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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
(Relation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks: c)
 
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
  +
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
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 ==
+
== Wikibooks's author ==
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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)
 
 
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)
 
 
: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)
 
:[[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)
 
: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)
 
 
:: <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 ==
 
 
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 ==
 
 
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
 
 
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)
 
 
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
 
 
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
 
 
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''.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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?
 
 
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: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)
 
 
:: 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)
 
 
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: I 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)
 
 
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)
 
 
:: 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)
 
   
:::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.
+
Hello Everyone,
:::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)
+
I am newbie on wikibooks. So please don't mind. I want to know that what is the policy have on wikibooks about writing a wikibooks's author name. You can see both page [[European History]] and [[High School Mathematics Extensions]]. They both have author name. Is it right or not. Are there any policy on that. Thanks-[[User:Jayprakash12345|Jayprakash12345]] ([[User talk:Jayprakash12345|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jayprakash12345|contribs]]) 17:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|Jayprakash12345}} Several of them have it. I personally think it's a bad idea. If you want, you can create a page like [[Book title/Contributors]] and move the content there. —[[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> 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::{{Ping|Jayprakash12345}} The issue is not settled. On one side, there are wikibookians who think that authorship is against a true spirit of cooperation. On the other side, we think that authorship gives a strong motivation to complete a wikibook and hence could help to make of Wikibooks a great pedagogical library. The issue is not only to sign a wikibook. Everyone agrees that an open list of names of contributors is authorized. But we disagree about the author's right to refuse unwanted modifications. I think that an author can claim such a right. But this issue is not a real problem. Noone never tried to modify my wikibooks against my will.
  +
:: Welcome to Wikibooks. Remember it' a kind of anarchy. I hope you will enjoy it --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 16:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: TD (sorry to be blunt), your outspoken views on authorship &mdash; contradicting project policy &mdash; are admittedly authoritarian in character, but that does not make the project an anarchy. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
:::Again you a mixing things. So far no one expressed any concerns about authorship in regards to cooperation. More it would be extremely futile to refute authorship and damaging to the project to object to rightful claims of it. Again no one has raised so far any issue on those points.
  +
:::The communal objection is for auhorship granting any special administrative regards to the users on wikibooks. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (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)
+
::{{Ping|User:koavf}} Authors are not simple contributors, there are legal and moral considerations involved on the distinction. Authors should not use a page named contributors if they not make there the distinction clear. Most of the negative regard people have to this is due to lack of knowledge and civility that is prone to create a mess of the process. That is why I think those pages should be administratively edit protected. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} I get the distinct impression this claim is BS. Please substantiate. 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::{{Ping|User:koavf}} See [[w:author]] as I get the impression you lack the understanding what an author is and what differentiates it from other content contributor (there are contributors that even don't add content, so think also about that). In any case the most pressing distinction is about the legal rights that are attributed to author's (or those that pay for their creative work). This has implications on re-use of content, re-licensing etc and to the individual author, for instance, in capability to claim work done, to be proud to be associated with it, to sign it and demonstrate effort made understanding on a given subject. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} Oh, that's rich. Yes, I know what an "author" is but in a collaborative environment, there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor". Who is the author of [[w:en:Abraham Lincoln]]? And again, I think these legal distinctions are sheer hokum. There are legal implications for moral rights in the EU--is that what you're talking about? If so, it's irrelevant as this is an American site. —[[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> 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::{{Ping|User:koavf}} Well I have no intention in having a fight over this so what I said stands. Consider that in my view your "understanding" of what an author is is incorrect, I'll go a bit more into the below as we are on the public forum, but this is it for now, as we don't have the common ground to continue.
  +
::::::As I stated somewhere on this discussion encyclopedic content is not copyrightable so there is no legal author (one that has rights and obligations) and I at least give accolades for those that really do the research and expansion work of content, and this recognition I have for work done is in levels of degree in regard to those efforts, even if ultimately it is all about the team, as in sports not all the players are equal in importance but ultimately its the group effort that wins. This of course can be translated to our projects Wikibooks is not a collection of articles (even if legally it may be considered a collection/aggregate), efforts here are more sub divided and require more and prolonged dedication, so individual action is not only legally more relevant (I have discussed the issue ad infinitum, form legal protection of the work to re-licensing there are a myriad of important benefits in claiming authorship) but morally, civil and ethical. Here on this project the sub-communities that do the different projects most of those do not even have an interest about Wikibooks or Wikimedia at all and see this as a public resource, a tool for public work.
  +
::::::To state that «there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor"» is a disservice to all those involved in the creative work, the harder part of the work we all benefit from. Of course we should recognize even the water boy (the bot that runs at nigh) and treat it as any one else on the team but ultimately everyone knows that his contribution is limited by function as many others. On wikibook there are water boys that do more work that many authors and should and are recognized for that in many ways. No dedicated people would have any objection in having other be recognized by their own work here. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} You said there's a legal distinction but cited no laws. That makes me think you are making up stuff. Of course, in a given page or book it's very possible that one person will do most of the writing and another will do virtually nothing ''original'' writing-wise but maybe some small formatting. You can call these "authors" and "collaborators" if you want but this is just an arbitrary distinction that you are making. Everyone who contributes to Wikibooks gets credited because page histories are preserved--I don't know what more anyone else needs. Why there has to be some prestige or an ability to veto certain edits is beyond me. I've definitely written things at Wikipedia that got deleted or revised and I wished they weren't but that's the price I pay to work on a collaborative research project. —[[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> 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::{{Ping|Koavf}} Well as I said I'm done arguing with you as we don't share a common ground/definition of things we are speaking about, so there is really no point to it beyond preventing confusion on the public forum. Go read about what an author is and a bit about copyright laws to get the legal definition if you still don't understand the differences and implications in comparison with other types of editing. I cringe to think about what type of content contributions you have made to Wikimedia projects as you seem not to be able to understand the different licenses we use and their implications. That or you are just pulling my leg. Morally, ethical and by civility the distinction to me is self evident I can't even empathize with you when you bunch all work as having the same intrinsic characteristics and even the same merit. On my side I do not donate my work to Wikimedia, I license it to the public. I own, protect, am responsible and sign my work.
  +
::::::::I gave examples that should show anyone in good faith that all edits aren't the same, even if I do agree that for the good of the projects and to promote participation we should only make it evident on the necessary legal side of things, without making any grand fanfare about the issue. This is important because many Wikimedia users are similar to yourself in their understanding of deeper requirements and implications. Not even considering problems with age etc...
  +
::::::::Formatting, spelling and atheistical issues are made by "editors" there are many niches for them ([[w:Author editing]], [[w:Copy editing]] and more) not to mention changes done by publishers etc none of this work is copyrightable and they certainly aren't authors.
  +
::::::::Regarding the edit histories I could enter in more details but to any proficient Wikimedia contributor and for those that spend some time on wikimedia projects the reliability and certainty of the logging is problematic, even more when it does indeed bunch all sorts of edits together and people point to them as a roster of participation. It is what we have but its utility is more for administrative actions than anything else, it serves Wikipedia well but not WIkibooks and a few other Wikimedia projects.
  +
::::::::Again Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and status of authors and other contributors by the work done is also very distinct. Wikipedia doesn't have authors and most users are at the same level, its for the community to attribute quality and status and base the attribution of rights on the project based on those, I'm not a Wikipedian so I can't comment much on the fairness there, after a few revertions some years ago I only edit talk pages to point or ask stuff (so I can empathize with you there). On Wikibooks things are more insular, each project does indeed have a sub-community that is similar to how Wikipedia operates but in a very smaller scale and in general are abstracted from the rest of the project, any status if any is normally project specific and has very limited distinctions, authorship does not have any specific meaning in this context beyond the authors being the more active contributors and those that stay more consistently with projects (but should, even if not on the level proposed by [[User:Thierry Dugnolle]]). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} The burden isn't on ''me'' to substantiate ''your'' claims that there is some legal distinction between an "author" and a "collaborator". How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"? Laws in which jurisdictions? Again, you're not saying anything meaningful or substantial here. If you personally think there is a distinction, that's fine for you to propose as an idea. To claim that the law says something about this, offer nothing to back up this claim, and then demand that ''I'' just do the research is laughable and frankly asinine. The point that I have made and that you seem to miss is that while there certainly are individual edits which are very substantial and others which are more-or-less trivial, there are a lot of edits in between and that's why some distinction between the "primary author" and "secondary collaborators" is useless and will inevitably break down. The longer Wikibooks exist, the less and less that anything you personally have added will continue to be here, so 200 years from now calling you the "author" of the textbook on algebra is just ludicrous since what you did contribute will no longer be in the book itself. I honestly have no clue what the point is of a post that says, "As I said before, I'm done. Also, you do my research because I refuse to cite anything I say. Also, there are ''problems'' with edit histories but I will refuse to say what those are as well." What could possibly be the purpose of a post like this? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::{{Ping|Koavf}} I did not make any claim, I stated facts that you refused to accept as valid, some should be self evident even so I did go to the trouble of providing examples and link to pages that you could ascertain the validity of what I stated. Even our own license states that the right of attribution is reserved for those that did meaningful contributions, on wikibooks those would be project authors. In any case open any text book you have at home and you will see that the editor and even the publisher aren't included as authors, even a signed article on a newspaper will have only the reporter listed not the people that did the copy edit or the graphic montage.
  +
::::::::::Any legal consideration has only meaning on the location of the servers that host the projects, my understanding is that under US law (even with some specificity to the state) authorship is determined case by case but there are general rules (even by international protocol). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::"there are legal... considerations involved on the distinction" What legal considerations? Based on what law? In what jurisdiction? How are they relevant to anything here? If you're not answering these questions, then why are you even writing anything? And yes, a textbook from Houghton-Miflin will not list the editors as authors because they aren't written as wikis. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::: I have responded above to all those questions (rights, licensing, San Francisco, California, USA), when you wrote «How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"» it at least showed that you understood part of the difference and by participating here you should at least understand the license we work under. The wiki is only a tool it does not change the fabric of reality, it promotes more participation and immediate publication nothing else. --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} No, you haven't. What laws? Name some court decision that relates to the collaborative nature of wikis and legal authorship. You release your work here under a CC license that says that anyone can reuse it in any way as long as he gives you credit--that doesn't have to be as a sole credited author. The standard way of crediting someone is with the footers that display in the print editions of these pages. If some books happen to have subpages of contributors, that's fine but anyone can delete or strip away or write over any of those pages at any time. Additionally, anyone can just undo and rewrite anything you write here making you no longer an "author" of any work. You would still be listed in the page history but in no meaningful (legal, moral) sense would you be the "author". —[[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> 06:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
   
{{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]}}
+
:There was a few years ago a movement (I was told by a older wikibookian than I, so it may be eons ago) a movement to remove the authorship claims form the works but it failed to get communal consensus. Today several works even require a page to state the authors and their copyrights, for example any work that uses content from Wikipedia without a history importation, needs to attribute it.
  +
:Just check if your contributions are in fact copyrightable (in size and content in regards to the aggregate of the specific work you want to tag), take other authors' pages as example on how to do it and make clear that you are not a simple contributor, you are claiming rights and responsibility over your work (note also that by norm only the top authors may be named on a final publication in print if the list is too extensive). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
{{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]}}
+
{{ping|Jayprakash12345}} You'd never guess this topic can be contentious, would you? (lol) Some books have a page for authors, some don't. Since it's really easy to contribute to a book without adding one's name to that list, I've always felt uncomfortable about it; you certainly can't get complete information from it about who has contributed, and it gives me one more thing to worry about if I'm considering editing, whereas imho there should be no discouragements from contribution; but then again, maybe some people get more of a sense of community from putting their name on such a list. So, feel free to include, or not include, such a page.&nbsp;:-)&nbsp; -[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
{{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]}}
+
:{{Ping|User:Pi zero}} When I wrote that Wikibooks is an anarchy, I thought it was a congratulation. I didn't want to be offensive. All I meant is that there are no chief. Everyone is free to speak her or his mind. Why are my views authoritarian in character ?--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: I probably did take the term "anarchy" more negatively that necessary. Your concept of "owned" books has always seemed basically authoritarian to me, I'm afraid. However, perhaps we can agree that, with one thing and another, this discussion has gone rather off track; Jayprakash12345 just asked about whether to include an authors page, I think, and really the answer is "whichever you feel more comfortable doing". --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: Thanks to you for such an answer. It helps me to love life. (I'm drunk, hence I shouldn't publish, but I did) --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
An author is someone who has contributed major sections to a book. Most books that have one author are usually maintained by that one author. However, if the new content is truthful, or it helps make the guide better, than it should be accepted no matter what. Only if the book is a subject not many people know does the author get to basically make the decisions of what to write. {{#switch:}}|Wikibooks=[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]|#default=<span style="font-variant: small-caps" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]</span></span>}} 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
::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)
+
:Not exactly that, authorship is ultimately a legal definition and the legal attributes of the creator(s) of a work. On Wikibooks even the most exclusive content is cared over by the community. I expect it to be very hard to find any significant content that hasn't been edited by more than 2-3 people at least.
  +
:Wikibooks is more than a guide or a collection of guides, the objective is to create educational textbooks it has distinct authorship requirements from most other project with the exception of Wikisournce. For example in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable (legal protection or rights).
  +
:Regarding control sadly you are incorrect, while most of the general Wikibooks community validates book specific sub-communities and lets them have most of the control over their creation, there are no rules of guidelines to prevent a cabal or a click of other wikibookians to form, even without intentional malice (the result will always be negative if outside communities interact too much in sub-community concerns) to derail any creative direction of that sub-community, even able to destroy productive sub-communities in the process. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:PS: Note that while I defend authorship in general I have a strong dislike for the present copyright laws and how they are enforced. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: Sorry for picking at this perhaps-healing scab, but the statement "in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable" is false. Wikipedia content is not only copyrightable, it is copyrighted. The ''facts'' presented in Wikipedia articles cannot be copyrighted, but the exact manner of their presentation is copyrighted under the Berne Convention (according to [[w:WP:COPY]]). Furthermore, the content at both Wikipedia and here at Wikibooks is ''licensed'' under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, which control matters of redistribution, modification, and attribution. We can have policies and guidelines here about "authorship" and the like, but they can't supersede the licenses we use. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] ([[User talk:Dcljr|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dcljr|contribs]]) 22:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::I would say that the page history already lists the authors.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 21:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Does this course belong here or in wikiversity? ==
   
: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)
+
Hi all, I wanted to start a permaculture course, that is a book summing the design knowledge of permaculture. I just don't know if it's best suited in wikibooks or wikiversity. It's a didactic material, it's in modules, I mean looks like it could go in both, could you please help me out in it? Seems to me like the two projects overlap quite a bit.
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:::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)
+
Thanks and have a nice day! ----[[User:Beleriandcrises|Beleriandcrises]] ([[User talk:Beleriandcrises|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beleriandcrises|contribs]]) 08:42, 1 October 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)
+
: {{ping|Beleriandcrises}} A key difference is that Wikibooks does not allow [[WB:OR|primary research]]. It does sound as if you're describing a textbook, which ought to fit well here, textbooks being our particular focus; that's on the face of it, of course, since I do not specifically know the subject matter. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 10:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::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)
+
:: Hello {{ping|Pi zero}}, thanks for your answer. There are books on this topic and that's the format I was thinking of, so I will probably start setting it up here and then see how it evolves. If then it will be more fitting to wikiversity (because of original research, or for the usage of slides and media content beside images) I'll just move it, hoping that wouldn't cause any problem. Also thanks for your welcome in my talk page :) -- [[User:Beleriandcrises|Beleriandcrises]] ([[User talk:Beleriandcrises|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beleriandcrises|contribs]]) 11:06, 1 October 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.)
+
== Authorship policy on Wikibooks ==
:::::: 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)
+
Authorships policy is one of the biggest problems in all Wikibooks projects. In Persian Wikibooks a [[:b:fa:ویکی‌کتاب:نظرخواهی/نویسنده کتاب|survey]] is conducted for that but it's stale with no result. As the newbie said in "Wikibooks's author" section my question is that "what is the policy on Wikibooks about writing a Wikibooks's author name?"I think a policy or guideline is needed. --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 12:00, 1 October 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.
+
: Wikibooks are collaborative. Anyone can edit. If people want to sign their name on a list of authors, they're welcome to do so I suppose, but not doing so doesn't make a contributor any less an author from an intellectual property perspective. I don't approve of presenting a book as the work of ''one'' person, as that only serves to make others feel unwelcome to contribute. (I also have doubts about the whole "we don't have a policy, so we need one" trope. Both halves are problematic: the collaborative nature of the project is inherent, with its implications, and I'd have to reread all our key pages to satisfy myself as to just what we do and don't have in an explicit form; and if it doesn't appear explicitly, well, not everything ''has'' to be written out explicitly &mdash; Wikipedia has, amongst other problems, become an awful tangle of red tape, and we should aspire to avoid that fate.) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:There are votes in favor and against naming authors of Wikibooks. Wikibooks is different from Wikipedia in nature while both are collaborative. We can name the users who have more share in creating each Wikibook. --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
::Interestingly [[Wikibooks:Ownership]] is yet a draft! --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 10:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: A lot of proposed policies and guidelines on en.wb have never been adopted. One of the things that has manifestly gone awry on en.wp is runaway bureaucratic red tape; perhaps that's why other sisters I've worked on have favored minimizing formal rules? --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::Broadly custom and practice rules here. We are bound by the overarching policies and rules of the Wikimedia Foundation not least because it owns the servers hosting the content. For example, its mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." That is one of the reasons we don't publish original fiction, or allow people to impose non-free licenses on their work, etc. Even if we wrote policies that did allow it, the WMF would likely override it should someone draw it to their attention. Similarly, in the values statement the WMF writes "except when required by applicable law, we do not remove information from the Wikimedia projects to satisfy private or government interests. We will never facilitate, enable or condone censorship of the Wikimedia projects." This would prevent us having a policy allowing ownership because it is effectively allowing a form of censorship by the owner of the book. Anyway, it is sufficient for me that we have a set of values to guide us and we make sensible collaborative decisions when issues arise rather than trying to write complex policies that allow people to try and lawyer-waffle around them. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
::Is it forbidden by WM to put my pen name at the end of Wikibooks written by me? --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 08:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::No, but equally signing your name in the content of a book is highly discouraged as it can dissuade other editors from contributing, gives the impression that you are claiming ownership and is subject to error when other people edit the book. For example, if I change a section of text that you have previously signed I would remove your signature as you are no longer the sole author. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 10:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::: If someone did intend to host their own personally authored &mdash; non-collaborative &mdash; material on Wikibooks, that would be disallowed on grounds that Wikibooks [[WB:NOT|is not]] a [[WB:HOST|web host]]. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 11:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
+
== Relation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks ==
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 ==
+
I'm an admin in Persian WB. It seems that I should be aware of differences between Wikipedia and Wikibooks deeply. Even though the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource has been well defined but the case for Wikipedia is yet vague. What is the differences and similarities between Wikipedia and Wikibooks? [[Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikimedians|This guideline]] explains some similarities but it does not describes how to import pages from Wikipedia and how to use or dewikify them. --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:Please go to [[Wikibooks:Requests for import]] to bring materials from Wikipedia.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 21:15, 17 October 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)
+
:: {{ping|Doostdar}} Regarding differences of Wikibooks from Wikipedia, to my understanding,
  +
::* Wikibooks can go into great depth on a subject, much greater than would be allowed on Wikipedia; an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize/synopsize each topic it covers.
  +
::* A book has overall structure, whereas a grouping of encyclopedia articles does not; a book's modules are usually meant to be read in a particular order, they typically follow various conventions that are common to that particular book but not to other books (nor to an encyclopedia, which often has its own conventions that most books don't follow).
  +
::* A book is relatively self-contained, whereas a Wikipedia article goes out of its way to link to other articles quite freely. Within the text of a book (thus not counting various kinds of lists of external links), we're most willing to wikilink between parts of a single book, sometimes we'll wikilink to another book. Links to another sister (such as Wikipedia), let alone external links (outside the wikimedia sisterhood) are rare.
  +
:: I've observed that each book is, to a significant extent, a microproject; all these microprojects have banded together to share a common administrative infrastructure, which makes a lot of sense because most of the individual books are orders of magnitude smaller than would ever justify having it own separate administration, but any book may have some differences of organization from all other books as well as all other sisters. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:50, 17 October 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.

Wikibooks's author[edit]

Hello Everyone, I am newbie on wikibooks. So please don't mind. I want to know that what is the policy have on wikibooks about writing a wikibooks's author name. You can see both page European History and High School Mathematics Extensions. They both have author name. Is it right or not. Are there any policy on that. Thanks-Jayprakash12345 (discusscontribs) 17:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jayprakash12345: Several of them have it. I personally think it's a bad idea. If you want, you can create a page like Book title/Contributors and move the content there. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jayprakash12345: The issue is not settled. On one side, there are wikibookians who think that authorship is against a true spirit of cooperation. On the other side, we think that authorship gives a strong motivation to complete a wikibook and hence could help to make of Wikibooks a great pedagogical library. The issue is not only to sign a wikibook. Everyone agrees that an open list of names of contributors is authorized. But we disagree about the author's right to refuse unwanted modifications. I think that an author can claim such a right. But this issue is not a real problem. Noone never tried to modify my wikibooks against my will.
Welcome to Wikibooks. Remember it' a kind of anarchy. I hope you will enjoy it --TD (discusscontribs) 16:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
TD (sorry to be blunt), your outspoken views on authorship — contradicting project policy — are admittedly authoritarian in character, but that does not make the project an anarchy. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Again you a mixing things. So far no one expressed any concerns about authorship in regards to cooperation. More it would be extremely futile to refute authorship and damaging to the project to object to rightful claims of it. Again no one has raised so far any issue on those points.
The communal objection is for auhorship granting any special administrative regards to the users on wikibooks. Panic (discusscontribs) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Authors are not simple contributors, there are legal and moral considerations involved on the distinction. Authors should not use a page named contributors if they not make there the distinction clear. Most of the negative regard people have to this is due to lack of knowledge and civility that is prone to create a mess of the process. That is why I think those pages should be administratively edit protected. Panic (discusscontribs) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Panic2k4: I get the distinct impression this claim is BS. Please substantiate. 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: See w:author as I get the impression you lack the understanding what an author is and what differentiates it from other content contributor (there are contributors that even don't add content, so think also about that). In any case the most pressing distinction is about the legal rights that are attributed to author's (or those that pay for their creative work). This has implications on re-use of content, re-licensing etc and to the individual author, for instance, in capability to claim work done, to be proud to be associated with it, to sign it and demonstrate effort made understanding on a given subject. Panic (discusscontribs) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Panic2k4: Oh, that's rich. Yes, I know what an "author" is but in a collaborative environment, there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor". Who is the author of w:en:Abraham Lincoln? And again, I think these legal distinctions are sheer hokum. There are legal implications for moral rights in the EU--is that what you're talking about? If so, it's irrelevant as this is an American site. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well I have no intention in having a fight over this so what I said stands. Consider that in my view your "understanding" of what an author is is incorrect, I'll go a bit more into the below as we are on the public forum, but this is it for now, as we don't have the common ground to continue.
As I stated somewhere on this discussion encyclopedic content is not copyrightable so there is no legal author (one that has rights and obligations) and I at least give accolades for those that really do the research and expansion work of content, and this recognition I have for work done is in levels of degree in regard to those efforts, even if ultimately it is all about the team, as in sports not all the players are equal in importance but ultimately its the group effort that wins. This of course can be translated to our projects Wikibooks is not a collection of articles (even if legally it may be considered a collection/aggregate), efforts here are more sub divided and require more and prolonged dedication, so individual action is not only legally more relevant (I have discussed the issue ad infinitum, form legal protection of the work to re-licensing there are a myriad of important benefits in claiming authorship) but morally, civil and ethical. Here on this project the sub-communities that do the different projects most of those do not even have an interest about Wikibooks or Wikimedia at all and see this as a public resource, a tool for public work.
To state that «there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor"» is a disservice to all those involved in the creative work, the harder part of the work we all benefit from. Of course we should recognize even the water boy (the bot that runs at nigh) and treat it as any one else on the team but ultimately everyone knows that his contribution is limited by function as many others. On wikibook there are water boys that do more work that many authors and should and are recognized for that in many ways. No dedicated people would have any objection in having other be recognized by their own work here. Panic (discusscontribs) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Panic2k4: You said there's a legal distinction but cited no laws. That makes me think you are making up stuff. Of course, in a given page or book it's very possible that one person will do most of the writing and another will do virtually nothing original writing-wise but maybe some small formatting. You can call these "authors" and "collaborators" if you want but this is just an arbitrary distinction that you are making. Everyone who contributes to Wikibooks gets credited because page histories are preserved--I don't know what more anyone else needs. Why there has to be some prestige or an ability to veto certain edits is beyond me. I've definitely written things at Wikipedia that got deleted or revised and I wished they weren't but that's the price I pay to work on a collaborative research project. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well as I said I'm done arguing with you as we don't share a common ground/definition of things we are speaking about, so there is really no point to it beyond preventing confusion on the public forum. Go read about what an author is and a bit about copyright laws to get the legal definition if you still don't understand the differences and implications in comparison with other types of editing. I cringe to think about what type of content contributions you have made to Wikimedia projects as you seem not to be able to understand the different licenses we use and their implications. That or you are just pulling my leg. Morally, ethical and by civility the distinction to me is self evident I can't even empathize with you when you bunch all work as having the same intrinsic characteristics and even the same merit. On my side I do not donate my work to Wikimedia, I license it to the public. I own, protect, am responsible and sign my work.
I gave examples that should show anyone in good faith that all edits aren't the same, even if I do agree that for the good of the projects and to promote participation we should only make it evident on the necessary legal side of things, without making any grand fanfare about the issue. This is important because many Wikimedia users are similar to yourself in their understanding of deeper requirements and implications. Not even considering problems with age etc...
Formatting, spelling and atheistical issues are made by "editors" there are many niches for them (w:Author editing, w:Copy editing and more) not to mention changes done by publishers etc none of this work is copyrightable and they certainly aren't authors.
Regarding the edit histories I could enter in more details but to any proficient Wikimedia contributor and for those that spend some time on wikimedia projects the reliability and certainty of the logging is problematic, even more when it does indeed bunch all sorts of edits together and people point to them as a roster of participation. It is what we have but its utility is more for administrative actions than anything else, it serves Wikipedia well but not WIkibooks and a few other Wikimedia projects.
Again Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and status of authors and other contributors by the work done is also very distinct. Wikipedia doesn't have authors and most users are at the same level, its for the community to attribute quality and status and base the attribution of rights on the project based on those, I'm not a Wikipedian so I can't comment much on the fairness there, after a few revertions some years ago I only edit talk pages to point or ask stuff (so I can empathize with you there). On Wikibooks things are more insular, each project does indeed have a sub-community that is similar to how Wikipedia operates but in a very smaller scale and in general are abstracted from the rest of the project, any status if any is normally project specific and has very limited distinctions, authorship does not have any specific meaning in this context beyond the authors being the more active contributors and those that stay more consistently with projects (but should, even if not on the level proposed by User:Thierry Dugnolle). Panic (discusscontribs) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Panic2k4: The burden isn't on me to substantiate your claims that there is some legal distinction between an "author" and a "collaborator". How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"? Laws in which jurisdictions? Again, you're not saying anything meaningful or substantial here. If you personally think there is a distinction, that's fine for you to propose as an idea. To claim that the law says something about this, offer nothing to back up this claim, and then demand that I just do the research is laughable and frankly asinine. The point that I have made and that you seem to miss is that while there certainly are individual edits which are very substantial and others which are more-or-less trivial, there are a lot of edits in between and that's why some distinction between the "primary author" and "secondary collaborators" is useless and will inevitably break down. The longer Wikibooks exist, the less and less that anything you personally have added will continue to be here, so 200 years from now calling you the "author" of the textbook on algebra is just ludicrous since what you did contribute will no longer be in the book itself. I honestly have no clue what the point is of a post that says, "As I said before, I'm done. Also, you do my research because I refuse to cite anything I say. Also, there are problems with edit histories but I will refuse to say what those are as well." What could possibly be the purpose of a post like this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I did not make any claim, I stated facts that you refused to accept as valid, some should be self evident even so I did go to the trouble of providing examples and link to pages that you could ascertain the validity of what I stated. Even our own license states that the right of attribution is reserved for those that did meaningful contributions, on wikibooks those would be project authors. In any case open any text book you have at home and you will see that the editor and even the publisher aren't included as authors, even a signed article on a newspaper will have only the reporter listed not the people that did the copy edit or the graphic montage.
Any legal consideration has only meaning on the location of the servers that host the projects, my understanding is that under US law (even with some specificity to the state) authorship is determined case by case but there are general rules (even by international protocol). Panic (discusscontribs) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"there are legal... considerations involved on the distinction" What legal considerations? Based on what law? In what jurisdiction? How are they relevant to anything here? If you're not answering these questions, then why are you even writing anything? And yes, a textbook from Houghton-Miflin will not list the editors as authors because they aren't written as wikis. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I have responded above to all those questions (rights, licensing, San Francisco, California, USA), when you wrote «How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"» it at least showed that you understood part of the difference and by participating here you should at least understand the license we work under. The wiki is only a tool it does not change the fabric of reality, it promotes more participation and immediate publication nothing else. --Panic (discusscontribs) 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Panic2k4: No, you haven't. What laws? Name some court decision that relates to the collaborative nature of wikis and legal authorship. You release your work here under a CC license that says that anyone can reuse it in any way as long as he gives you credit--that doesn't have to be as a sole credited author. The standard way of crediting someone is with the footers that display in the print editions of these pages. If some books happen to have subpages of contributors, that's fine but anyone can delete or strip away or write over any of those pages at any time. Additionally, anyone can just undo and rewrite anything you write here making you no longer an "author" of any work. You would still be listed in the page history but in no meaningful (legal, moral) sense would you be the "author". —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a few years ago a movement (I was told by a older wikibookian than I, so it may be eons ago) a movement to remove the authorship claims form the works but it failed to get communal consensus. Today several works even require a page to state the authors and their copyrights, for example any work that uses content from Wikipedia without a history importation, needs to attribute it.
Just check if your contributions are in fact copyrightable (in size and content in regards to the aggregate of the specific work you want to tag), take other authors' pages as example on how to do it and make clear that you are not a simple contributor, you are claiming rights and responsibility over your work (note also that by norm only the top authors may be named on a final publication in print if the list is too extensive). Panic (discusscontribs) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jayprakash12345: You'd never guess this topic can be contentious, would you? (lol) Some books have a page for authors, some don't. Since it's really easy to contribute to a book without adding one's name to that list, I've always felt uncomfortable about it; you certainly can't get complete information from it about who has contributed, and it gives me one more thing to worry about if I'm considering editing, whereas imho there should be no discouragements from contribution; but then again, maybe some people get more of a sense of community from putting their name on such a list. So, feel free to include, or not include, such a page. :-)  -Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: When I wrote that Wikibooks is an anarchy, I thought it was a congratulation. I didn't want to be offensive. All I meant is that there are no chief. Everyone is free to speak her or his mind. Why are my views authoritarian in character ?--TD (discusscontribs) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I probably did take the term "anarchy" more negatively that necessary. Your concept of "owned" books has always seemed basically authoritarian to me, I'm afraid. However, perhaps we can agree that, with one thing and another, this discussion has gone rather off track; Jayprakash12345 just asked about whether to include an authors page, I think, and really the answer is "whichever you feel more comfortable doing". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you for such an answer. It helps me to love life. (I'm drunk, hence I shouldn't publish, but I did) --TD (discusscontribs) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

An author is someone who has contributed major sections to a book. Most books that have one author are usually maintained by that one author. However, if the new content is truthful, or it helps make the guide better, than it should be accepted no matter what. Only if the book is a subject not many people know does the author get to basically make the decisions of what to write. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly that, authorship is ultimately a legal definition and the legal attributes of the creator(s) of a work. On Wikibooks even the most exclusive content is cared over by the community. I expect it to be very hard to find any significant content that hasn't been edited by more than 2-3 people at least.
Wikibooks is more than a guide or a collection of guides, the objective is to create educational textbooks it has distinct authorship requirements from most other project with the exception of Wikisournce. For example in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable (legal protection or rights).
Regarding control sadly you are incorrect, while most of the general Wikibooks community validates book specific sub-communities and lets them have most of the control over their creation, there are no rules of guidelines to prevent a cabal or a click of other wikibookians to form, even without intentional malice (the result will always be negative if outside communities interact too much in sub-community concerns) to derail any creative direction of that sub-community, even able to destroy productive sub-communities in the process. Panic (discusscontribs) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: Note that while I defend authorship in general I have a strong dislike for the present copyright laws and how they are enforced. Panic (discusscontribs) 09:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for picking at this perhaps-healing scab, but the statement "in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable" is false. Wikipedia content is not only copyrightable, it is copyrighted. The facts presented in Wikipedia articles cannot be copyrighted, but the exact manner of their presentation is copyrighted under the Berne Convention (according to w:WP:COPY). Furthermore, the content at both Wikipedia and here at Wikibooks is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL, which control matters of redistribution, modification, and attribution. We can have policies and guidelines here about "authorship" and the like, but they can't supersede the licenses we use. - dcljr (discusscontribs) 22:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the page history already lists the authors.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 21:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Does this course belong here or in wikiversity?[edit]

Hi all, I wanted to start a permaculture course, that is a book summing the design knowledge of permaculture. I just don't know if it's best suited in wikibooks or wikiversity. It's a didactic material, it's in modules, I mean looks like it could go in both, could you please help me out in it? Seems to me like the two projects overlap quite a bit.

Thanks and have a nice day! ----Beleriandcrises (discusscontribs) 08:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Beleriandcrises: A key difference is that Wikibooks does not allow primary research. It does sound as if you're describing a textbook, which ought to fit well here, textbooks being our particular focus; that's on the face of it, of course, since I do not specifically know the subject matter. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello @Pi zero:, thanks for your answer. There are books on this topic and that's the format I was thinking of, so I will probably start setting it up here and then see how it evolves. If then it will be more fitting to wikiversity (because of original research, or for the usage of slides and media content beside images) I'll just move it, hoping that wouldn't cause any problem. Also thanks for your welcome in my talk page :) -- Beleriandcrises (discusscontribs) 11:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Authorship policy on Wikibooks[edit]

Authorships policy is one of the biggest problems in all Wikibooks projects. In Persian Wikibooks a survey is conducted for that but it's stale with no result. As the newbie said in "Wikibooks's author" section my question is that "what is the policy on Wikibooks about writing a Wikibooks's author name?"I think a policy or guideline is needed. --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 12:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks are collaborative. Anyone can edit. If people want to sign their name on a list of authors, they're welcome to do so I suppose, but not doing so doesn't make a contributor any less an author from an intellectual property perspective. I don't approve of presenting a book as the work of one person, as that only serves to make others feel unwelcome to contribute. (I also have doubts about the whole "we don't have a policy, so we need one" trope. Both halves are problematic: the collaborative nature of the project is inherent, with its implications, and I'd have to reread all our key pages to satisfy myself as to just what we do and don't have in an explicit form; and if it doesn't appear explicitly, well, not everything has to be written out explicitly — Wikipedia has, amongst other problems, become an awful tangle of red tape, and we should aspire to avoid that fate.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There are votes in favor and against naming authors of Wikibooks. Wikibooks is different from Wikipedia in nature while both are collaborative. We can name the users who have more share in creating each Wikibook. --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 15:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly Wikibooks:Ownership is yet a draft! --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 10:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of proposed policies and guidelines on en.wb have never been adopted. One of the things that has manifestly gone awry on en.wp is runaway bureaucratic red tape; perhaps that's why other sisters I've worked on have favored minimizing formal rules? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Broadly custom and practice rules here. We are bound by the overarching policies and rules of the Wikimedia Foundation not least because it owns the servers hosting the content. For example, its mission is "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." That is one of the reasons we don't publish original fiction, or allow people to impose non-free licenses on their work, etc. Even if we wrote policies that did allow it, the WMF would likely override it should someone draw it to their attention. Similarly, in the values statement the WMF writes "except when required by applicable law, we do not remove information from the Wikimedia projects to satisfy private or government interests. We will never facilitate, enable or condone censorship of the Wikimedia projects." This would prevent us having a policy allowing ownership because it is effectively allowing a form of censorship by the owner of the book. Anyway, it is sufficient for me that we have a set of values to guide us and we make sensible collaborative decisions when issues arise rather than trying to write complex policies that allow people to try and lawyer-waffle around them. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it forbidden by WM to put my pen name at the end of Wikibooks written by me? --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 08:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
No, but equally signing your name in the content of a book is highly discouraged as it can dissuade other editors from contributing, gives the impression that you are claiming ownership and is subject to error when other people edit the book. For example, if I change a section of text that you have previously signed I would remove your signature as you are no longer the sole author. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
If someone did intend to host their own personally authored — non-collaborative — material on Wikibooks, that would be disallowed on grounds that Wikibooks is not a web host. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Relation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks[edit]

I'm an admin in Persian WB. It seems that I should be aware of differences between Wikipedia and Wikibooks deeply. Even though the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource has been well defined but the case for Wikipedia is yet vague. What is the differences and similarities between Wikipedia and Wikibooks? This guideline explains some similarities but it does not describes how to import pages from Wikipedia and how to use or dewikify them. --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please go to Wikibooks:Requests for import to bring materials from Wikipedia.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doostdar: Regarding differences of Wikibooks from Wikipedia, to my understanding,
  • Wikibooks can go into great depth on a subject, much greater than would be allowed on Wikipedia; an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize/synopsize each topic it covers.
  • A book has overall structure, whereas a grouping of encyclopedia articles does not; a book's modules are usually meant to be read in a particular order, they typically follow various conventions that are common to that particular book but not to other books (nor to an encyclopedia, which often has its own conventions that most books don't follow).
  • A book is relatively self-contained, whereas a Wikipedia article goes out of its way to link to other articles quite freely. Within the text of a book (thus not counting various kinds of lists of external links), we're most willing to wikilink between parts of a single book, sometimes we'll wikilink to another book. Links to another sister (such as Wikipedia), let alone external links (outside the wikimedia sisterhood) are rare.
I've observed that each book is, to a significant extent, a microproject; all these microprojects have banded together to share a common administrative infrastructure, which makes a lot of sense because most of the individual books are orders of magnitude smaller than would ever justify having it own separate administration, but any book may have some differences of organization from all other books as well as all other sisters. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)