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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
(Search results from Wikibooks now active in Wikipedia's search system: w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results)
 
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
 
|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)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
}}
 
}}
 
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}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''This is an [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages|update]] from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Wikimedia Affiliations Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|Translations are available]].''
  +
  +
Recognition as a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliate]] — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.
  +
  +
The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is [[m:Wikimedia Hong Kong|Wikimedia Hong Kong]], a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.
  +
  +
If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate de-recognition FAQ|basic FAQ]]. We also invite you to visit the main [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliates page]] for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Affiliations Committee]], 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery/en&oldid=16316437 -->
  +
  +
== Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
  +
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
  +
  +
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
  +
  +
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
  +
  +
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
  +
  +
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
  +
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/15 December 2016 - Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (15 December 2016)
  +
** Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/23 December 2016 - Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (23 December 2016)
  +
** Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/8 January 2017 - Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (8 January 2017)
  +
** Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/11 January 2017 - Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (11 January 2017)
  +
** Introduction of williamsworks
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 February 2017 - Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 February 2017)
  +
** The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/10 February 2017 - Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (10 February 2017)
  +
** Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks
  +
  +
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16297862 -->
  +
  +
== Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
  +
As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.
  +
  +
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
  +
  +
Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/16 February 2017 - Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (16 February 2017)
  +
** Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/24 February 2017 - Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (24 February 2017)
  +
** Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 March 2017 - Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 March 2017)
  +
** Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions
  +
  +
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16350625 -->
  +
  +
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections]] ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|right|150px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017]]
  +
  +
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_candidates|2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections]].
  +
  +
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]] (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees|on Meta-Wiki]]. Please read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Call for candidates|letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates]].
  +
  +
'''The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Candidates|candidacy submission phase]] will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).'''
  +
  +
'''We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Questions|You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki]].'''
  +
  +
Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.
  +
  +
The goal of this process is to fill the '''three community-selected seats''' on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.
  +
  +
The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are '''inclusive''', that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
  +
  +
* April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – '''Board nominations'''
  +
* April 7 – April 20 – '''Board candidates questions submission period'''
  +
* April 21 – April 30 – '''Board candidates answer questions'''
  +
* May 1 – May 14 – '''Board voting period'''
  +
* May 15–19 – '''Board vote checking'''
  +
* May 20 – '''Board result announcement goal'''
  +
  +
In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:
  +
  +
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)'''
  +
** There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee|on Meta-Wiki]].
  +
  +
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)'''
  +
** One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson|on Meta-Wiki]].
  +
  +
Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.
  +
  +
More information on this year's elections can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|on Meta-Wiki]]. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|election talk page on Meta-Wiki]], or sent to the election committee's mailing list, <tt dir="ltr" style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:12px;line-height:1.5">board-elections[[File:At sign.svg|15x15px|middle|link=|alt=(at)]]wikimedia.org</tt>.
  +
  +
On behalf of the Election Committee,<br />
  +
[[m:User:KTC|Katie Chan]], Chair, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]<br />
  +
[[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]], Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]], 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|Get help]]''</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16441214 -->
  +
  +
== The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5 ==
  +
  +
The first cycle of the [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Wikimedia movement strategy process]] recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than '''1500''' summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, '''none''' from [[Project talk:Wikimedia Strategy 2017|your local discussion]] (the only comment visible there was imported from Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Summary|summarized]] the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Conference_2017/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track|report from the Berlin conference]].
  +
  +
The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.
  +
  +
We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could
  +
* tell us '''where to announce''' the start of the Cycle 2, and '''how to do that''', so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  +
* facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikibooks.
  +
We are looking forward to your feedback!
  +
  +
[[user:Base (WMF)|Base (WMF)]] and [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
: {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} Seems to me your process is inherently (and probably irredeemably) flawed. Surely it can't be a surprise that you get no feedback from a project the Foundation has dissed for years. A veteran Wikibookian would naturally expect that participation in the process would be time wasted, and that the Foundation would use their participation to help legitimize whatever the Foundation wanted to do anyway; the difference with non-participation would be that the Foundation would use ''that'' as an excuse for ignoring us, which they would do anyway, and without our having invested profitless time in it. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: I disagree. The movement and the Foundation are two different beings, and now, we're running a strategy process for the former. The movement has many stakeholders: there are many wikis, developers, readers, long-term donors, affiliates, partners (like GLAM institutions). All of them ''are'' to be heard and are being heard, so please, don't imply that there is a match ''WMF vs. anyone''. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} Realistically that's a fiction. The "movement", in that sense, is an invention of the Foundation. The Foundation is a centralized organization that, by the nature of such organizations, seeks to centrally control, including defining the rules of the game. The "&nbsp;(WMF)" at the end of your username defies the claim that it's not a Foundation process. <p> Whatever one calls the evolved means by which such organizations manipulate the perceptions of their personnel, you're within its field of influence. I'm outside. What I see from here is, a stark contradiction between the Foundation (not its personnel) and the volunteers. A striking pattern I've observed amongst WMF personnel is that they pretty consistently underestimate the schism by a huge margin. The problem isn't just that the Foundation needs to "communicate better" with the volunteers, the Foundation's basic objectives (in practice, not on paper) are actively counter-productive. This is visible from a quick list of key concerns from the volunteer side. The sisterhood is a bottom-up decentralized structure, with the primordial goal of empowering The People to have a voice in information providing (of ''course'' it sounds idealistic &mdash; idealism is the required fuel of all volunteer-driven efforts), wiki markup is the key technical device that makes it possible, and societal evils combated notably include propaganda. The Foundation, as a top-down centralized structure, inevitably seeks to centralize control and thereby disempowers volunteer control of infrastructure, notably including sidelining and undermining wiki markup. As for propaganda... well. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::: Sorry, but WMF is younger than Wikipedia. My home Polish Wikipedia was primarily outside of the Wikimedia umbrella and branding, before WMF was established, and simply it's not true that the movement is an invention of WMF. It's precisely opposite. Let's talk about Wikimedia without mentioning WMF. It's possible. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::Dzień dobry {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} [[Special:CentralAuth/Tar_Lócesilion|you must know]] some of the disses concerning only Wikimedia. For example, I couldn't help thinking about the [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGadgets-definition&type=revision&diff=3172807&oldid=2984463 JavaScript developers works sabotages]. I'm referring to the broken gadgets, several per site every year for at least five ones (including this week!), which have provoked the resignation of a few qualified fellows.
  +
:::::So naively I didn't propose anything hopping that our website performances, which seems to be taken for granted, would stay a priority. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::: Salut, [[user:JackPotte|JackPotte]]. I think your concerns fit the strategy discussions. You should elaborate on that during the Cycle 2. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/SGrabarczuk (WMF)|contribs]]) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::: {{ping|SGrabarczuk (WMF)}} In this exchange you repeatedly failed to understand the points I was making. First, you missed my point about the inherent flaw of the process you're describing. You then shifted the topic from that process to the Foundation's relationship with "the movement", where you confused the history of the Foundation with the ''de facto'' policies of the Foundation. You appear to have mistaken me for someone ignorant of basic history; and then you suggested that we talk about wikimedia "without mentioning WMF" &mdash; which is ''literally'' impossible since "WMF" is part of the username of the account you're editing from, as well as impossible in spirit because you are, apparently, editing in an official capacity as a representative of the Foundation. Sadly, I don't think we're going to successfully communicate. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Are there responsible authors in the english-speaking Wikibooks community ? ==
  +
  +
A new rule about authorship and responsibility is under discussion : [[Wikibooks:Respect for authors]]. [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]])
  +
  +
The new rule comes from the french-speaking Wikibooks community. But it is not a french invasion.
  +
  +
A responsible author is an author who thinks that he or she is responsible for the book, and that he or she has the right to refuse unwanted modifications, because the book is the product of his or her work. If other authors give additions, and if these additions are accepted by the responsible author, he or she is still the sole responsible for the book, except if he or she decides to give up a part of the responsibility. For more precisions, see [[Wikibooks:Respect for authors]].
  +
  +
Am I the sole english-speaking (badly) responsible author in the community ? --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
: Nobody has a fundamental right to be "the" authority on a book. It's not uncommon for a book to have one person writing it, and it's just common sense that someone else doesn't barge in and mess up someone else's work; if they can't find a way to cooperate they ought to fork the book so they can pursue their different and incompatible visions. Adopting an abandoned book is also something one does carefully and thoughtfully. But this is all very, very different from having someone whose right to the book is ''built in'', as a formal relationship to the book. There are infinite variations possible on the sometimes-subtle question of who is the active contributing community of a book; you are proposing instead to create a special ''responsible author'' status, fundamentally separate from the existing spectrum and with institutionalized right of control, contrary to the spirit of positive cooperation and collaboration we have always tried to nurture here. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: I don't think my proposition is contrary to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration the community nurtured here.
  +
:: Do you think that I will convince many scientists to work with us, if I say to them that they won't have the right to refuse unwanted modifications of their textbooks ? --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: That is an example of what I mean by trying to bias the discussion by insisting on your conceptual framework. This pattern occurs commonly in lunatic-fringe politics: "How many X must suffer Y before Z", where there may in fact be ''no'' actual examples of an X suffering Y, and if there are it may have nothing to do with Z. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: That I try to convince scientists to write their textbooks as wikibooks is not hypothetical. I want to spend my life working on Wikibooks because I think it will be the best scientific library in the world. How will we do that if scientists don't want to work with us ? --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::But why would someone want to post a textbook here if he is fundamentally opposed to changes to it? Everyone here is against vandalism and anyone can have an account to monitor changes, so the assumption is that if you just have enough eyes on the project, it will work out okay. If you don't believe in those ideas (or if the community itself is insufficient to realize them) then I don't know why someone would choose Wikibooks in the first place. Can you elaborate a little? —[[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> 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::To refuse unwanted modifications is not to be fundamentally opposed to changes to it. Authors on Wikibooks want their books to be modified and criticized. Otherwise they would not write on Wikibooks. I want my readers to change my books, because it would tell me what they think, and because their changes could be useful. But I want to have the right to refuse their modifications if I don't like them. Am I wrong ? --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::{{Ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} But ''why'' are they "unwanted"? Is it because they are genuinely bad--inaccurate, vandalism, unintelligible, redundant, etc.--or just because you don't like them? If they are bad edits, then anyone can undo them and if there is a sufficiently large community, someone will. If they are just edits that you don't like, then you can propose an alternative just like I could. Can you give me a more concrete example of a change that you would want to undo with these elevated author's rights? —[[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> 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::: That I don't like it is a sufficient reason.--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::: I cannot give you a concrete example, because noone never tried to modify my books, except minor corrections. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::: Of course, before refusing a modification I will discuss it. If a reader honors me with his or her reaction to my book, I will be very interested, and I will want to talk. But discussions are fruitful only when participants respect the rules. I don't want to have to justify myself to someone who does not respect the rules. The best way to get rid of such a nuisance is to say : I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::{{Ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. Wikibooks isn't for personal hosting. You can always keep a draft in your userspace, or you can generate a PDF version from your preferred revision which is far more stable, and as you pointed out, there simply isn't likely to be much in the way of edit-warring here for a variety of reasons. But there will never be an actual rule that grants someone ownership over the material here. Edit: Although, I will say that if you just want ''attribution'', it is perfectly acceptable to have a subpage on primary authorship. Just not ownership. —[[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> 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::: Ownership is not the same as control, every author on the wikibooks project retains ownership over their contributions they just license several rights away. The nature of that license does removes some degree of control from the authors but never ownership, unless specifically stated or the result of doing the contributive work as part of a "paid" job to a third party (that third party would retain the ownership). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::: To Justin and Panic: It seems you misrepresent me and you don't understand this discussion. I never talk about legal questions, only about the internal rules we need to work in satisfactory conditions.--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::{{Ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} No, I realize you're not talking about a legal change--I am not misconstruing you there. I'm saying that there is no prospect that we will adopt a rule that gives someone a kind of carte blanche veto for edits he dislikes. If that is your only reason for undoing an edit, then that is not a sufficient one. —[[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> 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::::It's your opinion. I respect it. I encourage you to keep on working as you want, except if you want to prevent me from working as I want. You can vote on this subject : [[Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors]]--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 17:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{outdent|::::::::::::}} Is it really necessary to formulate this in terms of "I don't like it" or "working as I want"? There is always some motivation behind a dislike, and -- assuming the authors have clear goals and welcome contributions -- it should be possible to express this motivation as a rationale grounded on how the change affects the book and the plans to further develop it, and therefore to justify the rejection. If the other participants are being "a nuisance" -- by refusing to justify their edits, engage in discussion or look for compromises, or by running roughshod over existing work, etc. -- ''they are already in the wrong by virtue of being a nuisance'', and the authors do not need any form of ''de jure'' ultimate authority to point that out and revert the changes as necessary. --[[User:Duplode|Duplode]] ([[User talk:Duplode|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Duplode|contribs]]) 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
: {{Ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} Your question seems to call for a concrete answer, so I will do what I can, that is, talk about my experience.
  +
: I am the long-term maintainer of the [[Haskell]] Wikibook. That is a ''de facto'' position: no one appointed me or gave me permission. Once upon a time, I did a handful of edits under the guidance of a more experienced contributor; some time later, I returned to the book and started working on my own. Over the following years, I have written several new chapters and rewritten, reworked, reorganised and updated most of the remaining parts. I have plans for what the book should eventually look like, and they are slowly but steadily being put into practice. Whenever the opportunity shows up, I discuss these plans with people who become regular contributors or otherwise show a broader interest in the book, and gather their feedback about my ideas.
  +
: I keep a [[User:Duplode/Haskell/Public watchlist|watchlist of book pages]], so that I can review changes and respond to talk page messages. I liberally revert changes that I consider inappropriate, be it because of technical inaccuracies or because the changes are a poor fit for the structure and teaching strategies of the book. However, it happens just as often that I hold back from immediately rejecting a change that I didn't like at first glance, and then realise that my dislike was due to some irrelevant stylistic quibble, or that the change can be usefully accepted with a minor adjustment, or by moving it to a slightly different place in the book. Being committed to the open and collaborative nature of Wikibooks helps giving outside contributions a fair evaluation.
  +
: The Haskell Wikibook has [[Haskell/Authors|a list of authors]]; it already existed before my time here. At some point, I added myself to it; later on, I included two other Wikibookians who contributed sizable amounts of original content. Am I a "responsible author"? I am inclined to say that I am, even though I don't see myself using such a title (when talking about the book elsewhere, I stick to "co-author" or "maintainer"). I don't think I am a "responsible author" under your definition, though... --[[User:Duplode|Duplode]] ([[User talk:Duplode|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Duplode|contribs]]) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: This sort of situation, where one person is &mdash; for a time &mdash; the primary caretaker of a book is not uncommon, I believe. I am currently somewhat in this position myself relative to '''''[[Conlang]]'''''. It is a natural part of the continuous range of possible states for the current community of a book. My sense is that this is not what was being proposed, in that it is a ''de facto'' situation, not an explicitly legislated arrangement. I think it should remain ''de facto''. Anyone who writes a book is already in such a situation, and on the other hand that situation might change in fifty years, or in five years &mdash; or in five hours. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 01:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: You work on the original kind of Wikibooks. If you don't want to have the right to refuse unwanted modifications on the books you work on, it's fine. I have no objection against that. The new rule does not prevent you from working the way you like. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: Of course you are a responsible author, even if you are not under my definition. You can give to your responsibility the meaning you want. May be my terminology is not good, but I had to choose an expression to name the concept. If you think of a better expression, feel free to change it. We are at Wikibooks ! The responsibility you're talking about is not full individual responsibility but a kind of collective and diluted responsibility. When such a responsibility is sufficient to complete a book, it's wonderful, but too often books with such diluted responsibility remain unfinished. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
:::: {{ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} My main point (and, I believe, of Pi Zero's comment as well) is that it is not at all clear that I would have become a long-term maintainer under the different social dynamics that would be in place if the Haskell Wikibook was a book of the second kind. Furthermore, it isn't clear either that the original authors of the book would have chosen the first kind without the strong project-wide commitment to open collaboration, as opposed to traditional authorship. --[[User:Duplode|Duplode]] ([[User talk:Duplode|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Duplode|contribs]]) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
  +
I wanted to continue the discussion about [[WB:RFA|Wikibooks, Respect for authors]] but I don't find it. Is it somewhere ? [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]])
  +
: {{ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} I have remarked on this to you a number of times: [[WB:RFA]] is not, and never has been, a shortcut to your page. "RFA" stands for "Request For Adminship". --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: Why such a lie? You know very well, I wrote it explicitly, on a page of discussion that I do not find again, that I do not want to be administrator. [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]])
  +
::: If I understand well, finally, my false accusation against you comes from a misunderstanding. When you wrote that WB:RFA means Request for Adminship, I thought you accused me to be a kind of dictator. But this is not what you meant. You only meant that the shortcut was already taken. Am I right ? I'm sorry that I didn't understand, and I hope you will forgive me that I accused you falsely. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::: Yes, I only meant that the shortcut was already taken. You are right. It was just a misunderstanding; entirely forgivable, and forgiven. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::: Thanks. If all our disagreements end in a similar way, it will be better for you and me, and for everyone. Even if I make many mistakes, like our misunderstanding, I still think I'm a good verbal fighter. But such "fights" are not for my pleasure. I don't like when discussions become too conflictual. My intention is to convince with reason, not to be a dictator, or a wicked guy. When I am, it is against my true will. [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]])
  +
:::::: {{ping|Thierry Dugnolle}} I think I see what happened. You used a template at the top of that page, in which you specify a shortcut. But that doesn't create a shortcut; it produces a ''notice'' on the page saying that there is a shortcut. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::: I didn't know. I only copied and pasted the presentation of [[WB:OWN]] and thought it would work. I always work this way. I "steal" the skill of other users. But it's not a theft, and it's how Wikibooks works. [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]])
  +
:::::::: That's a common way of doing things. With wiki markup, one of the important ways we learn how to do stuff is by seeing how others did it. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ? ==
  +
  +
This question is currently under discussion on [[Wikibooks talk:Ownership]]. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
: This is an absurd characterization of the issue you are agitating about. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: Read the answer of Justin above : @Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
.
  +
  +
== Wikibooks for everyone ==
  +
  +
[[Wikibooks for everyone]] exposes my personal view of what Wikibooks should be. I hope you will read it and think about it. It's short. Next week I will try to modify the official pages, add new ones and participate in the discussions as long as they are not too sterile. Parts of ''WB for everyone'' have already been published in [[WB:RFA]].--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
: {{ping|Thierry Dugnolle}}
  +
:* Mainspace is not a place for a policy, if that's what you're trying to create.
  +
:* You seem to be saying that since your proposal is not gaining traction here, you plan to modify our policy pages. That would not be appropriate behavior on your part.
  +
:* It's not surprising your proposal isn't gaining traction. It both violates the core philosophy of the project, pervading large parts of our infrastructure; and also violates our explicit basic policy against using the project as a web host, a policy that exists pretty much specifically to prevent what you are advocating. The thing you want to do does not fit at English Wikibooks; please stop trying to force it on us by volume.
  +
:* As I have mentioned before, "[[WB:RFA]]" is '''''not''''' a shortcut to your page.
  +
: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: If this means that I shall not work on the help pages, it's OK with me. I have already plenty of work. And now that my book [[User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone]] is written I did almost all I wanted to do. [[User:Thierry Dugnolle|Thierry Dugnolle]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/341?setlang={{CONTENTLANG}} Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections] ==
  +
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|{{#switch:{{CONTENTLANG}}|ar=left|he=left|right}}|125px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Board voting has begun]]''This is a message from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Board voting has begun|Translations]] are available.''
  +
  +
[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/341?setlang={{CONTENTLANG}}&uselang={{CONTENTLANG}} Voting has begun] for [[m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017#Requirements|eligible voters]] in the 2017 elections for the ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees|Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees]]''.
  +
  +
The [[m:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees]] is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.
  +
  +
The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 1 to 23:59 UTC May 14. '''[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/341?setlang={{CONTENTLANG}}&uselang={{CONTENTLANG}} Click here to vote].''' More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees|2017 Board of Trustees election page]] on Meta-Wiki.
  +
  +
On behalf of the Elections Committee,<br/>
  +
[[m:User:KTC|Katie Chan]], Chair, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]<br/>
  +
[[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]], Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
  +
  +
''Posted by the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Board voting has begun|Translate]] • [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|Get help]]</div> 19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)''
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16683836 -->
  +
  +
== Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View ==
  +
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
From May 9, the [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Two_Column_Edit_Conflict_View|Two Column Edit Conflict View]] will be available as a [[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Beta Features|beta feature]] on all wikis. The Two Column Edit Conflict View is a new interface for the edit conflict resolution page. It highlights differences between the editor's and the conflicting changes to make it easy to copy and paste pieces of the text and resolve the conflict. The feature fulfils a request for a more user-friendly edit conflict resolution from the [[m:WMDE Technical Wishes|German Community’s Technical Wishlist]]. Everyone is invited to test the feature and we hope that it will serve you well! </div> [[m:user: Birgit Müller (WMDE)|Birgit Müller (WMDE)]] 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Birgit Müller (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Technical_Wishes_News_list_1&oldid=16712210 -->
  +
  +
== Editing News #1—2017 ==
  +
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
   
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.
+
''[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/Newsletter/2017/May|Read this in another language]] [[:m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter]]''
   
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 style="float:right;width:230px;{{#switch:ltr|rtl=float:left;margin-left:0;|#default=float:right;margin-right:0;}}margin-left:1em;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;padding:1em;">
  +
[[File:VisualEditor-logo.svg|200px|center|alt=VisualEditor]]'''Did you know?'''
  +
<div class="thumbcaption" style="font-size: 90%;">
   
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)
+
Did you know that you can review your changes visually?
   
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)
+
[[File:VisualEditor visual diff tool - visual diff.png|alt=Screenshot showing some changes to an article. Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.|center|frameless|245x245px]]When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "{{Int:visualeditor-savedialog-label-review}}".
  +
In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.
   
: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.
 
   
:::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)
+
[[File:VisualEditor visual diff tool - toggle button.png|alt=Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected.|center|frameless|220x220px]]
:[[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)
 
   
:: 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)
 
   
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)
+
Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.
: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)
 
   
: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)
 
   
: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)
+
[[File:VisualEditor visual diff tool - wikitext diff.png|alt=Screenshot showing the same changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display.|center|frameless|245x245px]]
   
:: <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)
 
   
== Goodbook ==
+
The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history. You can read and help translate [[:mw:Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/User guide|the user guide]], which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
  +
</div></div>
   
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)
 
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
Since the last newsletter, the [[:mw:VisualEditor|VisualEditor Team]] has spent most of their time supporting [[:mediawikiwiki:2017_wikitext_editor|the 2017 wikitext editor mode]] which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding [[:mediawikiwiki:VisualEditor/Diffs|the new visual diff tool]]. Their workboard is available [[:phab:project/board/483/|in Phabricator]]. You can find links to the work finished each week at [[:mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings|mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings]]. Their [[:mw:VisualEditor/Current_priorities|current priorities]] are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a [[:mw:Beta Features|beta feature]], and improving the visual diff tool.
   
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)
+
=== Recent changes ===
: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)
+
*A '''new wikitext editing mode''' is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The [[:mw:2017 wikitext editor|2017 wikitext editor]] has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures]] to enable the {{Int:Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label}}.
  +
* A new '''[[:mediawikiwiki:VisualEditor/Diffs|visual diff tool]]''' is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T143350]
  +
* The team have added [[:mediawikiwiki:Editing/Projects/Columns_for_references|multi-column support for lists of footnotes]]. The <code><nowiki><references /></nowiki></code> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/?projects=Cite,VisualEditor,Wikimedia-Site-requests&title=Convert%20reference%20lists%20over%20to%20`responsive`%20on%20XXwiki&priority=10&parent=159895 '''request multi-column support'''] for your wiki. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T33597]
  +
* You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T153356]
  +
* The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T116417]
  +
* The {{Int:visualeditor-categories-tool}} item has been moved to the top of the {{Int:visualeditor-pagemenu-tooltip}} menu (from clicking on the "hamburger" icon) for quicker access. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T74399] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T149009]
  +
* You can now create <code><nowiki><chem></nowiki></code> tags (sometimes used as <code><nowiki><ce></nowiki></code>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T153365]
  +
* Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157989]
  +
* The {{Int:visualeditor-specialcharacter-button-tooltip}} menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, [[:S:en:User:Tpt|Tpt]]. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T108626]
  +
* A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T154217]
  +
* There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: <code>Control</code>+<code>Shift</code>+<code>K</code> on a PC, or <code>Command</code>+<code>Shift</code>+<code>K</code> on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is <code>Control</code>+<code>K</code> or <code>Command</code>+<code>K</code> respectively. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T99299]
   
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
+
=== Future changes ===
  +
* The team is working on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101246]
  +
* The kind of button used to {{Int:Showpreview}}, {{Int:showdiff}}, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use [[Mw:OOjs UI|OOjs UI]]. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding <code>&ooui=1</code> to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162849]
  +
* The [[:mediawikiwiki:File:Edit_toolbar_-_2.png|outdated 2006 wikitext editor]] will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See [[:mw:Editor|a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org]] if you are uncertain which one you use. [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T30856]
  +
*If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the [[mail:translators-l|Translators mailing list]] or [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elitre_(WMF)&action=edit&section=new contact us] directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. {{int:Feedback-thanks-title}}
   
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)
+
[[:mw:User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]]
  +
</div> 18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Newsletter/Wikis_with_VE&oldid=16160401 -->
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
== RevisionSlider ==
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
[[mw:Special:MyLanguage/Extension:RevisionSlider|RevisionSlider]] will be available as a default feature for all users on all wikis from May 17. The RevisionSlider adds a slider view to the diff page so that you can easily move between revisions. The slider view is collapsed by default, and will load by clicking on it. It can also be turned off entirely in the user preferences. RevisionSlider has been a default feature on German, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia for 6 months and a beta feature on all wikis for 8 months. The feature fulfills a wish from the [[m:WMDE Technical Wishes|German Community’s Technical Wishlist]]. Thanks to everyone who tested RevisionSlider and gave valuable feedback to improve the feature! We hope that RevisionSlider will continue to serve you well in your work. </div> [[m:user:Birgit Müller (WMDE)|Birgit Müller (WMDE)]] 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Birgit Müller (WMDE)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=WMDE_Technical_Wishes/Technical_Wishes_News_list_1&oldid=16763498 -->
   
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''.
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2|Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)]] ==
   
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.
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Cycle 2 discussions launch|Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]]''
  +
[[File:Wikimedia-logo.svg|{{#switch:{{CONTENTLANG}}|ar=left|he=left|right}}|150px]]
  +
The Wikimedia movement strategy core team and working groups have completed reviewing the more than 1800 thematic statements we received from the first discussion. They have identified [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2|5 themes that were consistent across all the conversations]] - each with their own set of sub-themes. These are not the final themes, just an initial working draft of the core concepts.
   
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.
+
You are invited to [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Participate|join the online and offline discussions taking place]] on these 5 themes. This round of discussions will take place between now and June 12th. You can discuss as many as you like; we ask you to participate in the ones that are most (or least) important to you.
   
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?
+
Here are the five themes, each has a page on Meta-Wiki with more information about the theme and how to participate in that theme's discussion:
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/Healthy, Inclusive Communities|Healthy, Inclusive Communities]]
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/The Augmented Age|The Augmented Age]]
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/A Truly Global Movement|A Truly Global Movement]]
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/The Most Respected Source of Knowledge|The Most Respected Source of Knowledge]]
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 2/Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem|Engaging in the Knowledge Ecosystem]]
   
: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)
+
On the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Participate|movement strategy portal on Meta-Wiki]], you can find more information about each of these themes, their discussions, and how to participate.
   
:: 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)
+
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Cycle 2 discussions launch|{{int:please-translate}}]] [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''</div> 21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16773425 -->
   
:(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)
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections|Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections]] ==
   
: 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)
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|{{#switch:{{CONTENTLANG}}|ar=left|he=left|right}}|125px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections]]
  +
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections|Translations of this message are available on Meta-Wiki]].''
   
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)
+
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, we are pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the [[m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for candidates|2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee]] and [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson|Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson]] elections. Please read the letter from the Wikimedia Foundation calling for candidates at [[m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for candidates|on the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal]].
   
:: 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)
+
''Funds Dissemination Committee''<br />
  +
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee|the FDC elections page]].
   
:::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.
+
''Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson''<br />
:::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)
+
The Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson|the FDC Ombudsperson elections page]].
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
'''The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Candidates|candidacy submission phase]] will last until May 28 (23:59 UTC).'''
   
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)
+
'''We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates until May 28. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee/Questions|You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki]].''' Once the questions submission period has ended on May 28, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to.
   
{{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]}}
+
The goal of this process is to fill the '''five community-selected seats''' on the Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee and the '''community-selected ombudsperson'''. The election results will be used by the Board itself to make the appointments.
   
{{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]}}
+
The full schedule for the FDC elections is as follows. All dates are '''inclusive''', that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
   
{{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]}}
+
* May 15 (00:00 UTC) May 28 (23:59 UTC) '''Nominations'''
  +
* May 15 – May 28 – '''Candidates questions submission period'''
  +
* May 29 – June 2 – '''Candidates answer questions'''
  +
* June 3 – June 11 – '''Voting period'''
  +
* June 12–14 – '''Vote checking'''
  +
* June 15 – '''Goal date for announcing election results'''
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
More information on this year's elections can be found at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation elections portal]].
   
::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)
+
Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|the talk page on Meta-Wiki]], or sent to the election committee's mailing list, <tt dir="ltr" style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:12px;line-height:1.5">board-elections[[File:At sign.svg|15x15px|middle|link=|alt=(at)]]wikimedia.org</tt>.
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
On behalf of the Election Committee,<br />
  +
[[m:User:KTC|Katie Chan]], Chair, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]<br />
  +
[[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]], Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
   
: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)
+
''Posted by the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections|Translate]] [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|Get help]]''</div> 21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16804695 -->
  +
== Smoothies? ==
   
:::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)
+
Hello. A friend of mine has several recipes for smoothies. It's basically the ingredients, plus usually an evaluation of what the result is. It's basically a trial and error process, documented :) Would that content be OK for the Cookbook? Thanks. --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] ([[User talk:Elitre|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Elitre|contribs]]) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  +
:Sure, we already have [[Bartending/Cocktails]]. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
   
::::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)
+
== Freely available math textbooks ==
   
:::::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)
+
At least some are copyright reserved: http://people.math.gatech.edu/~cain/textbooks/onlinebooks.html —[[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> 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  +
: {{ping|Koavf}} Is that material on Wikibooks somewhere? --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  +
::{{Ping|Pi zero}} No, sorry. First off, I fixed the link. Secondly, I am pointing to available books (almost 80 of them); some of them may be CC licensed such that we can use them here but even if not, someone may see the link and be able to use the books independently. —[[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> 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::Some of them are CC licensed. Personally I prefer (simply because nobody is interested in the work involved in importing stuff into WB structures) either uploading a PDF version to Commons or getting WS to import them... [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::: 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.)
+
== U of Missouri to use open textbooks ==
:::::: 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)
 
   
:::::::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)
+
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170621/university-of-missouri-to-push-cheaper-textbook-plan [[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> 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
   
::::::::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.
+
== Search results from Wikibooks now active in Wikipedia's search system ==
:::::::::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)
 
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
+
Just to let you know, as announced via [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/discovery/2017-June/001536.html mailing list service], English Wikipedia is now receiving search results of this project, Wikibooks, intended to direct Wikipedia users to this project. <s>Currently, an [[:w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#‎Disable/opt-out option needed for sister projects search results|option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system]] is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)</s>
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)
 
   
== Regex ==
+
'''''Correction:''''' The search results were mistakenly included by developers. There was "no consensus" to include those search results. Therefore, I [[phab:T168697|filed a task]] at Phabricator to suppress those. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
   
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)
+
Recently, [[:w:en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should Wikibooks pages be displayed in search results|another proposal to include Wikibooks]] in English Wikipedia's cross-wiki search results system is made. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:41, 23 June 2017

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.

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

This is an update from the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee. Translations are available.

Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.

The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is Wikimedia Hong Kong, a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.

If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a basic FAQ. We also invite you to visit the main Wikimedia movement affiliates page for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Affiliations Committee, 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help


Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections.

The Board of Trustees (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found on Meta-Wiki. Please read the letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates.

The candidacy submission phase will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).

We will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki.

Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.

The goal of this process is to fill the three community-selected seats on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.

The full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are inclusive, that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.

  • April 7 (00:00 UTC) – April 20 (23:59 UTC) – Board nominations
  • April 7 – April 20 – Board candidates questions submission period
  • April 21 – April 30 – Board candidates answer questions
  • May 1 – May 14 – Board voting period
  • May 15–19 – Board vote checking
  • May 20 – Board result announcement goal

In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:

  • Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
    • There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.
  • Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)
    • One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available on Meta-Wiki.

Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.

More information on this year's elections can be found on Meta-Wiki. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the election talk page on Meta-Wiki, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections(at)wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Election Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, none from your local discussion (the only comment visible there was imported from Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikibooks.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Seems to me your process is inherently (and probably irredeemably) flawed. Surely it can't be a surprise that you get no feedback from a project the Foundation has dissed for years. A veteran Wikibookian would naturally expect that participation in the process would be time wasted, and that the Foundation would use their participation to help legitimize whatever the Foundation wanted to do anyway; the difference with non-participation would be that the Foundation would use that as an excuse for ignoring us, which they would do anyway, and without our having invested profitless time in it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The movement and the Foundation are two different beings, and now, we're running a strategy process for the former. The movement has many stakeholders: there are many wikis, developers, readers, long-term donors, affiliates, partners (like GLAM institutions). All of them are to be heard and are being heard, so please, don't imply that there is a match WMF vs. anyone. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Realistically that's a fiction. The "movement", in that sense, is an invention of the Foundation. The Foundation is a centralized organization that, by the nature of such organizations, seeks to centrally control, including defining the rules of the game. The " (WMF)" at the end of your username defies the claim that it's not a Foundation process.

Whatever one calls the evolved means by which such organizations manipulate the perceptions of their personnel, you're within its field of influence. I'm outside. What I see from here is, a stark contradiction between the Foundation (not its personnel) and the volunteers. A striking pattern I've observed amongst WMF personnel is that they pretty consistently underestimate the schism by a huge margin. The problem isn't just that the Foundation needs to "communicate better" with the volunteers, the Foundation's basic objectives (in practice, not on paper) are actively counter-productive. This is visible from a quick list of key concerns from the volunteer side. The sisterhood is a bottom-up decentralized structure, with the primordial goal of empowering The People to have a voice in information providing (of course it sounds idealistic — idealism is the required fuel of all volunteer-driven efforts), wiki markup is the key technical device that makes it possible, and societal evils combated notably include propaganda. The Foundation, as a top-down centralized structure, inevitably seeks to centralize control and thereby disempowers volunteer control of infrastructure, notably including sidelining and undermining wiki markup. As for propaganda... well. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but WMF is younger than Wikipedia. My home Polish Wikipedia was primarily outside of the Wikimedia umbrella and branding, before WMF was established, and simply it's not true that the movement is an invention of WMF. It's precisely opposite. Let's talk about Wikimedia without mentioning WMF. It's possible. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Dzień dobry @SGrabarczuk (WMF): you must know some of the disses concerning only Wikimedia. For example, I couldn't help thinking about the JavaScript developers works sabotages. I'm referring to the broken gadgets, several per site every year for at least five ones (including this week!), which have provoked the resignation of a few qualified fellows.
So naively I didn't propose anything hopping that our website performances, which seems to be taken for granted, would stay a priority. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Salut, JackPotte. I think your concerns fit the strategy discussions. You should elaborate on that during the Cycle 2. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): In this exchange you repeatedly failed to understand the points I was making. First, you missed my point about the inherent flaw of the process you're describing. You then shifted the topic from that process to the Foundation's relationship with "the movement", where you confused the history of the Foundation with the de facto policies of the Foundation. You appear to have mistaken me for someone ignorant of basic history; and then you suggested that we talk about wikimedia "without mentioning WMF" — which is literally impossible since "WMF" is part of the username of the account you're editing from, as well as impossible in spirit because you are, apparently, editing in an official capacity as a representative of the Foundation. Sadly, I don't think we're going to successfully communicate. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there responsible authors in the english-speaking Wikibooks community ?[edit]

A new rule about authorship and responsibility is under discussion : Wikibooks:Respect for authors. TD (discusscontribs)

The new rule comes from the french-speaking Wikibooks community. But it is not a french invasion.

A responsible author is an author who thinks that he or she is responsible for the book, and that he or she has the right to refuse unwanted modifications, because the book is the product of his or her work. If other authors give additions, and if these additions are accepted by the responsible author, he or she is still the sole responsible for the book, except if he or she decides to give up a part of the responsibility. For more precisions, see Wikibooks:Respect for authors.

Am I the sole english-speaking (badly) responsible author in the community ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has a fundamental right to be "the" authority on a book. It's not uncommon for a book to have one person writing it, and it's just common sense that someone else doesn't barge in and mess up someone else's work; if they can't find a way to cooperate they ought to fork the book so they can pursue their different and incompatible visions. Adopting an abandoned book is also something one does carefully and thoughtfully. But this is all very, very different from having someone whose right to the book is built in, as a formal relationship to the book. There are infinite variations possible on the sometimes-subtle question of who is the active contributing community of a book; you are proposing instead to create a special responsible author status, fundamentally separate from the existing spectrum and with institutionalized right of control, contrary to the spirit of positive cooperation and collaboration we have always tried to nurture here. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think my proposition is contrary to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration the community nurtured here.
Do you think that I will convince many scientists to work with us, if I say to them that they won't have the right to refuse unwanted modifications of their textbooks ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That is an example of what I mean by trying to bias the discussion by insisting on your conceptual framework. This pattern occurs commonly in lunatic-fringe politics: "How many X must suffer Y before Z", where there may in fact be no actual examples of an X suffering Y, and if there are it may have nothing to do with Z. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That I try to convince scientists to write their textbooks as wikibooks is not hypothetical. I want to spend my life working on Wikibooks because I think it will be the best scientific library in the world. How will we do that if scientists don't want to work with us ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But why would someone want to post a textbook here if he is fundamentally opposed to changes to it? Everyone here is against vandalism and anyone can have an account to monitor changes, so the assumption is that if you just have enough eyes on the project, it will work out okay. If you don't believe in those ideas (or if the community itself is insufficient to realize them) then I don't know why someone would choose Wikibooks in the first place. Can you elaborate a little? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
To refuse unwanted modifications is not to be fundamentally opposed to changes to it. Authors on Wikibooks want their books to be modified and criticized. Otherwise they would not write on Wikibooks. I want my readers to change my books, because it would tell me what they think, and because their changes could be useful. But I want to have the right to refuse their modifications if I don't like them. Am I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: But why are they "unwanted"? Is it because they are genuinely bad--inaccurate, vandalism, unintelligible, redundant, etc.--or just because you don't like them? If they are bad edits, then anyone can undo them and if there is a sufficiently large community, someone will. If they are just edits that you don't like, then you can propose an alternative just like I could. Can you give me a more concrete example of a change that you would want to undo with these elevated author's rights? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That I don't like it is a sufficient reason.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I cannot give you a concrete example, because noone never tried to modify my books, except minor corrections. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, before refusing a modification I will discuss it. If a reader honors me with his or her reaction to my book, I will be very interested, and I will want to talk. But discussions are fruitful only when participants respect the rules. I don't want to have to justify myself to someone who does not respect the rules. The best way to get rid of such a nuisance is to say : I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. Wikibooks isn't for personal hosting. You can always keep a draft in your userspace, or you can generate a PDF version from your preferred revision which is far more stable, and as you pointed out, there simply isn't likely to be much in the way of edit-warring here for a variety of reasons. But there will never be an actual rule that grants someone ownership over the material here. Edit: Although, I will say that if you just want attribution, it is perfectly acceptable to have a subpage on primary authorship. Just not ownership. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ownership is not the same as control, every author on the wikibooks project retains ownership over their contributions they just license several rights away. The nature of that license does removes some degree of control from the authors but never ownership, unless specifically stated or the result of doing the contributive work as part of a "paid" job to a third party (that third party would retain the ownership). Panic (discusscontribs) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To Justin and Panic: It seems you misrepresent me and you don't understand this discussion. I never talk about legal questions, only about the internal rules we need to work in satisfactory conditions.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: No, I realize you're not talking about a legal change--I am not misconstruing you there. I'm saying that there is no prospect that we will adopt a rule that gives someone a kind of carte blanche veto for edits he dislikes. If that is your only reason for undoing an edit, then that is not a sufficient one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It's your opinion. I respect it. I encourage you to keep on working as you want, except if you want to prevent me from working as I want. You can vote on this subject : Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Is it really necessary to formulate this in terms of "I don't like it" or "working as I want"? There is always some motivation behind a dislike, and -- assuming the authors have clear goals and welcome contributions -- it should be possible to express this motivation as a rationale grounded on how the change affects the book and the plans to further develop it, and therefore to justify the rejection. If the other participants are being "a nuisance" -- by refusing to justify their edits, engage in discussion or look for compromises, or by running roughshod over existing work, etc. -- they are already in the wrong by virtue of being a nuisance, and the authors do not need any form of de jure ultimate authority to point that out and revert the changes as necessary. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


@Thierry Dugnolle: Your question seems to call for a concrete answer, so I will do what I can, that is, talk about my experience.
I am the long-term maintainer of the Haskell Wikibook. That is a de facto position: no one appointed me or gave me permission. Once upon a time, I did a handful of edits under the guidance of a more experienced contributor; some time later, I returned to the book and started working on my own. Over the following years, I have written several new chapters and rewritten, reworked, reorganised and updated most of the remaining parts. I have plans for what the book should eventually look like, and they are slowly but steadily being put into practice. Whenever the opportunity shows up, I discuss these plans with people who become regular contributors or otherwise show a broader interest in the book, and gather their feedback about my ideas.
I keep a watchlist of book pages, so that I can review changes and respond to talk page messages. I liberally revert changes that I consider inappropriate, be it because of technical inaccuracies or because the changes are a poor fit for the structure and teaching strategies of the book. However, it happens just as often that I hold back from immediately rejecting a change that I didn't like at first glance, and then realise that my dislike was due to some irrelevant stylistic quibble, or that the change can be usefully accepted with a minor adjustment, or by moving it to a slightly different place in the book. Being committed to the open and collaborative nature of Wikibooks helps giving outside contributions a fair evaluation.
The Haskell Wikibook has a list of authors; it already existed before my time here. At some point, I added myself to it; later on, I included two other Wikibookians who contributed sizable amounts of original content. Am I a "responsible author"? I am inclined to say that I am, even though I don't see myself using such a title (when talking about the book elsewhere, I stick to "co-author" or "maintainer"). I don't think I am a "responsible author" under your definition, though... --Duplode (discusscontribs) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This sort of situation, where one person is — for a time — the primary caretaker of a book is not uncommon, I believe. I am currently somewhat in this position myself relative to Conlang. It is a natural part of the continuous range of possible states for the current community of a book. My sense is that this is not what was being proposed, in that it is a de facto situation, not an explicitly legislated arrangement. I think it should remain de facto. Anyone who writes a book is already in such a situation, and on the other hand that situation might change in fifty years, or in five years — or in five hours. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 01:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You work on the original kind of Wikibooks. If you don't want to have the right to refuse unwanted modifications on the books you work on, it's fine. I have no objection against that. The new rule does not prevent you from working the way you like. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course you are a responsible author, even if you are not under my definition. You can give to your responsibility the meaning you want. May be my terminology is not good, but I had to choose an expression to name the concept. If you think of a better expression, feel free to change it. We are at Wikibooks ! The responsibility you're talking about is not full individual responsibility but a kind of collective and diluted responsibility. When such a responsibility is sufficient to complete a book, it's wonderful, but too often books with such diluted responsibility remain unfinished. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: My main point (and, I believe, of Pi Zero's comment as well) is that it is not at all clear that I would have become a long-term maintainer under the different social dynamics that would be in place if the Haskell Wikibook was a book of the second kind. Furthermore, it isn't clear either that the original authors of the book would have chosen the first kind without the strong project-wide commitment to open collaboration, as opposed to traditional authorship. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


I wanted to continue the discussion about Wikibooks, Respect for authors but I don't find it. Is it somewhere ? TD (discusscontribs)

@Thierry Dugnolle: I have remarked on this to you a number of times: WB:RFA is not, and never has been, a shortcut to your page. "RFA" stands for "Request For Adminship". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Why such a lie? You know very well, I wrote it explicitly, on a page of discussion that I do not find again, that I do not want to be administrator. TD (discusscontribs)
If I understand well, finally, my false accusation against you comes from a misunderstanding. When you wrote that WB:RFA means Request for Adminship, I thought you accused me to be a kind of dictator. But this is not what you meant. You only meant that the shortcut was already taken. Am I right ? I'm sorry that I didn't understand, and I hope you will forgive me that I accused you falsely. --TD (discusscontribs) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I only meant that the shortcut was already taken. You are right. It was just a misunderstanding; entirely forgivable, and forgiven. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If all our disagreements end in a similar way, it will be better for you and me, and for everyone. Even if I make many mistakes, like our misunderstanding, I still think I'm a good verbal fighter. But such "fights" are not for my pleasure. I don't like when discussions become too conflictual. My intention is to convince with reason, not to be a dictator, or a wicked guy. When I am, it is against my true will. TD (discusscontribs)
@Thierry Dugnolle: I think I see what happened. You used a template at the top of that page, in which you specify a shortcut. But that doesn't create a shortcut; it produces a notice on the page saying that there is a shortcut. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know. I only copied and pasted the presentation of WB:OWN and thought it would work. I always work this way. I "steal" the skill of other users. But it's not a theft, and it's how Wikibooks works. TD (discusscontribs)
That's a common way of doing things. With wiki markup, one of the important ways we learn how to do stuff is by seeing how others did it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ?[edit]

This question is currently under discussion on Wikibooks talk:Ownership. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an absurd characterization of the issue you are agitating about. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Read the answer of Justin above : @Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

.

Wikibooks for everyone[edit]

Wikibooks for everyone exposes my personal view of what Wikibooks should be. I hope you will read it and think about it. It's short. Next week I will try to modify the official pages, add new ones and participate in the discussions as long as they are not too sterile. Parts of WB for everyone have already been published in WB:RFA.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Dugnolle:
  • Mainspace is not a place for a policy, if that's what you're trying to create.
  • You seem to be saying that since your proposal is not gaining traction here, you plan to modify our policy pages. That would not be appropriate behavior on your part.
  • It's not surprising your proposal isn't gaining traction. It both violates the core philosophy of the project, pervading large parts of our infrastructure; and also violates our explicit basic policy against using the project as a web host, a policy that exists pretty much specifically to prevent what you are advocating. The thing you want to do does not fit at English Wikibooks; please stop trying to force it on us by volume.
  • As I have mentioned before, "WB:RFA" is not a shortcut to your page.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
If this means that I shall not work on the help pages, it's OK with me. I have already plenty of work. And now that my book User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone is written I did almost all I wanted to do. Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017[edit]

18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionSlider[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Smoothies?[edit]

Hello. A friend of mine has several recipes for smoothies. It's basically the ingredients, plus usually an evaluation of what the result is. It's basically a trial and error process, documented :) Would that content be OK for the Cookbook? Thanks. --Elitre (discusscontribs) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we already have Bartending/Cocktails. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Freely available math textbooks[edit]

At least some are copyright reserved: http://people.math.gatech.edu/~cain/textbooks/onlinebooks.htmlJustin (koavf)TCM 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Is that material on Wikibooks somewhere? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: No, sorry. First off, I fixed the link. Secondly, I am pointing to available books (almost 80 of them); some of them may be CC licensed such that we can use them here but even if not, someone may see the link and be able to use the books independently. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are CC licensed. Personally I prefer (simply because nobody is interested in the work involved in importing stuff into WB structures) either uploading a PDF version to Commons or getting WS to import them... QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

U of Missouri to use open textbooks[edit]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170621/university-of-missouri-to-push-cheaper-textbook-planJustin (koavf)TCM 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Search results from Wikibooks now active in Wikipedia's search system[edit]

Just to let you know, as announced via mailing list service, English Wikipedia is now receiving search results of this project, Wikibooks, intended to direct Wikipedia users to this project. Currently, an option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The search results were mistakenly included by developers. There was "no consensus" to include those search results. Therefore, I filed a task at Phabricator to suppress those. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently, another proposal to include Wikibooks in English Wikipedia's cross-wiki search results system is made. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)