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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
m (Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 60 days) to Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2015/December.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
}}
 
}}
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== What IdeaLab campaigns do you want to see? ==
  +
  +
[[File:IdeaLab logo dark orange.png|100px|right]]
  +
  +
Hey folks. I’m seeking your help to decide on topics for new [[m:Special:MyLanguage/IdeaLab|IdeaLab]] campaigns that could be run starting next year.
  +
These campaigns are designed to attract proposals from Wikimedia project contributors that address a broad gap or area of need in Wikimedia projects.
  +
  +
Here’s how to participate:
  +
  +
*[[m:Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns|'''Learn more''']] about this consultation and '''[[m:Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns/Topics|review submitted campaign topics.]]'''
  +
*[http://www.allourideas.org/idealab_campaigns Vote on and submit new campaign topics in '''the AllOurIdeas Survey'''] (in English)
  +
*[[m:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns|Discuss campaign topics and ask questions on '''the IdeaLab talk page''']].
  +
  +
With thanks,
  +
  +
[[m:User:I JethroBT (WMF)|I JethroBT (WMF)]], [[:m:Community Resources|Community Resources]], Wikimedia Foundation. 23:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:I JethroBT (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns/ProjectTargets&oldid=15154858 -->
  +
  +
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15|Get involved in Wikipedia 15!]] ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''This is a message from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/MassMessages/Get involved|Translations]] are available.''
  +
  +
[[File:International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg|right|200px]]
  +
  +
As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!
  +
  +
People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Events|events on Meta Page]]. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.
  +
  +
Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:
  +
  +
* '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Events|Join/host an event]]'''. We already have more than 80, and hope to have many more.
  +
* '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Media|Talk to local press]]'''. In the past 15 years, Wikipedia has accomplished extraordinary things. We’ve made a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/15 years|handy summary]] of milestones and encourage you to add your own. More resources, including a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Media#releases|press release template]] and [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Communications/Movement Communications Skills|resources on working with the media]], are also available.
  +
* '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Material|Design a Wikipedia 15 logo]]'''. In place of a single icon for Wikipedia 15, we’re making dozens. Add your own with something fun and representative of your community. Just use the visual guide so they share a common sensibility.
  +
* '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15/Events/Package#birthdaywish|Share a message on social media]]'''. Tell the world what Wikipedia means to you, and add #wikipedia15 to the post. We might re-tweet or share your message!
  +
  +
Everything is linked on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikipedia 15|Wikipedia 15 Meta page]]. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a [[c:Category:Wikipedia15 Mark|list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos]] that community members have already designed.
  +
  +
If you have any questions, please contact [[m:User:ZMcCune (WMF)|Zachary McCune]] or [[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]].
  +
  +
Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!<br />
  +
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team
  +
  +
''Posted by the [[m:User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]], 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • [[m:Wikipedia 15/MassMessages/Get involved|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Wikipedia 15|{{int:help}}]]
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=15158198 -->
   
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.
+
== Wikimania 2016: call for proposals is open! ==
   
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.
+
Dear users,<br/>
  +
the '''call for proposals for Wikimania 2016''' is open! All the members of the Wikimedia projects, researchers and observers are invited to propose a ''critical issue'' to be included in the programme of the conference, which will be held in Italy, in Esino Lario, from June 21 to 28.<br/>
  +
Through this call we only accept what we call '''critical issues''', i.e. proposals aiming at presenting problems, possible solutions and critical analysis about Wikimedia projects and activities in 18 minutes. These proposals do not need to target newbies, and they can assume attendees to already have a background knowledge on a topic (community, tech, outreach, policies...).<br/>
  +
To submit a presentation, please refer to the '''[[:wm2016:Submissions|Submissions]]''' page on the Wikimania 2016 website. Deadline for submitting proposals is '''7th January 2016''' and the selection of these proposals will be through a blind peer-reviewed process. Looking forward to your proposals. --[[User:Yiyi|Yiyi]] ([[User talk:Yiyi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yiyi|contribs]]) 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  +
:The deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the [https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions Submissions] page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --[[User:Yiyi|Yiyi]] ([[User talk:Yiyi|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Yiyi|contribs]]) 09:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
   
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)
+
== Password Strength RFC ==
   
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)
+
Hello
   
: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)
+
We have started an RFC on meta to increase password requirements for users that have accounts which can edit [[MediaWiki:Common.js]], have access to checkuser or have access to Oversight.
::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)
+
These types of accounts have sensitive access to our sites, and can cause real harm if they fall into malicious hands. Currently the only requirement is the password is at least 1 letter long. We would like to make the minimum be 8 letters (bytes) long and also ban certain really common passwords.
:[[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,
+
By increasing requirements on passwords for accounts with high levels of access, we hope to make Wikimedia wikis more secure for everyone. Please read the full text of the proposal '''[[m:Requests for comment/Password policy for users with certain advanced permissions|here]]''', and make your voice heard at the [[m:Requests for comment/Password policy for users with certain advanced permissions|RFC]].
:: 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)
+
Thank you
: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)
+
(On behalf of the WMF security team) [[User:BWolff (WMF)|BWolff (WMF)]] ([[User talk:BWolff (WMF)|discuss]][[Special:Contributions/BWolff (WMF)|contribs]]) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (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)
+
<br>
  +
<br><small>Delivered using the [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery/en|distribution list]]</small>
   
: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)
+
== Community Wishlist Survey results ==
   
:: <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)
+
Hi everyone,
   
== Goodbook ==
+
The [[m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey|2015 Community Wishlist Survey]] is over, and now the [[m:Community Tech|Community Tech]] team's work begins on the top 10 features and fixes.
   
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)
+
In November and December 2015, we invited contributors from all Wikimedia projects to submit proposals for what they would like the Community Tech team to work on, for the purpose of improving or producing curation and moderation tools for active contributors.
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
634 people participated in the survey, where they proposed, discussed and voted on 107 ideas. There was a two-week period in November to submit and endorse proposals, followed by two weeks of voting. The top 10 proposals with the most support votes now become the Community Tech team's backlog of projects to evaluate and address.
   
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)
+
You can see the whole list with links to all the proposals and Phabricator tickets on this page: '''[[m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey|2015 Community Wishlist Survey]]'''.
: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 ==
+
For everybody who proposed, endorsed, discussed, debated and voted in the survey, as well as everyone who said nice things to us recently: thank you very much for coming out and supporting live feature development. We're excited about the work ahead of us. -- [[User:DannyH (WMF)|DannyH (WMF)]] ([[User talk:DannyH (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/DannyH (WMF)|contribs]]) 21:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
   
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)
+
== VisualEditor News #6—2015 ==
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
<div style="margin:0.5em;width:230px;{{#switch:ltr|rtl=float:left;margin-left:0;|#default=float:right;margin-right:0;}}border:1px solid #AAA;padding:0.5em;">
  +
[[File:VisualEditor-logo.svg|200x70px|center|alt=The visual editor]]
  +
'''Did you know?'''
  +
<div class="thumbcaption" style="font-size: 90%;">
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
A new, simpler system for editing will offer a single Edit button. Once the page has opened, you can switch back and forth between visual and wikitext editing.
   
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''.
+
[[File:VisualEditor single edit tab preference dialog.png|alt=Screenshot showing a pop-up dialog for switching from the wikitext editor to the visual editor|centre|frameless|230x230px]]<br>
   
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.
+
If you prefer having separate edit buttons, then you can set that option in your preferences, either in a pop-up dialog the next time you open the visual editor, or by going to [[Special:Preferences]] and choosing the setting that you want: <br><br>[[File:VisualEditor single edit tab in preferences 2015-12-18.png|alt=Screenshot showing a drop-down menu in Special:Preferences|centre|frameless|230x230px]]
   
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.
+
The current plan is for the default setting to have the Edit button open the editing environment you used most recently. <br><br>You can read and help translate [[:mw:VisualEditor/User guide|the user guide]], which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
  +
</div></div>
  +
''[[m:VisualEditor/Newsletter/2015/December|Read this in another language]] • [[:m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter]]''
   
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?
+
Since the last newsletter, the [[mw:VisualEditor|visual editor team]] has fixed many bugs and expanded the mathematics formula tool. Their workboard is available [[phab:project/board/483/|in Phabricator]]. Their [[mediawikiwiki:VisualEditor/Current_priorities|current priorities]] are improving support for languages such as Japanese and Arabic, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
=== Recent improvements ===
  +
You can '''switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor''' after you start editing.
  +
The '''LaTeX mathematics formula editor''' has been significantly expanded. ([[phab:T118616|T118616)]] You can see the formula as you change the LaTeX code. You can click buttons to insert the correct LaTeX code for many symbols.
  +
=== Future changes ===
  +
The '''single edit tab''' project will combine the "{{int:vector-view-edit}}" and "{{int:visualeditor-ca-editsource}}" tabs into a single "{{int:vector-view-edit}}" tab, like the system already used on the mobile website. ([[phab:T102398|T102398]], [[phab:T58337|T58337]]) Initially, the "{{int:vector-view-edit}}" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as a cookie for logged-out users and as an account preference for logged-in editors. Logged-in editors will be able to set a default editor in the {{int:prefs-editing}} tab of [[Special:Preferences]] in the drop-down menu about "{{int:visualeditor-preference-tabs}}".
   
: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)
+
The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the following Wikipedias in early 2016: [[w:am:|Amharic]], [[w:bug:|Buginese]], [[w:cdo:|Min Dong]], [[w:cr:|Cree]], [[w:gv:|Manx]], [[w:hak:|Hakka]], [[w:hy:|Armenian]], [[w:ka:|Georgian]], [[w:pnt:|Pontic]], [[w:sh:|Serbo-Croatian]], [[w:ti:|Tigrinya]], [[w:xmf:|Mingrelian]], [[w:za:|Zhuang]], and [[w:zh-min-nan:|Min Nan]]. ([[phab:T116523|T116523]]) Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at [[:mw:Topic:St8y4ni42d0vr9cv|the feedback thread on mediawiki.org]]. The developers would like to know how well it works. Please tell them what kind of computer, web browser, and keyboard you are using.
   
:: 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)
+
In 2016, the '''feedback pages''' for the visual editor on many Wikipedias will be redirected to mediawiki.org. ([[phab:T92661|T92661]])
   
:(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)
+
=== Testing opportunities ===
  +
* Please try the new system for the '''single edit tab''' on [https://test2.wikipedia.org test2.wikipedia.org]. You can edit while logged out to see how it works for logged-out editors, or you can create a separate account to be able to set your account's preferences. <mark>Please share your thoughts about the single edit tab system at [[mediawikiwiki:Topic:Suspcq0bf5nd3gsd|the feedback topic on mediawiki.org]] or [https://jfe.qualtrics.com/form/SV_6R04ammTX8uoJFP sign up for formal user research]</mark> (type "single edit tab" in the question about other areas you're interested in). The new system has not been finalized, and your feedback can affect the outcome. The team particularly wants your thoughts about the options in Special:Preferences. The current choices in Special:Preferences are:
  +
** {{int:visualeditor-preference-tabs-remember-last}},
  +
** {{int:visualeditor-preference-tabs-prefer-ve}},
  +
** {{int:visualeditor-preference-tabs-prefer-wt}}, and
  +
** {{int:visualeditor-preference-tabs-multi-tab}}. (This is the current state for people already using the visual editor. None of these options will be visible if you have disabled the visual editor in your preferences at that wiki.)
  +
* <mark>Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese?</mark> Language engineer [[mw:User:DChan (WMF)|David Chan]] needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at [[mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test|What to test]] if you can help, and report it on Phabricator ([[phab:T110654|Korean]] - [[phab:T109818|Japanese]]) or on Wikipedia ([[:ko:위키백과:시각편집기/IME|Korean]] - [[:ja:Wikipedia:ビジュアルエディター/フィードバック/IME|Japanese]]).
  +
If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the [[mail:translators-l|Translators mailing list]] or [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elitre_(WMF)&action=edit&section=new contact us] directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. {{int:Feedback-thanks-title}}
  +
</div> [[:mw:User:Elitre (WMF)|Elitre (WMF)]], 00:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=VisualEditor/Newsletter/Wikis_with_VE&oldid=15165847 -->
   
: 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)
+
== 2016 WMF Strategy consultation ==
   
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)
+
:{{int:Please-translate}}
  +
Hello, all.
   
:: 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)
+
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)
   
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
+
Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, [[:m:2016 Strategy/Community consultation|2016 Strategy/Community consultation]].
:::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)
 
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created [[:m:2016 Strategy/Translations]] to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)
   
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)
+
If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.
   
{{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]}}
+
I hope you'll join us! [[:m:User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis]] via [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery|contribs]]) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdennis (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PEarley_(WMF)/Mass_Message_-_large&oldid=15253743 -->
   
{{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]}}
+
== WSBN? ==
   
{{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]}}
+
Categorization set aside, the more I read about the commercial textbook registration systems, I find it a lack that Wikibooks doesn't have a unique book identifier system (ex.Wikibook Standard Book Number, WSBN). I doubt that [[w:International_Standard_Book_Number|International Standard Book Number, ISBN]] will include Wikibooks into their categorization eventhough they issue separate numbering for commercial e-books. Has this been considered by the community? [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|Balaji.md au}} I agree that some kind of unique identifier might be helpful but let's think about what an ISBN ''is'': in the case of a printed book, the contents won't change. And if they do change somewhat from printing to printing, it's assumed that they are relatively stable. In the example of a wikibook, that is not the case. [[s:|Wikisource]] has something similar with unique identifiers for authors (similar to ORCID or a VIAF authority control or what have you) and [[d:|Wikidata]] basically ''is'' a bunch of unique identifiers. But what if a page or module gets incorporated into another text? What if two chapters are consolidated into one? Or one chapter split into two? Ultimately, each text here already ''has'' a unique identifier: it's URI. —[[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> 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::Thanks Justin. ISBN does get "[[w:International_Standard_Book_Number|assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book]]". I am not sure if every variance need to be counted for with a Wikibook. I believe the current sytem of identifying with URI seems constrained and does not appear pleasingly scalable. There appear to be utilization of case-sensitiveness to make subjects and titles unique. That set aside, an unique identifier for the 'project', regardless of its variations, as a standard book number, would have many benefits in my humble opinion. And we could have created a system with a commercial equivalence as ISBN! Cheers [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 07:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:::Thinking about the other aspect you had raised, i.e., dynamic referencing - I was wondering if the community had thought about 'Restore points' for books (not just history of individual pages)? Let's say someone wants to cite a Wikibook because it contains a 'valid personal opinion' or a 'wikibook group consensus', which is not available in any other means (ex. through commercially published research articles) but at the same time has inherent merit, a standard book numbering system inclusive of a 'Restore point' could help. Technically, the citation format (ex. wikibooknumber-restorepoint-page, nnnnnxxxxetc-yyyymmddhhmmss-page) should be able to link the historical articles in a way that the reader is presented the book as it was at the time of generation of the restore point. The system could generate this restore point anytime someone wishes to cite a specific content, rather than periodically. Would be glad to know if there is a system such as this in existence already. [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 10:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:::: Concerning identifying numbers, imho part of the essence if wikis is that they're relentlessly human-oriented. The unique identifier of, say, the [[Conlang]] wikibook is that it's on English Wikibooks and its title is "Conlang"; that's unique, no other identifier is needed. <p> That said, it ''is'' true that sometimes you want to refer to the state of the Conlang wikibook at 0902&nbsp;UTC on February 7, 2013. Saying that is still sufficient to explain what you mean, but actually reconstructing what the book looked like then is archeology (seriously, that's the term used, spelling variations notwithstanding). The wiki software allows recovering the wikitext of a particular page from a particular time, but only directly allows viewing that page using the ''current'' versions of templates, so you can't even tell readily what the page looked like when it was current &mdash; and that's just one page. Reconstructing what pages of a book existed and what they were called ''and'' what templates were transcluded and in what versions is a huge task; and the devs haven't even provided support for reconstructing the historical appearance of a single page, nor I think will they ever do so. Politics: software upgrades only happen if the WMF (who have no understanding of wikis) believe that those upgrades will serve Wikipedia. They won't lift a finger to help the non-Wikipedian projects unless they think it'll benefit Wikipedia, and they're sufficiently clueless about Wikipedia that their major software initiatives are more likely to ''damage'' Wikipedia than help it. I used to think about how to get them to give some of their attention to non-Wikipedian sisters; now I think about how to prevent them from giving attention to non-Wikipedian sisters. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the sister projects, including Wikipedia; it's just that I consider the WMF an obstacle to be overcome, and definitely not a potential source of software improvements. (I ''do'' have in mind a major improvement to the software, which I've been developing for several years over at [[n:Help:Dialog|English Wikinews]].) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
:::::Idleness, vice and want - the three great evils of mankind declared Voltaire. I think what he meant was politics, beaurocracy and business (not in any particular order)! But we can always dream and no one "can stop an idea whose time has come" (Victor Hugo). Hence, let's keep cultivating our gardens! I think the better word that describes the idea is 'User generated editions' than archaeology. [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::I consider Wikibooks the natural extension to Wikipedia and wonder, as you perceive, why it had not been given the attention it deserves. More than an animated film winning an Oscar award will be a Wikibook winning the Nobel prize in literature! Perhaps the authors here should venture on a collaborative book worthy of that ideal - A wikibook worthy of a Nobel prize nomination! (Who they will award it to will be another question!). Sometimes grandiose thoughts help realize the worth of projects ;) [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::: Writing a book is ''difficult''. It requires a vision of the overall structure of the book, and sticking to that vision. Choose the wrong overall structure, and the book will go nowhere (I found a Wikijunior book on religions with that problem; its structure was unworkable, resulting of years of complete paralysis until restructured). Even with the right structure already in place, new contributors to an existing book have to learn what the structure is and then work within it. Each book is really a microproject &mdash; making Wikibooks a vast herd of microprojects banding together to share a common administrative structure. Contributors to a book can easily be so sparse that only of them is active at a time, so that later contributors have to learn their way about the book without benefit of consulting those who came before. Contributors to Wikibooks have a ''lot'' more respect for the wishes of those who came before and aren't around now, because that's the only way to operate when contributors to a given book are likely to be so few and far between; that's in contrast to Wikipedia where, in my experience, there's really no respect for the opinions of those who came before unless they're still around to continue arguing for their position. <p> I figure Wikibooks could benefit hugely from some crowdsourced semi-automated tools, of the sort I mean my dialog tools to support; so I export to port the tools here once I get them a bit more stable at Wikinews. <p> I agree that Wikibooks is a natural complement to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's own rules forbid it from going into real depth about anything, and practically prevent it from giving a coherent shape to an extended collection of articles; Wikibooks is the cure for both of those shortcomings. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::::Perhaps then a grand book be begun to involve many people. A book such as "The Human condition - Who are we, where are we and why are we?" which any human could contribute, trying to answer these most primal of questions that arise among us. If broadcasted I think many will come forward. This should be Nobel worthy! (excuse my grandiose aspirations ;) [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 00:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::::: Wikibooks has a no-original-research policy. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::Validates my interpretation of Voltaire's three evils (I think the 'beaurocracy' one blocks this)! At least, discussions like this give food for thought. Cheers[[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::: I think of bureaucracy, in the negative sense (which is almost always how I used the word), as following rules mindlessly. Some rules were put in place for good reason, and following their spirit can only safely depart from following their letter once one has enough expertise to grok their spirit. A very large community is most likely to have trouble with following rules mindlessly, because there the rules have to have a lot of 'momentum' or people go off and do their own thing and the community loses coherence; thus, it's not surprising that Wikipedia, as the largest of the sister projects, has the most trouble with bureaucracy. We have less of the problem on Wikibooks. The no-original-research rule on Wikibooks prevents folks from using the project as a blog-like platform to promote their own ideas. It is, in fact, possible for a wiki to support books with original research, but that needs a different sort of policy infrastructure and has different social dynamics (the two go together); it's my understanding that in the early days of Wikibooks, well before my time, those who wanted to allow original research split off from the Wikibooks community and became at least part of the seed community for Wikiversity. I perceive Wikiversity to have its own problems, which I don't pretend to fully understand and have even less clue how to articulate, but at any rate it is a different place with a different character. (Wiggle room in the no-original-research principle has been discussed here quite recently, btw, in the section <s>immediately above this one</s> [argh, I'm getting tangled up; it's above the corresponding thread in another of the reading rooms] about the wikilore proposal.) --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::::::Good to know that there still exists the possibility. Here's my take on rules: the truth about 'rules' is that there are 'no rules'. We invent them to limit the individual freedom, thereby limiting creativity, fearing change! These 'rules' then were morphed to sound a little more 'democratic' by the adoption of the term called 'policies'. Their underlying intent (and the sort of people that make them) is still the same. Great minds discuss ideas; Mediocre minds discuss events; Little minds discuss people; Beaurocrats discuss policies! Cheers [[User:Balaji.md au|Balaji.md au]] ([[User talk:Balaji.md au|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Balaji.md au|contribs]]) 02:46, 25 January 2016 (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)
+
== Importing another wiki ==
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
I'm working with a client who have an academic, technical wiki which they are intending to sunset at the end of their project. (Details are currently confidential, sorry.) The content is of the standard one would expect in a book, written by experts in their field. The wiki is running "vanilla" MediaWiki, with no templates, and has a number of open-licensed images. There is extensive use of <code><nowiki><math></nowiki></code> markup.
   
: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)
+
They are willing to make it available under an open licence. In principle, is it possible for us to upload this material to Wikibooks? Is there an automatic or semi-automatic tool that could be used to do the grunt work. Some staff time would be available to do any checking and polishing needed.
::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)
+
[[:en:wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Importing another wiki|I asked on Wikisource]], but have been referred here. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|contribs]]) 14:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:If it is standard MediaWiki and they offload it using [[Special:Export]] (i.e., to the XML format) then it should be possible for a Steward to upload it here. It is more complicated than I just made it sound, and each page will need work once it is uploaded, but in theory it can be done. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 16:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::Thank you. Will that include the images? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|contribs]]) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
:::No, the import process doesn't support images. We'd have to upload those either to Commons (preferred) or here. If there are a significant number, then I believe there are bots available at Commons that can be used. That is, we can ask a bot operator to process the uploads in bulk. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 13:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  +
::::All clear; thanks. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|contribs]]) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (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)
+
== Wikidata & GLAM in Australia & Indonesia ==
   
:::::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)
+
In February, I'm undertaking a [https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Wikidata_Tour_Down_Under four-week tour of Australia and Indonesia], giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikipedia's GLAM collaborations, and attending meetups. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, Open Knowledge, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in those countries to come along. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Pigsonthewing]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|contribs]]) 14:53, 25 January 2016 (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.)
+
== ''Future IdeaLab Campaigns'' results ==
:::::: 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)
+
[[File:IdeaLab badge 1.png|100px|right]]
  +
Last December, I invited you to [[m:Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns|help determine future ideaLab campaigns]] by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce '''[[m:Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns/Results|the results of your participation]]''', and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.
   
::::::::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.
+
With great thanks,
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
+
[[User:I JethroBT (WMF)|I JethroBT (WMF)]], [[:m:Community Resources|Community Resources]], Wikimedia Foundation. 23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
+
<!-- Message sent by User:I JethroBT (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Future_IdeaLab_Campaigns/ProjectTargets&oldid=15154858 -->
   
== Regex ==
+
== Mrs Beeton... ==
   
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)
+
Over at Wikisource [[s:Index:Mrs_Beeton's_Book_of_Household_Management.djvu]], there was a slow moving effort to get a 1907 reprint of Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Mannagment trasncribed. I was wondering if people here would be willing or interested to help, and then to carefully integrate some of content (with some updates) into the Cookbook here?
  +
[[User:ShakespeareFan00|ShakespeareFan00]] ([[User talk:ShakespeareFan00|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00|contribs]]) 10:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:13, 31 January 2016

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.

What IdeaLab campaigns do you want to see?[edit]

IdeaLab logo dark orange.png

Hey folks. I’m seeking your help to decide on topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns are designed to attract proposals from Wikimedia project contributors that address a broad gap or area of need in Wikimedia projects.

Here’s how to participate:

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![edit]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

Wikimania 2016: call for proposals is open![edit]

Dear users,
the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 is open! All the members of the Wikimedia projects, researchers and observers are invited to propose a critical issue to be included in the programme of the conference, which will be held in Italy, in Esino Lario, from June 21 to 28.
Through this call we only accept what we call critical issues, i.e. proposals aiming at presenting problems, possible solutions and critical analysis about Wikimedia projects and activities in 18 minutes. These proposals do not need to target newbies, and they can assume attendees to already have a background knowledge on a topic (community, tech, outreach, policies...).
To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. Deadline for submitting proposals is 7th January 2016 and the selection of these proposals will be through a blind peer-reviewed process. Looking forward to your proposals. --Yiyi (discusscontribs) 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The deadline for the call for proposals for Wikimania 2016 has been moved on 17th January 2016, so you have 10 days to submit you proposal(s). To submit a presentation, please refer to the Submissions page on the Wikimania 2016 website. --Yiyi (discusscontribs) 09:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Password Strength RFC[edit]

Hello

We have started an RFC on meta to increase password requirements for users that have accounts which can edit MediaWiki:Common.js, have access to checkuser or have access to Oversight.

These types of accounts have sensitive access to our sites, and can cause real harm if they fall into malicious hands. Currently the only requirement is the password is at least 1 letter long. We would like to make the minimum be 8 letters (bytes) long and also ban certain really common passwords.

By increasing requirements on passwords for accounts with high levels of access, we hope to make Wikimedia wikis more secure for everyone. Please read the full text of the proposal here, and make your voice heard at the RFC.

Thank you

(On behalf of the WMF security team) BWolff (WMF) (discusscontribs) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delivered using the distribution list

Community Wishlist Survey results[edit]

Hi everyone,

The 2015 Community Wishlist Survey is over, and now the Community Tech team's work begins on the top 10 features and fixes.

In November and December 2015, we invited contributors from all Wikimedia projects to submit proposals for what they would like the Community Tech team to work on, for the purpose of improving or producing curation and moderation tools for active contributors.

634 people participated in the survey, where they proposed, discussed and voted on 107 ideas. There was a two-week period in November to submit and endorse proposals, followed by two weeks of voting. The top 10 proposals with the most support votes now become the Community Tech team's backlog of projects to evaluate and address.

You can see the whole list with links to all the proposals and Phabricator tickets on this page: 2015 Community Wishlist Survey.

For everybody who proposed, endorsed, discussed, debated and voted in the survey, as well as everyone who said nice things to us recently: thank you very much for coming out and supporting live feature development. We're excited about the work ahead of us. -- DannyH (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 00:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[edit]

Please help translate to your language

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 19:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

WSBN?[edit]

Categorization set aside, the more I read about the commercial textbook registration systems, I find it a lack that Wikibooks doesn't have a unique book identifier system (ex.Wikibook Standard Book Number, WSBN). I doubt that International Standard Book Number, ISBN will include Wikibooks into their categorization eventhough they issue separate numbering for commercial e-books. Has this been considered by the community? Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Balaji.md au: I agree that some kind of unique identifier might be helpful but let's think about what an ISBN is: in the case of a printed book, the contents won't change. And if they do change somewhat from printing to printing, it's assumed that they are relatively stable. In the example of a wikibook, that is not the case. Wikisource has something similar with unique identifiers for authors (similar to ORCID or a VIAF authority control or what have you) and Wikidata basically is a bunch of unique identifiers. But what if a page or module gets incorporated into another text? What if two chapters are consolidated into one? Or one chapter split into two? Ultimately, each text here already has a unique identifier: it's URI. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Justin. ISBN does get "assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book". I am not sure if every variance need to be counted for with a Wikibook. I believe the current sytem of identifying with URI seems constrained and does not appear pleasingly scalable. There appear to be utilization of case-sensitiveness to make subjects and titles unique. That set aside, an unique identifier for the 'project', regardless of its variations, as a standard book number, would have many benefits in my humble opinion. And we could have created a system with a commercial equivalence as ISBN! Cheers Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 07:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thinking about the other aspect you had raised, i.e., dynamic referencing - I was wondering if the community had thought about 'Restore points' for books (not just history of individual pages)? Let's say someone wants to cite a Wikibook because it contains a 'valid personal opinion' or a 'wikibook group consensus', which is not available in any other means (ex. through commercially published research articles) but at the same time has inherent merit, a standard book numbering system inclusive of a 'Restore point' could help. Technically, the citation format (ex. wikibooknumber-restorepoint-page, nnnnnxxxxetc-yyyymmddhhmmss-page) should be able to link the historical articles in a way that the reader is presented the book as it was at the time of generation of the restore point. The system could generate this restore point anytime someone wishes to cite a specific content, rather than periodically. Would be glad to know if there is a system such as this in existence already. Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 10:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Concerning identifying numbers, imho part of the essence if wikis is that they're relentlessly human-oriented. The unique identifier of, say, the Conlang wikibook is that it's on English Wikibooks and its title is "Conlang"; that's unique, no other identifier is needed.

That said, it is true that sometimes you want to refer to the state of the Conlang wikibook at 0902 UTC on February 7, 2013. Saying that is still sufficient to explain what you mean, but actually reconstructing what the book looked like then is archeology (seriously, that's the term used, spelling variations notwithstanding). The wiki software allows recovering the wikitext of a particular page from a particular time, but only directly allows viewing that page using the current versions of templates, so you can't even tell readily what the page looked like when it was current — and that's just one page. Reconstructing what pages of a book existed and what they were called and what templates were transcluded and in what versions is a huge task; and the devs haven't even provided support for reconstructing the historical appearance of a single page, nor I think will they ever do so. Politics: software upgrades only happen if the WMF (who have no understanding of wikis) believe that those upgrades will serve Wikipedia. They won't lift a finger to help the non-Wikipedian projects unless they think it'll benefit Wikipedia, and they're sufficiently clueless about Wikipedia that their major software initiatives are more likely to damage Wikipedia than help it. I used to think about how to get them to give some of their attention to non-Wikipedian sisters; now I think about how to prevent them from giving attention to non-Wikipedian sisters. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the sister projects, including Wikipedia; it's just that I consider the WMF an obstacle to be overcome, and definitely not a potential source of software improvements. (I do have in mind a major improvement to the software, which I've been developing for several years over at English Wikinews.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Idleness, vice and want - the three great evils of mankind declared Voltaire. I think what he meant was politics, beaurocracy and business (not in any particular order)! But we can always dream and no one "can stop an idea whose time has come" (Victor Hugo). Hence, let's keep cultivating our gardens! I think the better word that describes the idea is 'User generated editions' than archaeology. Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 19:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I consider Wikibooks the natural extension to Wikipedia and wonder, as you perceive, why it had not been given the attention it deserves. More than an animated film winning an Oscar award will be a Wikibook winning the Nobel prize in literature! Perhaps the authors here should venture on a collaborative book worthy of that ideal - A wikibook worthy of a Nobel prize nomination! (Who they will award it to will be another question!). Sometimes grandiose thoughts help realize the worth of projects ;) Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 00:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Writing a book is difficult. It requires a vision of the overall structure of the book, and sticking to that vision. Choose the wrong overall structure, and the book will go nowhere (I found a Wikijunior book on religions with that problem; its structure was unworkable, resulting of years of complete paralysis until restructured). Even with the right structure already in place, new contributors to an existing book have to learn what the structure is and then work within it. Each book is really a microproject — making Wikibooks a vast herd of microprojects banding together to share a common administrative structure. Contributors to a book can easily be so sparse that only of them is active at a time, so that later contributors have to learn their way about the book without benefit of consulting those who came before. Contributors to Wikibooks have a lot more respect for the wishes of those who came before and aren't around now, because that's the only way to operate when contributors to a given book are likely to be so few and far between; that's in contrast to Wikipedia where, in my experience, there's really no respect for the opinions of those who came before unless they're still around to continue arguing for their position.

I figure Wikibooks could benefit hugely from some crowdsourced semi-automated tools, of the sort I mean my dialog tools to support; so I export to port the tools here once I get them a bit more stable at Wikinews.

I agree that Wikibooks is a natural complement to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's own rules forbid it from going into real depth about anything, and practically prevent it from giving a coherent shape to an extended collection of articles; Wikibooks is the cure for both of those shortcomings. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps then a grand book be begun to involve many people. A book such as "The Human condition - Who are we, where are we and why are we?" which any human could contribute, trying to answer these most primal of questions that arise among us. If broadcasted I think many will come forward. This should be Nobel worthy! (excuse my grandiose aspirations ;) Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 00:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikibooks has a no-original-research policy. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Validates my interpretation of Voltaire's three evils (I think the 'beaurocracy' one blocks this)! At least, discussions like this give food for thought. CheersBalaji.md au (discusscontribs) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think of bureaucracy, in the negative sense (which is almost always how I used the word), as following rules mindlessly. Some rules were put in place for good reason, and following their spirit can only safely depart from following their letter once one has enough expertise to grok their spirit. A very large community is most likely to have trouble with following rules mindlessly, because there the rules have to have a lot of 'momentum' or people go off and do their own thing and the community loses coherence; thus, it's not surprising that Wikipedia, as the largest of the sister projects, has the most trouble with bureaucracy. We have less of the problem on Wikibooks. The no-original-research rule on Wikibooks prevents folks from using the project as a blog-like platform to promote their own ideas. It is, in fact, possible for a wiki to support books with original research, but that needs a different sort of policy infrastructure and has different social dynamics (the two go together); it's my understanding that in the early days of Wikibooks, well before my time, those who wanted to allow original research split off from the Wikibooks community and became at least part of the seed community for Wikiversity. I perceive Wikiversity to have its own problems, which I don't pretend to fully understand and have even less clue how to articulate, but at any rate it is a different place with a different character. (Wiggle room in the no-original-research principle has been discussed here quite recently, btw, in the section immediately above this one [argh, I'm getting tangled up; it's above the corresponding thread in another of the reading rooms] about the wikilore proposal.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Good to know that there still exists the possibility. Here's my take on rules: the truth about 'rules' is that there are 'no rules'. We invent them to limit the individual freedom, thereby limiting creativity, fearing change! These 'rules' then were morphed to sound a little more 'democratic' by the adoption of the term called 'policies'. Their underlying intent (and the sort of people that make them) is still the same. Great minds discuss ideas; Mediocre minds discuss events; Little minds discuss people; Beaurocrats discuss policies! Cheers Balaji.md au (discusscontribs) 02:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Importing another wiki[edit]

I'm working with a client who have an academic, technical wiki which they are intending to sunset at the end of their project. (Details are currently confidential, sorry.) The content is of the standard one would expect in a book, written by experts in their field. The wiki is running "vanilla" MediaWiki, with no templates, and has a number of open-licensed images. There is extensive use of <math> markup.

They are willing to make it available under an open licence. In principle, is it possible for us to upload this material to Wikibooks? Is there an automatic or semi-automatic tool that could be used to do the grunt work. Some staff time would be available to do any checking and polishing needed.

I asked on Wikisource, but have been referred here. Pigsonthewing (discusscontribs) 14:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If it is standard MediaWiki and they offload it using Special:Export (i.e., to the XML format) then it should be possible for a Steward to upload it here. It is more complicated than I just made it sound, and each page will need work once it is uploaded, but in theory it can be done. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Will that include the images? Pigsonthewing (discusscontribs) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
No, the import process doesn't support images. We'd have to upload those either to Commons (preferred) or here. If there are a significant number, then I believe there are bots available at Commons that can be used. That is, we can ask a bot operator to process the uploads in bulk. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
All clear; thanks. Pigsonthewing (discusscontribs) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata & GLAM in Australia & Indonesia[edit]

In February, I'm undertaking a four-week tour of Australia and Indonesia, giving talks about Wikidata, and Wikipedia's GLAM collaborations, and attending meetups. Do join us if you can, and please invite your Wikimedia, Open Knowledge, OpenData, GLAM or OpenStreetMap contacts in those countries to come along. Pigsonthewing (discusscontribs) 14:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results[edit]

IdeaLab badge 1.png

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Beeton...[edit]

Over at Wikisource s:Index:Mrs_Beeton's_Book_of_Household_Management.djvu, there was a slow moving effort to get a 1907 reprint of Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Mannagment trasncribed. I was wondering if people here would be willing or interested to help, and then to carefully integrate some of content (with some updates) into the Cookbook here? ShakespeareFan00 (discusscontribs) 10:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)