There are Creative Commons licensed books and material at http://cnx.org, another competitor. The advantage Wikibooks has over these two is that anyone can improve upon the content easily because this is a wiki. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
* <strong>Testing the mobile visual editor as the default:</strong> The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/VE mobile default|<strong>VisualEditor as mobile default project page</strong>]].
  +
* <strong>Measuring the impact of Edit Cards:</strong> This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The Editing team hopes to share results in November. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: [[mw:VisualEditor on mobile/Edit cards|<strong>Edit Cards project page</strong>]].
   
  +
– [[User:PPelberg (WMF)|PPelberg (WMF)]] ([[mw:User talk:PPelberg (WMF)|talk]]) & [[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[mw:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]])
::::::::It's out of the question that secondary schools use learning materials from free sources such as WB, in a truely commercialised world, except for 'non-traditional' subjects such as [[Hong Kong Senior Secondary Liberal Studies|Liberal Studies]]. However, if the education bureau actually allows such materials to be used (which is highly unlikely), I believe it will be extremely popular. There are repeated complaints about book publishers realeasing a new edition every now and then. Sometimes it's necessary. For example, when we were learning planets in primary school, they had to make a new edition of the science book. However, most of the time the changes can be rather trivial, and like Thenub said it can be rather irritating that old books cannot be used. Also, books can be hard to find, especially 'non-traditional' subjects such as Liberal Studies. That's something they are also complaining about. I think using materials from sources such as WB has neither of these advantages and therefore has potential.
 
  +
</div> 11:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Johan_(WMF)/Target_lists/VE_201910/6&oldid=19500852 -->
   
  +
== Community Wishlist 2020 ==
== Proposing new deletion process ==
 
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
[[File:Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg|right|48px]]
== Regex ==
 
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
The '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2020|2020 Community Wishlist Survey]]''' is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the [[m:Community Tech|Community Tech]] team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on '''November 11, 2019''', or comment on other proposals to help make them better.
   
  +
'''This year, we’re exclusively focusing on smaller projects (i.e., Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews).''' We want to help these projects and provide meaningful improvements to diverse communities. If you’re a member of any of these projects, please participate in the survey! To submit proposals, see the guidelines on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2020#Guidelines|survey page]]. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div>
  +
[[:m:user:IFried (WMF)|IFried (WMF)]] 19:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Trizek (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Trizek_(WMF)/sandbox/temp_MassMessage_list&oldid=19523495 -->

Latest revision as of 19:30, 4 November 2019

Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

Request from WMF T&S to review the book Suicide[edit]

I have moved this discussed from Requests for Deletion, where I originally posted it, as it isn't strictly a deletion request. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@CSteigenberger (WMF), Pi zero, Leaderboard:

Background[edit]

In early August the WMF Trust & Safety team contacted (some / all?) admins on Wikibooks requesting a review of the content of Suicide. They noted two concerns: much of it had been created by a globally banned user in violation of the Terms of Use; some of it may be illegal in certain jurisdictions. They specifically requested the deletion of Suicide/Amitriptyline cocktail as crossing the legality line. The Terms of Use allow the Foundation to delete this content without community involvement. However, they requested instead that the community takes action, which for this one page I was happy to action pending a wider conversation (i.e., I have removed the potentially illegal content on precautionary grounds without prejudice to it being restored later). For the rest of the book we face a dilemma (as we do for all content here) - how do we ensure the content is accurate and, above all, legal when we lack the knowledge and skills to do this? If a subject is "on the border" so-to-speak, should we take the risk and allow it, or remove it? QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Comment
  • The community has considered this book for deletion at least twice, and has consistently chosen not to delete it.
  • Looking at recent events, Trust and Safety —as a collective entity (I've nothing to say atm of any individual person)— I do not trust, and makes me feel very unsafe.
  • Ultimately if the Foundation says we have to do something, all our principles and policies (regardless of whether supposedly shared by the Foundation) count for nothing.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment . This book is one that has been controversial on Wikibooks (see Talk:Suicide), and I remember conversing with users who were concerned about such books. That being said, I would still keep the book. This is a scientific discussion about suicide, and there is a clear disclaimer on the front page about the scope of the book. Nothing in the book explicitly promotes suicide e(and it isn't telling 'lies' either). To remove this book would be a sign of censorship on the part of WMF, and I would want WMF T&S to provide a clear rationale on why they think the book does not deserve to be here. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
They have provided a clear rationale for the single page I have deleted. However as I'm on a phone editing this week I can't be bothered to try and type it all in. I will do so on Monday. For the wider issue, which I will also expand on, they have the right to delete it but have instead deferred to the community. I will expand on this next week too but for now I'd say they are being very reasonable and consultative. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment : How about adding more warning materials to hopefully stop unjustified suicides? I have added some ways.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I distantly recall a suggestion that the book can help to talk down someone who is considering suicide by speaking to them rationally about the subject, rather than patronizingly. Warnings need to not lose that scientific honesty. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 05:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That would dilute the meaning of the subject. Wikipedia's article on suicide does not have a warning, so why should Wikibooks? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
A cogent point. Likewise Wikipedia's article on suicide methods. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(I see that one has an RFC about adding a hatnote.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
My take is this, T&S most likely will like to prevent people from learning how to suicide. I chime in as in Chinese Wikiversity I once AFD an article on how to kill someone in an enclosed room on the basis of it being unethical. The community decided to keep it. I find similarities between my thought as per what T&S are thinking, let's not teach people to do harm. However, the arguments then presented in the AFD is that there are ways many sites out there teaching the same, the article is just something that summarize ideas out from the web. Hence, my take is this, for those contents that are original research i.e. some manner to commit suicide - I don't know is the amitriptyline cocktail is available on the web or not but these should be deleted per TOU of ensuring a safe environment. We can have a book focusing on suicide, but not to teach people how to suicide, at least not more than what the enwp article have. Regards,--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 17:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I now tried to read some of the pages and stop at 2 pages, the detail is making me uncomfortable as an adult. The main page is ok for me, but once I clicked into the methods of suicide, it makes me very uncomfortable (I have no issues reading the enwp version). I think these should be trimmed down. --Cohaf (discusscontribs) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There should be something sobering for a Wikibookian about the idea that it's okay to provide a shallow treatment —which is the purpose of an encyclopedia article— but it's not okay to provide an in-depth treatment — which is the purpose of a book. I'm not saying some of the book content doesn't make me uncomfortable; I'm saying that when I recognize in myself an impulse to censor, that also makes me uncomfortable. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Concurred, I dont wish to censor either. However, I'm trying to understand what T&S is thinking and trying to get a win win solution. Be aware that even if we dont agree for deletion, they could still summary delete if they wish to although I dont think they will given the recent FRAM issue. An approach will be to look up into some of the books in this category on Amazon or etc, if they cover the same content, ours should be safe to keep. I remembered something along the lines of commons:COM:PORN or Wikipedia WP:NOTCENSORED can be ways we set the boundaries of what can or what cant be included in a book. Regards, its indeed sobering and I wish we never have to discuss this kind of inclusion issue with T&S involved.--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 03:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
We must make our decisions based on our own ethical principles. We can listen to concerns expressed by T&S, as we would to any intelligent party raising such concerns, and weigh those concerns in the light of our ethics; but if we compromise our ethics because we feel intimidated by T&S, then our behavior is unethical. If we consider concerns raised, make an ethical decision that T&S doesn't agree with, and T&S then decides to override us, they are violating our ethical principles but we are not, and we can hold our heads up high. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 04:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to note that I did ping T&S (at their request) so they could see and comment on this discussion. Given their failure to do so, I will email them as we really need their input. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Sure, this seems a fair approach. I just don't want things such as FRAM to happen here, when we hold our heads up defying them, we simply don't have the ability to do any form of civil disobedience, so my approach is to try to reach a compromise as far as possible. I seen summary deletion and even protection on zhwp by T&S, the feeling is really very bad. I seen CU rights being yanked away with superficial explanation of safety and the Ombudsmen Commission have yet to finish the report for 1.5 years leaving stewards having to do CU which is a horrendous but necessary arrangement. I have always stick to my principles and will oppose what nonsense I don't believe in (like I did on meta regularly) and will sure to do so here using an approach that will not be that sour. @QuiteUnusual: Is there anymore T&S share with you or just this is it? Then they should really elaborate on what their concerns are and I think we should wait for their response before discussing any further. I will also email them too.--Cohaf (discusscontribs) 12:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It was specifically User:CSteigenberger (WMF) who emailed and I think I have provided all of the relevant info from the email. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Wikibook community,

First of all thank you all for taking this matter seriously and taking the time to look into it. Also thank you for getting back to us with your questions.

We are highly concerned that the kind of detailed descriptions given in this book, especially in the pages around methods, could create a risk of harm to readers and is not within the scope of educational content as it reads almost as a how-to on suicide methods. We've seen studies that people do go to Wikimedia projects, when researching methods of suicide, and that when they find this kind of specific information, it makes the harm worse, so these pages are a serious risk.

We also have serious doubts on the educational value of parts of the book - see for example the page on “Methods/Immolation”.

Another concern we have is that this kind of information is illegal in many places in the world and raises the chance of Wikibooks and other projects being blocked in those places.

This kind of information hurts the projects overall and makes it more difficult for us to defend the community governance structure from harmful legislation.

I hope this information is helpful to you for making an informed decision about the ongoing deletion discussion. If you want more background, feel free to ping me again and I will try to provide whatever you need to make a good decision. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discusscontribs) 07:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@CSteigenberger (WMF): Misuse of statistics is, alas, a very widespread problem. "We've seen studies that..." is hearsay; we'd need to examine the studies and assess what they actually mean, if we're to take such claims seriously. Can you direct us to information about these studies? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks CSteigenberger (WMF) for clarifying, and I got the gist of T&S concerns right in my guess above. My response: Per Pi zero, can we have some examples of these studies, preferably blind studies for those who read wikibooks and then committed those acts vs those who don't, in a large enough sample and random enough sampling. The demographics will also be helpful as I know we can present different content to different audiences (based on mediawiki extension). On per educational value, this is something we can discuss and improve I guess.
For legistration and illegal, I don't buy this. I know these firewalls personally as I interact with people living under firewall on a daily basis. I will say that if we censor our content just to make sure the censors don't censor us, we are quasi bowing down to the censors. Let it be IP Block Exemptions, paid VPN subscriptions or etc, we should use these rather to trim our contents and values to satisfy the censors.
I suggest we examine the entire book page by page to see how we can make sure people don't get hurt or there isn't false information. An approach can be having warnings on every page (my homewiki does this for every medical / legal article) or a landing page for people to get the warnings before diving into the books?
However, I would like to thank T&S for their good handling of this situation by talking and not arbitrary summary deletion as office actions. Commendable and Kudos to the team. --Cohaf (discusscontribs) 15:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cohaf and Pi zero,
Thank you both for your continued interest and the good, respectful discussion.
I really appreciate the idea of going through the book page by page, leaving hatnotes where it makes sense and either improving content or deleting pages, where there is no educational value to preserve. After our initial review, there are a number of concerning paragraphs that include personal advocacy, do not include reliable citations, or cite repeatedly to the same limited, unbalanced sources, and have other issues. Part of our concern about the legal and policy issues is that these articles, in their current state, do not reflect Wikibooks policies. Ensuring that potentially harmful content is treated with utmost respect and care helps us defend the projects. Do you have any idea about the time it would take to do this kind of review? --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discusscontribs) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC) I am almost tempted to jump in and help in my volunteer capacity, as several of those pages offend my professional knowledge in that field, but I am aware this would be outside our standard practice.
@CSteigenberger (WMF): Please note, you have not yet responded to the question that I and Cohaf both asked, regarding studies. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I have one study that is specifically about content on Wikipedia about suicide—Gunnell, David; Derges, Jane; Chang, Shu-Sen; Biddle, Lucy (2015). "Searching for Suicide Methods". Crisis (Hogrefe Publishing Group) 36 (5): 325–331. doi:10.1027/0227-5910/a000326. ISSN 0227-5910.  There are also studies that discuss the way people consult general information resources on suicide—Biddle, Lucy; Derges, Jane; Goldsmith, Carlie; Donovan, Jenny L.; Gunnell, David (2018-05-24). Harris, Keith M.. ed. "Using the internet for suicide-related purposes: Contrasting findings from young people in the community and self-harm patients admitted to hospital". PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science (PLoS)) 13 (5): e0197712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197712. ISSN 1932-6203. —and the effects of media coverage of suicide-related topics—Gould, Madelyn; Jamieson, Patrick; Romer, Daniel (2003). "Media Contagion and Suicide Among the Young". American Behavioral Scientist (SAGE Publications) 46 (9): 1269–1284. doi:10.1177/0002764202250670. ISSN 0002-7642.  There are extensive bibliographies of research in this field available at Reporting on Suicide and the 13 Reasons Why Toolkit. I appreciate your interest in looking at this issue closely. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discusscontribs) 07:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: and @Cohaf:, did you find some time to look at the articles I linked? If you need more time for reading, this is perfectly understandable! I just would love to continue this discussion, so please let me know when you feel up to coming back to it. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discusscontribs) 13:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I've not yet gotten to them but fully intend to. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@CSteigenberger (WMF): I've been there. I've had a rope around my neck. So please, listen. Every second a depressed person is reading about suicide, including methods, they are not cutting their wrists. That's a win. I'll look at the studies you linked, but it's extremely difficult to get such research right. I bet none of them will take into account how many badly informed botched suicide attempts that resulted in permanent damage were replaced by more successful attempts when better information was available. It's even less likely they will consider the ethical implications of that. If I had to guess, better information would result in some botched suicide attempts become successful suicide attempts but also some botched suicide attempts becoming no suicide attempt. But the latter is really hard to measure. Many botched suicide attempts are followed up later by successful ones. If such a succesful attempt is replaced by a botched attempt, researchers would likely consider that a win because the heart of the patient is still beating. But it's a shallow victory. All you've won is a little more time in now even more pain.
If you want to reduce suicide (in the US), restrictions on gun ownership would likely be effective. Guns allow for very impulsive actions. Getting a chair and a rope, tying a knot, etc. simply takes more time. Making any kind of death cocktail takes more time. Getting in your car and driving off a cliff takes more time. You wouldn't even have to ban them, putting them in a safe that takes at least 20 seconds to open would help. (but this is difficult to enforce) Even just storing the weapon and ammo in different rooms would help. WMF can't do much about this, but maybe that should be added to the book. A depressed person who reads it may actually separate their weapon and ammo to protect themselves from an impulsive decision. You might save someone. And this isn't patronizing.
But now, the book. If you tell a suicidal person they are not allowed to kill themselves or try to keep information from them, they'll become more suicidal. They already lost control. Control over their lives, their destiny, their happiness. People don't become suicidal because they're too lazy to fix their problems. They become suicidal because they believe they can't fix their problems. You need to respect their decision. It's a Chinese finger trap. If you try to talk them out of it, you're only pushing them further away. Don't censor the book. The information can be found elsewhere, and anyone looking for it will go there. And if you think that's a good thing, consider this: if they are reading stuff here, chances are they will make a contribution. You may think that's insignificant, but it isn't. If they become a member of this community, they will gain both some respect and control over something. (their contributions) So maybe after all there is something the WMF can do. Figure out how to reach out to people who feel depressed and get them involved in a WMF project. Let the community embrace them. And yes, this is an alternative account. You have almost certainly seen a contribution of mine. But that's how much of a taboo still exists on being depressed, even more so on being suicidal. Chinese finger trap.. Suisock (discusscontribs) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing those thoughts. I'd sensed the discussion was lopsided due to something missing on that side of the ledger. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Suisock:, thanks for weighing in and bringing your own, individual and emotional perspective.
However, I still think we all, staff and volunteers alike have the same responsibility here - and that is to ensure that the content we present is correct and presented responsibly in alignment with all the policies of our projects. Looking at some pages of this book, like e.g. Suicide/Firearm or Suicide/Toxification/Diazepam we doubt this.
Please let us discuss what we can learn from the studies linked above about how content on suicide can be presented in a responsible way. Let us discuss if the book and all its chapters can be redacted in a way that meets such criteria.
Please also be aware that we as WMF staff are not the only ones concerned with the book in question and the impact parts of it might have. We have been contacted by the Samaritans, a major suicide prevention organization, and they have expressed concern over several pages of this book. I really think we should listen to the experts in the field, bringing their professional expertise and either improve the book or delete it. --CSteigenberger (WMF) (discusscontribs) 10:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@CSteigenberger (WMF): You appear to have missed some important points re Suisock's remarks and the overall situation. (And yes, I'm very aware I still have to examine the documents you recommended.)
  • Their remarks were evidently highly rational and carefully thought out. Don't stray down the road of labeling things you don't want to hear as "emotional"; I've seen institutions do that to trivialize their opponents when the institution doesn't care what anyone else says except as a nuisance to be overcome.
  • A major theme of their remarks, and a major problem for the Foundation generally for (many) years now, is that statistics are usually misinterpreted. People who claim (often sincerely) to be basing their decisions on statistics are likely to be seeing in the statistics what they want to see rather than anything actually there. So when you talk about "what we can learn from the studies above" — what that is remains to be seen; and Suisock's remarks bear on what can and perhaps cannot be learned from the statistics; and there are things to be learned directly from Suisock's remarks, so that it's not safe to think of a decision here as being based solely on statistics.
  • A pessimistic reading of your remarks would suggest you'd force us to decide to do what you have made up your mind to require us to decide to do, and you want to be able to pretend (perhaps even to yourself) to have given us a voice in the decision. (Remember Henry Ford, offering the Model-T in any color as long as it's black?)
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Content added by Leucosticte[edit]

User:Leucosticte added a great deal of content in a very short time. Some of it appears to have been published before they added it here making all their additions suspect. For example:

  • This edit[1] was made a minute after there prior one and added more than 16,000 bytes of text. It is unclear if the emails that that page contains were released under an open license.

Additionally the content is not really educational in nature. Together with that and the copyright concerns I believe we should delete their contributions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

(@Doc James: Moved it here as it is relevant to the deletion discussion going on here. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC))

100% agreed. Nathan has some serious issues that he needs to work out in a venue other than our wikis. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Who's Nathan? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The person we were just discussing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
So, is there a potential copyright issue with some of the material? If so, that ought to be removed first so we can contemplate what remains without that complication. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Pi zero The thing about picking up copy and pasting is it is not always easy to detect especially years later. If a number of a users edits have concerns and they are adding text faster than a human can reasonable write such text than based on the cautionary principle IMO it is reasonable to simple delete it all. Expecially when you add in the fact that the contributions are not educational / are fairly unsavory. Seriously Wikibooks should not be a "how to guide" on how to die by suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Now, that's clearly mixing the issues; I was especially hoping to separate them, so we can get a clear reading on each. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just started[edit]

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): The first two wikilinks on your message are broken, because they need an additional Wikipedia: prefix; at least, that's how it misbehaves on this project (and, I see, also on en.wn). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project[edit]

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2020: Proposal phase opened until 11 November 2019[edit]

Hello,

I though it'd be good and interesting to let you know that the Community Wishlist Survey 2020 is now accepting proposals until Nov., 11.

This year's survey will only focus on non-Wikipedia projects, so it might be a good oportunity to raise the technical issues and needs Wikibooks users do have.

Best regards, --MarcoAurelio (discusscontribs) 11:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages[edit]

11:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Wishlist 2020[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

IFried (WMF) 19:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)