Wikibooks:Reading room/General: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→Regex: new section |
→Is Wikibooks multilingual?: Reply |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}} |
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(21d) |
|||
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674 |
|||
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
||
|algo = old(60d) |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. |
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}} |
||
[[Category:Reading room]] |
|||
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks == |
|||
== Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/wiki/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Announcement - voting reminder|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:wiki/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Announcement - voting reminder}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
Hello all, |
|||
I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee]] (U4C) charter will close on '''2 February 2024'''. Community members may [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Charter/Voter_information|cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll]]. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the [[foundation:Special:MyLanguage/Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines|UCoC Enforcement Guidelines]] will find this process familiar. |
|||
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|current version of the U4C charter]] is on Meta-wiki with translations available. |
|||
Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation. |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC Project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=25853527 --> |
|||
:@[[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]]: Just wondering if this is only an announcement or whether I can ask you questions [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available == |
|||
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. |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
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) |
|||
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – call for candidates| You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – call for candidates}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]'' |
|||
Hello all, |
|||
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) |
|||
I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter/Vote results|report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification]] is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024. |
|||
: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. |
|||
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee]] (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter|review the U4C Charter]]. |
|||
:::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) |
|||
Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
Read more and submit your application on [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Meta-wiki]]. |
|||
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) |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <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) |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 16:24, 5 March 2024 (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) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=26276337 --> |
|||
:Hi @[[User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]]. I am wondering if the staff at the Wikimedia foundation is paying any attention to discussions happening about the Universal Code of Conduct happening outside of Meta, such as https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct? |
|||
:I believe it is important to pay attention to discussions happening on individual wikis outside of META for at least two reasons: |
|||
:# Most active participants of these wikis do not pay any attention to discussions on META, but they are the ones who will be most affected by the enforcement of this "new" community-wide policy. |
|||
:# Also as I tried to explain to @Johan (WMF): Many of the people who have been blocked on META or globally locked altogether, are not vandals, spammers, or copyright infringers. Many are blocked without public open community discussion by one individual functionary, without any regard to the length of time or the contributions they have made. |
|||
:I am sure that others are aware of the situation I am describing. So why am I the only person who says this openly? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikimedia Canada survey == |
|||
:: <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! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the [[wmca:Form2024|survey project page]] on Meta. --[[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|contribs]]) 00:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Goodbook == |
|||
:@[[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]], Thanks for posting. |
|||
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you tell us a little bit about this survey - what is the purpose of running it, for example. I folowed your link to META and it appears that one of the questions you ask there is whether one lives in Canada which seems to be a contradiction of what you say here. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 14:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi @[[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]], thank you for your reply. Wikimedia Canada is running this survey to understand what contributors in Canada want/need to be able to contribute to Wiki projects so we can ensure our programs are helpful. Once the survey results are analyzed, we (WMCA staff) will be using the data to help us tailor our programming (existing programs or new ones) to suit the needs of contributors in Canada. For example, people may reply saying they want scholarships to attend WikiConferences. We do already offer scholarships but maybe people aren't hearing about it through our current communication channels so we can then plan alternative methods of communicating our scholarship announcements. |
|||
::The survey does include a question about whether or not one lives in Canada. We are sharing the survey on public forums (like this one) where anyone can see it but the focus of this particular survey is contributors in Canada. So, we added this question to ensure the responses we collect are from contributors in Canada. Could you clarify for me where you find the contradiction? I want to make sure the way we've been communicating about the survey is as clear as possible. [[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|contribs]]) 17:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]]: Great hearing back from you! It is not every day I get an answer to posts announcing WMF initiatives. |
|||
:::I have always wondered how the wikimedia movement arrived at the decision to have wikis separated by language and not by country. I find that many Canadian topics are poorly covered in the ENWP, FRWP, Simple,and ENWQ (not sure about FRWQ), and are more likely to face deletion. I don't know enough about other wmf-projects to form an opinion. I agree that a common language is a good way to group topics and volunteers, but I find that small countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, etc, do not get the same kind of coverage. |
|||
:::Take for example, [[w:Nortel]] and one of its CEOs, [[w:John Roth]]. Nortel had humble beginning in Montreal, Quebec in 1895 as a Canadian company but became an [[w:International corporation]] after many name changes and ups and downs. In the early 2000s, under ''John Roth'' it was so big that it "accounted for more than a third of the total valuation of all companies listed on the [[w:Toronto Stock Exchange]]". However, by 2009 "Nortel filed for [[w:bankruptcy protection]] in Canada and the United States", and a hundred thousand employees lost their coveted jobs. In a few years Nortel and John Roth went from being the darlings of Canada to a big void. A similar story unfolded at [[w:JDSU]] and its CEO does not even have a page on ENWP. |
|||
:::Unfortunately, the '''sum of all human knowledge''' (or is it the sum of all American and British knowledge:-) does not explain how this came about, even though the events took place after 2001 when enwp was already in existence. In the chaos a wikipedia project [[w:wp:wikiproject Nortel]] was deleted (wikiprojects are rarely deleted at enwp), and the article about John Roth "the most successful businessman in modern Canadian history" is in shambles (not even a date or place of birth or education info) and is rated LOW importance on wikiproject Canada. The [[d:qQ6255737|wikidata item about Roth]]. is not much better. |
|||
:::Just wondering if this sort of thing is of concern to Wikimedia Canada? Thanks in advance, [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Hi [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]], |
|||
::::I may take a few days to reply but I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :) |
|||
::::Regarding the coverage of Canadian topics on Wikipedia, absolutely we want to see more Canadian topics on the sister projects. However, our mandate is more so to ''support'' editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content on Canadian topics across the sister projects rather than determine what specific Canadian articles/content should be included or their priority. If you're interested in topics like the ones you mentioned in your example, I would encourage you to post on the Wikipedia WikiProject: Canada discussion board or the Wikipedia Village Pump to see if there are others who may share your interests. Alternatively, if you ever want to organize a wiki-related event to boost the coverage of Canadian topics, leave a message on my [[m:User Talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|talk page]] and we can chat more. |
|||
::::P.S. Thanks for the ping about [[w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikimania_scholarships|Wikimania scholarships]]. I'll take a look! [[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|contribs]]) 22:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] |
|||
:::::Re: '''"I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :)"'''' |
|||
::::: |
|||
:::::I wonder if you would take the time to explain to the ignorants around here (I am talking about me) what the difference is between WMF and WMDE and WMCA. I am asking because I saw a notice on Wikdata "[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Events/Leveling_Up_Days_2024 online event Wikidata Leveling Up Days]" advertised by someone who uses (WMDE) in their userID. I am assuming they are employees/contractors of Wikimedia Deutschland and not the WMF? Is the WMF the ultimate employer of employees of the different chapters? |
|||
:::::<small>Note: I hope you and others here do not mind my hijacking of this thread to ask some questions that are only indirectly related to wikibooks? As someone who views themselves as a member of [[The Wikimedia movement]] I can't think of a better place to discuss this (?):</small> [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes of course! The structure of the organizational side of the movement can be very confusing so it's a fair question. Wikimedia Canada (WMCA) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) are both [[m:Wikimedia chapters|affiliate chapters]] of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) meaning they are independent non-profit organizations that represent the Wikimedia movement on a regional scale, usually specific to a single country. As an an affiliate chapter we (WMCA) have a name that links us to the movement (''Wikimedia'' Canada) and we are able to use Wikimedia trademarks for our work, to fundraise, or for publicity. Affiliate chapters are also able to apply for funding from WMF. However, we are independent of the WMF in the sense that we are not governed, owned or operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. ie) the Foundation doesn't really affect our day-to-day operations or hiring. So yes, any time you see a user with WMCA or WMDE or WMUK, etc in their user name, they are most likely an employee, contractor, or volunteer for that affiliate chapter (like me!). Employees of the Foundation will have WMF in their user name. |
|||
::::::</br>There are also other types of [[m:Wikimedia movement affiliates|Wikimedia movement affiliates]], including [[m:Wikimedia_user_groups|user-groups]], [[m:Wikimedia_thematic_organizations|thematic organizations]], and [[m:Hubs|hubs]]. To my knowledge, hubs are a newer addition (or will be a new addition if the new [[m:Movement Charter|Movement Charter]] is ratified later this year) to the [[m:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Models|Wikimedia movement affiliates model]] and there are two types: Regional and thematic. Regional hubs support volunteer communities across multiple regions, like the Central and Eastern European hub ([[m:CEE Hub|CEE hub]]) or the Eastern, Southeast and the Pacific regional cooperation ([[m:ESEAP_Hub|ESEAP Hub]]), while thematic hubs support volunteer communities that focus on specific themes, like language. |
|||
::::::</br>Does that help clarify things for you? There is an [[m:Wikimedia_movement_affiliates/Frequently_asked_questions|FAQ page for Wikimedia movement affiliates]] as well, in case there are things you're still curious about. Have a good weekend :) [[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|contribs]]) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Just happened to see that the subject of ''wikimedia scholarships to attend WikiConferences'' is actively being discussed on [[w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikimania_scholarships]]. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]], thank you for promising a more elaborate response later. I, and I hope others, are keenly interested in hearing the perspective of someone who is involved in a [[Wikimedia-affiliate]]. |
|||
::::Re: "'''our mandate is more so to ''support'' editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content'''" |
|||
::::* Do you believe that in order to support "editors" (I call them users/contributors), the individuals running the affiliates have to have at least a basic understanding of the issues that such contributors face? Many / most(?) contributors do not participate in real life events (such a [[wikiMania]]), or even local events organized by their own wikimedia affiliate. Most participate online only in one wmf-project, such as the English Wikipedia (enwp). |
|||
::::: In my experience, you are more likely to encounter multi-wiki-contributors on the smaller wikis, such as this one (the English Wikibooks). I have not been here Long enough (I just started participating here more actively in the last few weeks) to figure out if regular (non-admin) contributors also participate in other wmf-wikis. Maybe someone else can provide their perspective? I myself have been around wikiland since 2007, the first 10 years or so, almost exclusively on enwp where I was rather active until I was indefinitely blocked. I then moved on to Simple where I was indef blocked in 2020, and META where I was infinitely blocked also in 2020. Since then I have participated actively in some of the smaller wikis managing, barely, to stay out of trouble. |
|||
::::If you, or anyone else here, are interested in the experience of other members of the [[The Wikimedia movement|movement]] who have been shunned by this community check out this current [[META:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)|Global Ban META-RFC]]. [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 19:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Updated: [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hi [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]], |
|||
:::::Apologies for the delayed response. I see where you're coming from. The survey I announced in my initial post is a way for WMCA to ensure our basic understanding of the needs of contibutors in Canada is up to date. Every contributor will engage with local events differently, if at all, and that's okay. If you are based in Canada and you feel there is a way WMCA can support your activities as a contributor aside from local events, I invite you to take the survey if you haven't already. It is open until March 31, 2024. [[User:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)]] ([[User talk:Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)|contribs]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection == |
|||
== We need another bureaucrat == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
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]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: ''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024/Announcement/Selection announcement| You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]]'' |
|||
: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) |
|||
: ''<div class="plainlinks">[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024/Announcement/Selection announcement|{{int:interlanguage-link-mul}}]] • [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024/Announcement/Selection announcement}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]</div>'' |
|||
Dear all, |
|||
This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats. |
|||
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination == |
|||
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Elections Committee]] will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4]. |
|||
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) |
|||
Here are the key planned dates: |
|||
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? == |
|||
* May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions |
|||
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects. |
|||
* June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5] |
|||
* June-August 2024: Campaign period |
|||
* End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period |
|||
* October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates |
|||
* Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated |
|||
Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024|this Meta-wiki page]], and make your plan. |
|||
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''. |
|||
'''Election Volunteers''' |
|||
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. |
|||
Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2024/Election Volunteers|Meta-wiki page]]. |
|||
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. |
|||
Best regards, |
|||
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? |
|||
[[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Pundit|Dariusz Jemielniak]] (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group) |
|||
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected |
|||
: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. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee |
|||
:(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) |
|||
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles |
|||
: 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) |
|||
[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
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) |
|||
[[User:MPossoupe_(WMF)|MPossoupe_(WMF)]]19:56, 12 March 2024 (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) |
|||
<!-- Message sent by User:MPossoupe (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=26349432 --> |
|||
== "recipes as out of scope [on ENWP], but there are some very good ones on Wikibooks" == |
|||
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together. |
|||
:::If one particular goal of Wiktionary is to explain the grammar of many natural languages, it may as well conceivably explain the syntax of programming languages similarly. Since Wikibooks has [[Subject:English language]], in addition to the coverage of English from Wiktionary, I assume each project may treat the same subjects from different approaches, without them becoming redundant to each other. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I found this quote (and others about wikibooks) in the [[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/In_the_media|ENWP SignPost]]. It appears that at least a few wikipedians are aware of some of the good work done here. |
|||
== Five-year WMF targets == |
|||
Some other comments: |
|||
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. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* "I think cooking would in theory be covered by WikiBooks" |
|||
* "why don't we encourage people to write ''how to'' on Wikibooks, and then link them from the Wikipedia page?" |
|||
What do others think? Do we want to have more eyes on us? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 19:47, 11 April 2024 (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]}} |
|||
:Certainly. In practice, the way that Wikibooks works is like our daughter project Wikiversity, which is that in principle, editors can collaborate together on things, but in practice, books and learning modules are passion projects (or platforms for crankery, depending) that are written by one person. Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing. —[[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> 23:19, 11 April 2024 (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]}} |
|||
::re:"Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing" |
|||
::I agree. I just discovered [[:Category:WikiProjects]] which was originally intended for the purpose of coordinating content building by topic, I think. Has anyone been here long enough to shed light on what went wrong and what went right with the idea of creating wikiprojects on wikibooks? [[User:Ottawahitech|Ottawahitech]] ([[User talk:Ottawahitech|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ottawahitech|contribs]]) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::''Very'' hi overhead to write a book versus an encyclopedia article. —[[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> 23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== WB Notability == |
|||
{{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]}} |
|||
I want to write a book named "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy". Does it fulfill notability criteria of Wikibooks? [[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 21:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not sure it's in-scope. From the title alone, it sounds more like a thinkpiece or article rather than an educational/instructional book. What's your proposed outline and chapter breakdown? —[[User:Kittycataclysm|Kittycataclysm]] ([[User talk:Kittycataclysm|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kittycataclysm|contribs]]) 23:02, 16 April 2024 (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. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: I wouldn't even consider adding such a book here unless you also intend to discuss the other side of the argument. Wikibooks is not the place for one-sided politics.--[[User:Xania|Xania]] [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] [[User talk:Xania|<sup>talk</sup>]] 05:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It would fall foul of original research rather than notability, plus the title indicates it is not intended to be a textbook. A book that was about various infractions of the Vienna Conventions over the last 50 years might be in scope, a one pager on one incident wouldn't be. [[User:MarcGarver|MarcGarver]] ([[User talk:MarcGarver|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/MarcGarver|contribs]]) 12:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::In 2017, when I asked here about notability, a user said that [https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals&diff=next&oldid=3186875 notability policy] is specific to Wikipedia and in Wikibooks we have our own Inclusion Criteria. In 2018, the answer to me was that different Wikibooks in different languages have different inclusion criteria adding that neutrality and original research parameters should be considered. Now you give me different opinions: you say that a thinkpievce or article doesn't fit WB but we have already a book here like [[Professionalism]] which surveys cases and ideas in professional ethics. The parameter of let's call it "instructionability" is hard to define when it comes to books like [[Computational Creativity]]. [[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Officially, our [[Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?|policy]] is that "non-fictional books that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks", but you're right that the "instructibility" criterion can be somewhat of a grey area. For whatever it's worth, I'm honestly not convinced that [[Professionalism]] falls within our scope, and I'm not sure that [[Computational Creativity]] is great either, especially since it's poorly developed. One relevant aspect could be temporality—very recent global events alone strike me as more suitable for Wikinews, while an in-depth book about the topic over time seems more suitable here. Either way, I would love to know what your proposed book outline would be and how you believe it to be instructional—that will help us assess it properly. Cheers! —[[User:Kittycataclysm|Kittycataclysm]] ([[User talk:Kittycataclysm|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kittycataclysm|contribs]]) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy" is not suitable for "Wikinews" because it aims to analyze deeply past and current diplomatic status of the world and Israel in the region. "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" started about a century ago and continues today as "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)". As you see it has a long history and fulfills "temporality" parameter. As well as, it is not a "fictional" book but evidently "real". It also fulfills "instructibility" on humanity area and diplomatic affairs. [[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Scientific writing guide (student thesis edition) == |
|||
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Dear Community, |
|||
: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]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I'm only slowly grasping the scope of Wikibooks, Wikiversity & Co., and have a question (quite a few actually, but keeping it to one for now): |
|||
:::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. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Would Wikibooks be a good place to compile a "How To" guide for scientific writing, to be used and expanded by Bachelor and Master students and supervisors alike? |
|||
::::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]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
I have long thought about how to best construct such a project to have it accessible, and I now think Wikibooks might be the place. Does something similar exist already? |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
(If we extend the circle of questions a bit, I'd love to get in contact with an experienced user who has an overview about where to Wikiversity, Wikibooks and Co individually shine, since for me some lines are still blury, and I don't want to disrupt established workflows that I am unaware of.) |
|||
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.) |
|||
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks alot and best regards, [[User:TimBorgNetzWerk|TimBorgNetzWerk]] ([[User talk:TimBorgNetzWerk|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/TimBorgNetzWerk|contribs]]) 09:59, 17 April 2024 (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. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I think a guide to how to write properly would be a real asset and perfectly in line with the mission here and I do not know of any existing content like that. If you are having trouble structuring it like a book, but instead have some essays, some exercises, maybe some interactive material where someone could post writing and others could edit it, etc., that's more of a Wikiversity thing. Wikiversity spun out of Wikibooks as a place to host material that is general learning modules of some kind but not strictly like a book or guide that is a more-or-less static work (and can be printed or used otherwise used offline). —[[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> 11:40, 17 April 2024 (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. |
|||
::Thank you [[User:Koavf|Koavf]], greatly appreciated, also & especially the additional insights. I think for this case, a book would really be the best basis. How & where would I best start? a) in my [[User:TimBorgNetzWerk/sandbox]], or b) follow [[Using_Wikibooks/Starting_A_New_Wikibook]] -> [[Help:Pages#Creating]] -> start writing there? |
|||
:::::::::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]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Best and thanks, [[User:TimBorgNetzWerk|TimBorgNetzWerk]] ([[User talk:TimBorgNetzWerk|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/TimBorgNetzWerk|contribs]]) 12:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I would recommend using your sandbox to start some outlines, drafts, etc. Without having looked at your global edits, it seems like you're a new user and I'm overjoyed at that, but starting out diving into writing a textbook is the deep end. :/ Also, I will state that unlike, e.g. Wikipedia, where most everything is kinda/sorta edited by everyone, in reality (but not in theory or principle), books here tend to be personal passion projects and if Person A wants to write a book, it's likely that he will do 90%+ of the heavy lifting. There are just too few editors here and the topics end up being too niche. —[[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> 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Alright, Sandbox it is. I've already outlined a LaTeX template, so I'll be building on top of that. Since I'm currently a PhD student and aim to walk down the academia lane for the forseable future, being the "sole editor" is not much of a hurdle - I'll have to formulate each and every advice once already, and together with the students we should eventually have more and more structured knowledge about the do's and dont's. We've also founded an NPO ([https://borgnetzwerk.org/]) for those kinds of projects, so we can coordinate the resources to what little topics we can cover and where to join if one might be interested. |
|||
::::Right now we're more at the mid-point of an ongoing 2-year project, worst case I'd have build it from the ground on an isolated MediaWiki instance, but now that I grasp Wikibooks & Wikiversity better and better, I think building this resource here will be much more productive. |
|||
::::All in all (I've noticed I started every sentence with "so", so... changed that.) thanks for the starting points, will read up and get working asap. Also, for a lack of a thumbs-up-feature, assume every message I don't reply to as "read with thumbs up" :D [[User:TimBorgNetzWerk|TimBorgNetzWerk]] ([[User talk:TimBorgNetzWerk|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/TimBorgNetzWerk|contribs]]) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Hey, if you can finish a thesis (congrats!), then you have the discipline and project management skills to write a book here. And if you can actually end up getting academics to write clearly, you'll be doing God's work. I'm not necessarily a bullesye on who is an ideal contributor, but please let me know if |
|||
:::::Ican help you. —[[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> 12:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that this is within scope as a guide and that it could be very helpful! I also second the suggestion that you start building and workshopping in your sandbox. Reach out if you need any help! Cheers —[[User:Kittycataclysm|Kittycataclysm]] ([[User talk:Kittycataclysm|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kittycataclysm|contribs]]) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Is Wikibooks multilingual? == |
|||
== Proposing new deletion process == |
|||
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Wikibooks is a project which its different versions share the least number of interwikis specially for subpages of the books. In this situation the qusetion is if Wikibooks is considered as multilingual website? [[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Regex == |
|||
:This is the case solely because Wikibooks is in general a very small and obscure project. There is no reason why ''in principle'' books and subpages ''shouldn't'' exist in multiple languages. Note also that there is no Wikibooks equivalent to the [[:s:mul:|multilingual Wikisource]] which is the only Wikimedia Foundation wiki that has works that are themselves multilingual (or also, I guess [[:c:|Commons]]). —[[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> 00:17, 24 April 2024 (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) |
|||
Latest revision as of 00:17, 24 April 2024
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests | Announcements |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Bulletin Board |
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.
Last days to vote on the Charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit source]
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Hello all,
I am reaching out to you today to remind you that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) charter will close on 2 February 2024. Community members may cast their vote and provide comments about the charter via SecurePoll. Those of you who voiced your opinions during the development of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines will find this process familiar.
The current version of the U4C charter is on Meta-wiki with translations available.
Read the charter, go vote and share this note with others in your community. I can confidently say the U4C Building Committee looks forward to your participation.
On behalf of the UCoC Project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- @RamzyM (WMF): Just wondering if this is only an announcement or whether I can ask you questions Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available[edit source]
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Hello all,
I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.
Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @RamzyM (WMF). I am wondering if the staff at the Wikimedia foundation is paying any attention to discussions happening about the Universal Code of Conduct happening outside of Meta, such as https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy_talk:Universal_Code_of_Conduct?
- I believe it is important to pay attention to discussions happening on individual wikis outside of META for at least two reasons:
- Most active participants of these wikis do not pay any attention to discussions on META, but they are the ones who will be most affected by the enforcement of this "new" community-wide policy.
- Also as I tried to explain to @Johan (WMF): Many of the people who have been blocked on META or globally locked altogether, are not vandals, spammers, or copyright infringers. Many are blocked without public open community discussion by one individual functionary, without any regard to the length of time or the contributions they have made.
- I am sure that others are aware of the situation I am describing. So why am I the only person who says this openly? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Canada survey[edit source]
Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA), Thanks for posting.
- Can you tell us a little bit about this survey - what is the purpose of running it, for example. I folowed your link to META and it appears that one of the questions you ask there is whether one lives in Canada which seems to be a contradiction of what you say here. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Ottawahitech, thank you for your reply. Wikimedia Canada is running this survey to understand what contributors in Canada want/need to be able to contribute to Wiki projects so we can ensure our programs are helpful. Once the survey results are analyzed, we (WMCA staff) will be using the data to help us tailor our programming (existing programs or new ones) to suit the needs of contributors in Canada. For example, people may reply saying they want scholarships to attend WikiConferences. We do already offer scholarships but maybe people aren't hearing about it through our current communication channels so we can then plan alternative methods of communicating our scholarship announcements.
- The survey does include a question about whether or not one lives in Canada. We are sharing the survey on public forums (like this one) where anyone can see it but the focus of this particular survey is contributors in Canada. So, we added this question to ensure the responses we collect are from contributors in Canada. Could you clarify for me where you find the contradiction? I want to make sure the way we've been communicating about the survey is as clear as possible. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 17:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA): Great hearing back from you! It is not every day I get an answer to posts announcing WMF initiatives.
- I have always wondered how the wikimedia movement arrived at the decision to have wikis separated by language and not by country. I find that many Canadian topics are poorly covered in the ENWP, FRWP, Simple,and ENWQ (not sure about FRWQ), and are more likely to face deletion. I don't know enough about other wmf-projects to form an opinion. I agree that a common language is a good way to group topics and volunteers, but I find that small countries, such as Canada, New Zealand, etc, do not get the same kind of coverage.
- Take for example, w:Nortel and one of its CEOs, w:John Roth. Nortel had humble beginning in Montreal, Quebec in 1895 as a Canadian company but became an w:International corporation after many name changes and ups and downs. In the early 2000s, under John Roth it was so big that it "accounted for more than a third of the total valuation of all companies listed on the w:Toronto Stock Exchange". However, by 2009 "Nortel filed for w:bankruptcy protection in Canada and the United States", and a hundred thousand employees lost their coveted jobs. In a few years Nortel and John Roth went from being the darlings of Canada to a big void. A similar story unfolded at w:JDSU and its CEO does not even have a page on ENWP.
- Unfortunately, the sum of all human knowledge (or is it the sum of all American and British knowledge:-) does not explain how this came about, even though the events took place after 2001 when enwp was already in existence. In the chaos a wikipedia project w:wp:wikiproject Nortel was deleted (wikiprojects are rarely deleted at enwp), and the article about John Roth "the most successful businessman in modern Canadian history" is in shambles (not even a date or place of birth or education info) and is rated LOW importance on wikiproject Canada. The wikidata item about Roth. is not much better.
- Just wondering if this sort of thing is of concern to Wikimedia Canada? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ottawahitech,
- I may take a few days to reply but I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :)
- Regarding the coverage of Canadian topics on Wikipedia, absolutely we want to see more Canadian topics on the sister projects. However, our mandate is more so to support editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content on Canadian topics across the sister projects rather than determine what specific Canadian articles/content should be included or their priority. If you're interested in topics like the ones you mentioned in your example, I would encourage you to post on the Wikipedia WikiProject: Canada discussion board or the Wikipedia Village Pump to see if there are others who may share your interests. Alternatively, if you ever want to organize a wiki-related event to boost the coverage of Canadian topics, leave a message on my talk page and we can chat more.
- P.S. Thanks for the ping about Wikimania scholarships. I'll take a look! Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA)
- Re: "I'm always happy to answer questions! Also, just to clarify, the survey I announced here is from Wikimedia Canada, not WMF. Wikimedia Canada is an affiliate chapter but we are independent of the Foundation :)"'
- I wonder if you would take the time to explain to the ignorants around here (I am talking about me) what the difference is between WMF and WMDE and WMCA. I am asking because I saw a notice on Wikdata "online event Wikidata Leveling Up Days" advertised by someone who uses (WMDE) in their userID. I am assuming they are employees/contractors of Wikimedia Deutschland and not the WMF? Is the WMF the ultimate employer of employees of the different chapters?
- Note: I hope you and others here do not mind my hijacking of this thread to ask some questions that are only indirectly related to wikibooks? As someone who views themselves as a member of The Wikimedia movement I can't think of a better place to discuss this (?): Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes of course! The structure of the organizational side of the movement can be very confusing so it's a fair question. Wikimedia Canada (WMCA) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) are both affiliate chapters of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) meaning they are independent non-profit organizations that represent the Wikimedia movement on a regional scale, usually specific to a single country. As an an affiliate chapter we (WMCA) have a name that links us to the movement (Wikimedia Canada) and we are able to use Wikimedia trademarks for our work, to fundraise, or for publicity. Affiliate chapters are also able to apply for funding from WMF. However, we are independent of the WMF in the sense that we are not governed, owned or operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. ie) the Foundation doesn't really affect our day-to-day operations or hiring. So yes, any time you see a user with WMCA or WMDE or WMUK, etc in their user name, they are most likely an employee, contractor, or volunteer for that affiliate chapter (like me!). Employees of the Foundation will have WMF in their user name.
There are also other types of Wikimedia movement affiliates, including user-groups, thematic organizations, and hubs. To my knowledge, hubs are a newer addition (or will be a new addition if the new Movement Charter is ratified later this year) to the Wikimedia movement affiliates model and there are two types: Regional and thematic. Regional hubs support volunteer communities across multiple regions, like the Central and Eastern European hub (CEE hub) or the Eastern, Southeast and the Pacific regional cooperation (ESEAP Hub), while thematic hubs support volunteer communities that focus on specific themes, like language.
Does that help clarify things for you? There is an FAQ page for Wikimedia movement affiliates as well, in case there are things you're still curious about. Have a good weekend :) Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Just happened to see that the subject of wikimedia scholarships to attend WikiConferences is actively being discussed on w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikimania_scholarships. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA), thank you for promising a more elaborate response later. I, and I hope others, are keenly interested in hearing the perspective of someone who is involved in a Wikimedia-affiliate.
- Re: "our mandate is more so to support editors, institutions, WikiProjects, events, etc that seek to increase the amount/quality of content"
- Do you believe that in order to support "editors" (I call them users/contributors), the individuals running the affiliates have to have at least a basic understanding of the issues that such contributors face? Many / most(?) contributors do not participate in real life events (such a wikiMania), or even local events organized by their own wikimedia affiliate. Most participate online only in one wmf-project, such as the English Wikipedia (enwp).
- In my experience, you are more likely to encounter multi-wiki-contributors on the smaller wikis, such as this one (the English Wikibooks). I have not been here Long enough (I just started participating here more actively in the last few weeks) to figure out if regular (non-admin) contributors also participate in other wmf-wikis. Maybe someone else can provide their perspective? I myself have been around wikiland since 2007, the first 10 years or so, almost exclusively on enwp where I was rather active until I was indefinitely blocked. I then moved on to Simple where I was indef blocked in 2020, and META where I was infinitely blocked also in 2020. Since then I have participated actively in some of the smaller wikis managing, barely, to stay out of trouble.
- If you, or anyone else here, are interested in the experience of other members of the movement who have been shunned by this community check out this current Global Ban META-RFC. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Updated: Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ottawahitech,
- Apologies for the delayed response. I see where you're coming from. The survey I announced in my initial post is a way for WMCA to ensure our basic understanding of the needs of contibutors in Canada is up to date. Every contributor will engage with local events differently, if at all, and that's okay. If you are based in Canada and you feel there is a way WMCA can support your activities as a contributor aside from local events, I invite you to take the survey if you haven't already. It is open until March 31, 2024. Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection[edit source]
Dear all,
This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.
The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].
Here are the key planned dates:
- May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
- June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
- June-August 2024: Campaign period
- End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
- October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
- Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated
Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.
Election Volunteers
Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.
Best regards,
Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)
[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter
[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles
[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.
MPossoupe_(WMF)19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"recipes as out of scope [on ENWP], but there are some very good ones on Wikibooks"[edit source]
I found this quote (and others about wikibooks) in the ENWP SignPost. It appears that at least a few wikipedians are aware of some of the good work done here.
Some other comments:
- "I think cooking would in theory be covered by WikiBooks"
- "why don't we encourage people to write how to on Wikibooks, and then link them from the Wikipedia page?"
What do others think? Do we want to have more eyes on us? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly. In practice, the way that Wikibooks works is like our daughter project Wikiversity, which is that in principle, editors can collaborate together on things, but in practice, books and learning modules are passion projects (or platforms for crankery, depending) that are written by one person. Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- re:"Having actual collaboration here on more work would be a good thing"
- I agree. I just discovered Category:WikiProjects which was originally intended for the purpose of coordinating content building by topic, I think. Has anyone been here long enough to shed light on what went wrong and what went right with the idea of creating wikiprojects on wikibooks? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Very hi overhead to write a book versus an encyclopedia article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
WB Notability[edit source]
I want to write a book named "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy". Does it fulfill notability criteria of Wikibooks? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 21:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's in-scope. From the title alone, it sounds more like a thinkpiece or article rather than an educational/instructional book. What's your proposed outline and chapter breakdown? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even consider adding such a book here unless you also intend to discuss the other side of the argument. Wikibooks is not the place for one-sided politics.--Xania
talk 05:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It would fall foul of original research rather than notability, plus the title indicates it is not intended to be a textbook. A book that was about various infractions of the Vienna Conventions over the last 50 years might be in scope, a one pager on one incident wouldn't be. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- In 2017, when I asked here about notability, a user said that notability policy is specific to Wikipedia and in Wikibooks we have our own Inclusion Criteria. In 2018, the answer to me was that different Wikibooks in different languages have different inclusion criteria adding that neutrality and original research parameters should be considered. Now you give me different opinions: you say that a thinkpievce or article doesn't fit WB but we have already a book here like Professionalism which surveys cases and ideas in professional ethics. The parameter of let's call it "instructionability" is hard to define when it comes to books like Computational Creativity. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Officially, our policy is that "non-fictional books that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks", but you're right that the "instructibility" criterion can be somewhat of a grey area. For whatever it's worth, I'm honestly not convinced that Professionalism falls within our scope, and I'm not sure that Computational Creativity is great either, especially since it's poorly developed. One relevant aspect could be temporality—very recent global events alone strike me as more suitable for Wikinews, while an in-depth book about the topic over time seems more suitable here. Either way, I would love to know what your proposed book outline would be and how you believe it to be instructional—that will help us assess it properly. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Infraction of Vienna Convention: The Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy" is not suitable for "Wikinews" because it aims to analyze deeply past and current diplomatic status of the world and Israel in the region. "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" started about a century ago and continues today as "Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present)". As you see it has a long history and fulfills "temporality" parameter. As well as, it is not a "fictional" book but evidently "real". It also fulfills "instructibility" on humanity area and diplomatic affairs. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Officially, our policy is that "non-fictional books that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks", but you're right that the "instructibility" criterion can be somewhat of a grey area. For whatever it's worth, I'm honestly not convinced that Professionalism falls within our scope, and I'm not sure that Computational Creativity is great either, especially since it's poorly developed. One relevant aspect could be temporality—very recent global events alone strike me as more suitable for Wikinews, while an in-depth book about the topic over time seems more suitable here. Either way, I would love to know what your proposed book outline would be and how you believe it to be instructional—that will help us assess it properly. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Scientific writing guide (student thesis edition)[edit source]
Dear Community,
I'm only slowly grasping the scope of Wikibooks, Wikiversity & Co., and have a question (quite a few actually, but keeping it to one for now):
Would Wikibooks be a good place to compile a "How To" guide for scientific writing, to be used and expanded by Bachelor and Master students and supervisors alike?
I have long thought about how to best construct such a project to have it accessible, and I now think Wikibooks might be the place. Does something similar exist already?
(If we extend the circle of questions a bit, I'd love to get in contact with an experienced user who has an overview about where to Wikiversity, Wikibooks and Co individually shine, since for me some lines are still blury, and I don't want to disrupt established workflows that I am unaware of.)
Thanks alot and best regards, TimBorgNetzWerk (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a guide to how to write properly would be a real asset and perfectly in line with the mission here and I do not know of any existing content like that. If you are having trouble structuring it like a book, but instead have some essays, some exercises, maybe some interactive material where someone could post writing and others could edit it, etc., that's more of a Wikiversity thing. Wikiversity spun out of Wikibooks as a place to host material that is general learning modules of some kind but not strictly like a book or guide that is a more-or-less static work (and can be printed or used otherwise used offline). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Koavf, greatly appreciated, also & especially the additional insights. I think for this case, a book would really be the best basis. How & where would I best start? a) in my User:TimBorgNetzWerk/sandbox, or b) follow Using_Wikibooks/Starting_A_New_Wikibook -> Help:Pages#Creating -> start writing there?
- Best and thanks, TimBorgNetzWerk (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend using your sandbox to start some outlines, drafts, etc. Without having looked at your global edits, it seems like you're a new user and I'm overjoyed at that, but starting out diving into writing a textbook is the deep end. :/ Also, I will state that unlike, e.g. Wikipedia, where most everything is kinda/sorta edited by everyone, in reality (but not in theory or principle), books here tend to be personal passion projects and if Person A wants to write a book, it's likely that he will do 90%+ of the heavy lifting. There are just too few editors here and the topics end up being too niche. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, Sandbox it is. I've already outlined a LaTeX template, so I'll be building on top of that. Since I'm currently a PhD student and aim to walk down the academia lane for the forseable future, being the "sole editor" is not much of a hurdle - I'll have to formulate each and every advice once already, and together with the students we should eventually have more and more structured knowledge about the do's and dont's. We've also founded an NPO ([1]) for those kinds of projects, so we can coordinate the resources to what little topics we can cover and where to join if one might be interested.
- Right now we're more at the mid-point of an ongoing 2-year project, worst case I'd have build it from the ground on an isolated MediaWiki instance, but now that I grasp Wikibooks & Wikiversity better and better, I think building this resource here will be much more productive.
- All in all (I've noticed I started every sentence with "so", so... changed that.) thanks for the starting points, will read up and get working asap. Also, for a lack of a thumbs-up-feature, assume every message I don't reply to as "read with thumbs up" :D TimBorgNetzWerk (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, if you can finish a thesis (congrats!), then you have the discipline and project management skills to write a book here. And if you can actually end up getting academics to write clearly, you'll be doing God's work. I'm not necessarily a bullesye on who is an ideal contributor, but please let me know if
- Ican help you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would recommend using your sandbox to start some outlines, drafts, etc. Without having looked at your global edits, it seems like you're a new user and I'm overjoyed at that, but starting out diving into writing a textbook is the deep end. :/ Also, I will state that unlike, e.g. Wikipedia, where most everything is kinda/sorta edited by everyone, in reality (but not in theory or principle), books here tend to be personal passion projects and if Person A wants to write a book, it's likely that he will do 90%+ of the heavy lifting. There are just too few editors here and the topics end up being too niche. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is within scope as a guide and that it could be very helpful! I also second the suggestion that you start building and workshopping in your sandbox. Reach out if you need any help! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikibooks multilingual?[edit source]
Wikibooks is a project which its different versions share the least number of interwikis specially for subpages of the books. In this situation the qusetion is if Wikibooks is considered as multilingual website? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is the case solely because Wikibooks is in general a very small and obscure project. There is no reason why in principle books and subpages shouldn't exist in multiple languages. Note also that there is no Wikibooks equivalent to the multilingual Wikisource which is the only Wikimedia Foundation wiki that has works that are themselves multilingual (or also, I guess Commons). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)