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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
(Regex: new section)
m (Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 60 days) to Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2017/October.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
  +
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== Relation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks ==
 
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
 
 
The advantages of this system is that the papers would be created and remain in the public domain. Publication might also be faster than through the established printed journals. Academics like myself want the widest possible distribution of their work but this gets blocked because the publishers of academic journals normally take the copyright of the papers away from the authors.
 
 
I am new to Wikibooks and Wiki space in general, so I apologize if I'm way off track with this. It is just an idea, hopefully it can gain substance if other people are interested. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
Thanks for all the comments. It seems that wikibooks is not the place for this idea. However, I will continue the thread for a moment longer, if only for the benefit of others who are lost in wikispace. At wikia I found a page that has been set up to do almost exactly what I proposed. It seems to have been in existence for some six years and, although all the infrastructure is there, there is virtually no content. It seems that an "academic publishing" page is just too general to attract participants. It needs to be more focused on a specific area of study. Also, I think it needs a strong group to start it off. I do not think it can be started by just one person with the expectation that others will just drop in (it will end up as dead space). I might pursue the idea further at wikiversity if I can put a group together.[[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
 
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
 
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
 
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
As someone who recently repurposed a small portion of his undergraduate honors thesis [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|here on Wikibooks]] (perhaps unwittingly in violation of policy!), I would like to say something. I can attest that there were at least 100 honors papers coming out of Emory University every year in the late 1980's, and one would estimate with near certainty that easily half of them never reached a "digital age" reformatting. It seems an utter waste of talent and labor to '''''not''''' reach out to people with honors research "collecting dust", and ask them (plead with them!) to consider scanning the work for OCR, then releasing it under a free license to share with the rest of the world. Multiply my experience at Emory by at least 200 (or 400, or 800!), to cover the many outstanding universities worldwide that have featured honors papers, etc. We're talking about a great deal of content and information that really should be gathered up and made digital. If not on Wikibooks, why? And where? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:Not peer-reviewed, but this material would presumably be fine for Wikiversity, no question, and some of it might be okay here as well. It's likely to be of better quality than the average. Great idea, Thekohser. The problem with great ideas is, frequently, too many Chiefs with great ideas and not enough Indians. I'd suggest this as a project on Wikiversity, to get the papers in a place which is pretty safe from deletion based on arguments of POV, etc., and then review them for transfer to Wikibooks. But I have no problem with placement here first, and then a move to Wikiversity if that seems more appropriate at the time. What I don't like is the raw deal of you do all this work on a page or set of pages and then they are deleted because Randy from Boise and a few drive-bys thought it wasn't notable or was something else Bad. (It's hard to imagine a submitted degree thesis or an honor paper that wouldn't be appropriate, at least, for Wikiversity. But the world is big.) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
Concerning Thekosher and Abd remarks on undergraduate honors thesis, I am very confused about where papers can be uploaded on the various Wiki Foundation sites. I have a lot of papers that I would like to make more available to the general public. These are undergraduate thesis, Masters thesis, PhD thesis, a collection of working papers published by University Departments, an even larger collection of papers published in academic journals. The copyright of the published papers have been hi-jacked by various publishers, so there seems to be nothing that can be done about these - they will be locked away in print libraries (where nobody will ever read them) until long after I'm dead (which is why I suggested academic papers could be produced on a Wiki). Going one step back, there are the working papers upon which the published papers are based. They are not as polished as the published papers but are a valuable research resource that could be placed in the public domain. Working papers are peer reviewed within a University Department. When I brought up the question publishing these at Wikisource I was told "We would only look at the papers following peer review" by which I understand them to mean that the working papers would have to be peer reviewed again. This requirement would, I think, be difficult to meet because I know of nobody that would be prepared to spend their time reviewing a paper that has already been reviewed. Now Thekosher suggests collecting undergraduate thesis (I do not think this is a bad idea), when papers that are far more developed, and only one step away from being lost for 100 years, have nowhere to go. [[User:Logicalgregory|Logicalgregory]] ([[User talk:Logicalgregory|talk]]) 07:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:If it is in the Public Domain and has been published in a "verifiable, usually peer-reviewed forum", it is welcome at wikisource. The Wikiproject can be found at [[s:Wikisource:WikiProject Academic Papers]]. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:: <s>I think, thought I could be wrong, that wikisource requires the material to be published elsewhere before they will accept it. I suppose this keeps people from posting their rejected papers there straight away without correcting the flaws.</s> [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Goodbook ==
 
 
Please see [[Talk:Main Page]]. Thanks. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== We need another bureaucrat ==
 
 
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
 
 
The comment above inspired me to nominate myself as a bureaucrat. As per [[WB:CRAT|policy]] I am advertising my nomination here. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 02:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
 
 
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
 
 
There is [[wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer parlour#colspan, etc.|an ongoing discussion]] about the existence of individual entries for HTML tags. As notable examples, on Wiktionary, there are ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/img Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]'', ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/h1 Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/h1]'' and ''[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Hyper_Text_Markup_Language/title Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/title]'', to define, respectively, the tags ''img'', ''h1'' and ''title''.
 
 
However, especially since the creation and maintenance of HTML tags at Wiktionary is a fairly new project, it depends on further consensus. All these pages may conceivably be kept or be deleted from Wiktionary, according to the development of possible discussions and/or votes.
 
 
One particular argument for deleting these pages from Wiktionary is that there are already pages on Wikibooks, including ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]]'', ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/option]]'' and ''[[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/table]]'' for similar purposes, therefore Wiktionarian versions would be redundant.
 
 
Since the particular message "Given this book is a user guide, it is organized around topics from the user's perspective, not around the names of the tags." is displayed at the top of [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List]], am I right in assuming that individual pages for each HTML tag would be better placed in Wiktionary? Or, perhaps, there are reasons for keeping them at Wikibooks, that I am unaware of?
 
 
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:: Since Wiktionary is already more reference-like, it makes sense in that view to put them there. But Wikibooks would be a more logical choice given the content and purpose of Wikibooks itself. I can't, however, imagine that a separate book would be created for the reference of each computer language. Which, in turn, means that if they were to be placed on Wikibooks, they'd necessarily have to form part of some sort of appendix within each wikibook on their respective subjects. In either case, a reference list for HTML as well as for other computer languages is certainly extremely useful. I really think we should at least have references for computer languages ''somewhere'' on Wikimedia. But where, I don't know. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
: I think "HyperText Markup Language/Tag List" with all its subpages should be separated again into a standalone book, named along the lines of "HTML Reference". I do not think a reference book should be presented as an appendix of a guidebook; these should be two standalone books instead. On the other subject, this seems to be a Wikibooks material rather than a dictionary one. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 18:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
 
I think "which project" is the wrong thing to focus on. A dictionary explains how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses. Books may have a glossary, which usually only include unfamiliar words that people in the field should know without details usually found in a dictionary. Books should have glossaries. I think what Wiktionarians should focus on is if explaining how to pronounce words, there definitions, and correct grammar uses for programming terms is relevant to Wiktionary's scope. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
I'm an admin in Persian WB. It seems that I should be aware of differences between Wikipedia and Wikibooks deeply. Even though the difference between Wikibooks and Wikisource has been well defined but the case for Wikipedia is yet vague. What is the differences and similarities between Wikipedia and Wikibooks? [[Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikimedians|This guideline]] explains some similarities but it does not describes how to import pages from Wikipedia and how to use or dewikify them. --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 19:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:Please go to [[Wikibooks:Requests for import]] to bring materials from Wikipedia.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
   
:::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.
 
  +
:: {{ping|Doostdar}} Regarding differences of Wikibooks from Wikipedia, to my understanding,
:::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)
 
  +
::* Wikibooks can go into great depth on a subject, much greater than would be allowed on Wikipedia; an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize/synopsize each topic it covers.
  +
::* A book has overall structure, whereas a grouping of encyclopedia articles does not; a book's modules are usually meant to be read in a particular order, they typically follow various conventions that are common to that particular book but not to other books (nor to an encyclopedia, which often has its own conventions that most books don't follow).
  +
::* A book is relatively self-contained, whereas a Wikipedia article goes out of its way to link to other articles quite freely. Within the text of a book (thus not counting various kinds of lists of external links), we're most willing to wikilink between parts of a single book, sometimes we'll wikilink to another book. Links to another sister (such as Wikipedia), let alone external links (outside the wikimedia sisterhood) are rare.
  +
:: I've observed that each book is, to a significant extent, a microproject; all these microprojects have banded together to share a common administrative infrastructure, which makes a lot of sense because most of the individual books are orders of magnitude smaller than would ever justify having it own separate administration, but any book may have some differences of organization from all other books as well as all other sisters. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::Is there any guide on how to dewikify? As a sample considering [[Undergraduate_Mathematics/Metric_space|this page]] what changes should be applied? --[[User:Doostdar|Doostdar]] ([[User talk:Doostdar|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Doostdar|contribs]]) 13:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::: For whatever it may be worth, template {{tl|dewikify}} links to page [[WB:Dewikify]]. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::Would someone please make a bot to dewikify red links? Manually dewikifying is cumbersome.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] ([[User talk:Jusjih|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jusjih|contribs]]) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  +
:It's been tried before, and it doesn't work reliably. For example, piped links need a manual review to check which words should be left in the page. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: Sounds like a good candidate for [[Help:Dialog|semi-automation]], if I can get moving with the next phase of that. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
 
  +
== The Community Wishlist Survey 2017 ==
   
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
Hey everyone,
   
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation [[m:Community Tech|Community Tech]] should work on over the next year.
   
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the [[m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey|2017 wishlist survey page]]. /[[User:Johan (WMF)|Johan (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Johan (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Johan (WMF)|contribs]]) 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
   
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
== Changes to the global ban policy ==
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">Hello. Some changes to the [[m:Global bans|community global ban policy]] have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at [[:m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy]]. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. [[:m:User:Matiia|Matiia]] ([[:m:User talk:Matiia|Matiia]]) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Matiia@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=17241561 -->
   
::Yes. It's not surprising to me, however. It just gives me all the more motivation to prove them wrong. Also, a relevant slide from Wikimania 2010, where Erik Moeller above took a look at the other Wikimedia projects besides Wikipedia: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beyondencyclopediawikimania2010-100714133959-phpapp02.pdf&page=23 Slide 23]. Slides before and after cover the others, for comparison. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
== Newby questions ==
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
I'm new to Wikimedia (2 months) and I'm just getting to know a bit about Wikimedia's strategy and projects. In Wikibooks, I just took a look at some 'in progress' books on photography (sub-categories of 'visual arts'). Photography is one of my hobbies so I was drawn to the books. Since there are already very many excellent and free resources (on-line courses, articles) available on the web, I wondered why Wikibooks saw the need to develop and maintain it's own books. Browsing through the current Wikibooks contents, my impression is that the contents are author-determined rather than by the intended audience. On Wikipedia, there are reasonably clear guidelines on what is - and what is not - relevant for inclusion, information sources, etc. I wonder what the equivalent is for Wikibooks. Who decides - and how - whether there is a real need for a Wikibook? Who decides - and how - to which audience (infomation needs, competences, etc.) a book should be targeted? And how are well-intended but non-sustainable books culled? It seems to me that in some knowledge domains (such as photography, Wikibooks could have the greatest value by 'curating' existing webcontent rather than trying to (sustainably) replicate it.
  +
[[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikemorrell49|contribs]]) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|Mikemorrell49}} These are good questions. Wikibooks exists as a free equivalent of expensive and inaccessible textbooks, written at any educational level. For what it's worth, I think that many of your--legitimate--concerns are addressed by just having more editors. And there have been some real-life uses of Wikibooks; I think we should have more data on how well that works... —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
::Thanks for your kind response, {{Ping|Koavf}}. You helped me better understand the goal of Wikibooks (which I support). I agree that the more people that contribute to generating/reviewing proposals for Wikibooks and writing Wikibooks, the better. I'll continue to learn more about Wikibooks and the foundation's other projects. Regards, [[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikemorrell49|contribs]]) 10:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::{{Ping|Mikemorrell49}} Mike, thank ''you'' for wanting to help. Let me know if there's anything I can do. —[[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> 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::{{ping|Mikemorrell49}} Hi and welcome. I'll offer a few of my own <s>ravings</s> thoughts on the big picture of wikimedia and Wikibooks.
  +
::::* This first point may sound kind of deep, but perhaps it'll give you something to think about, and whether you agree with, as you explore the wikimedian sisterhood. I think there's a mismatch between what motivates the volunteers to contribute to the wikimedian sisterhood, and what the Wikimedia Foundation thinks its mission is. The Foundation ''says'' its mission is to enable the volunteers to provide educational material; and they apparently ''think'' (that is, they collectively behave as if) their mission is actually to provide information, treating the volunteers as unpaid labor. Don't let that discourage you, though; I sure don't. Volunteer projects thrive on ''passionate idealism'', and the visceral idealism that volunteers across the entire wikimedian sisterhood share, imo, is that the ordinary citizenry of the Internet should have a voice in information providing. I see educational material as the output consequence of that idealism.
  +
::::* Wikimedian sister projects are of varying size; in English, at least, Wikipedia is the largest and Wikinews is arguably the smallest, but Wikibooks complicates this picture. Based straightforwardly on activity at [[Special:RecentChanges]], Wikibooks is between those extremes in size; but in a sense, one might think of each ''book'' on Wikibooks as a sort of microproject (or nanoproject), and Wikibooks as a whole as a confederation of several thousand of these microprojects banding together to share a common administrative infrastructure. They have some common properties that make shared administration possible, but there's also a great deal of variation between them, and most of them are so small they make Wikinews look ''huge''. It's not uncommon for a book to have, in effect, only one active contributor in a given month, or even in a given year; ''adopting a book'' is a common pattern of behavior here. Wikis work by collaboration, and very small projects have to get their collaboration by distributing over ''time'', to the point where on very small projects (such as a single wikibook) a current contributor acts as if past contributors are semi-participants in current "consensus" discussions; respect for past contributors tends to increase as project size decreases.
  +
::::* My own working theory (fwiw) is that what the sister projects need in order to grow (even Wikipedia) is support for wiki communities to nurture their own local project-managing expertise. The Foundation can't possibly do this for the various wikimedian sisters, let alone for the individual microprojects/books here, because it's the contributors who have the expertise. I figure to build on the idea of ordinary netizens as information providers by allowing them to provide not only end content but also provide their own semi-automated assistants &mdash; software wizards and the like. (This becomes trickier because it conflicts with the well-meaning-but-misdirected software development efforts of the Foundation; but I do have a [[n:User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters|plan]].)
  +
:::: --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::: Hi {{Ping|Pi zero}} and thank you for taking the time to give such a considered and detailed response. Much appreciated! The points you make here and on your user page help me think more clearly about how the WMF and the community work in practice and how this perhaps might be improved. Your comments have also deepened my understanding of collaboration within the community. At the moment, I don't know nearly enough about this to weigh in. But I do value and appreciate your 'food for thought'. I agree that the various programs and projects (big and small) need to be initiated, managed and supported by collaborative groups in the community, whether these are content-related or not. It'll be interesting to learn more about how different initiatives (content, tools, ways of working) are proposed, supported/resisted/modified and are sustained (or not). At the moment, I'm in awe of the vast scope and ambition of the various projects and of the ways in which so many people freely contribute to these. I hope to make small contributions where and when I can. Kind regards,
  +
[[User:Mikemorrell49|Mikemorrell49]] ([[User talk:Mikemorrell49|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mikemorrell49|contribs]]) 11:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
   
:I thought Moeller founded Wikinews... Anyway, but how can the WB community prove them wrong? It's not like WB will get much more traffic even if we make it 100% perfect... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 10:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
== New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers ==
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:::Indeed, I would think that high quality textbooks would attract more readers due to gaining higher rankings in search results. The moral of the above is that if we want to succeed, we have to do it ourselves and the WMF cannot be relied upon for support. We prove them wrong about our prospects by not giving up even if the head honchos have forgotten where Wikipedia once was compared to where it is today. It's apparent that they have not heard the idea that the greater the risk, the greater the reward. As Wikipedia has matured, the potential for greater percentage of growth lies in the other projects. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 13:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
  +
'''New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers'''
   
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
The Readers web team will be deploying a new feature this week to make it [[mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Mobile_PDFs|easier to download PDF versions of articles on the mobile website]].
   
:::::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)
 
  +
Providing better offline functionality was one of the highlighted areas from [[m:New_Readers/Offline|the research done by the New Readers team in Mexico, Nigeria, and India]]. The teams created a prototype for mobile PDFs which was evaluated by user research and community feedback. The [[m:New_Readers/Offline#Concept_testing_for_mobile_web|prototype evaluation]] received positive feedback and results, so development continued.
   
:::::: 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.)
 
  +
For the initial deployment, the feature will be available to Google Chrome browsers on Android. Support for other mobile browsers to come in the future. For Chrome, the feature will use the native Android print functionality. Users can choose to download a webpage as a PDF. [[mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Print_Styles#Mobile_Printing|Mobile print styles]] will be used for these PDFs to ensure optimal readability for smaller screens.
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
:::::::http://www.ck12.org is our main competitor on the secondary education front as it is aiming for approval by California's schools. Their licensing was changed to noncommercial a few months back, but I was able to pull content from their site under the cc-by-sa license before that and upload the PDFs to Commons. There are Creative Commons licensed books and material at http://cnx.org, another competitor. The advantage Wikibooks has over these two is that anyone can improve upon the content easily because this is a wiki. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
The feature is available starting Wednesday, Nov 15. For more information, see [[mw:Reading/Web/Projects/Mobile_PDFs|the project page on MediaWiki.org]].
   
::::::::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.
 
  +
{{Int:Feedback-thanks-title}}
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div> [[m:User:CKoerner (WMF)|CKoerner (WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:CKoerner (WMF)|talk]]) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:CKoerner (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CKoerner_(WMF)/Mobile_PDF_distribution_list&oldid=17448927 -->
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
 
  +
== {{Tl|BookCat}} ==
This has been moved to [[Wikibooks:Reading_room/Proposals#Proposing_new_deletion_process|the proposals reading room]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Regex ==
 
  +
Hi,
  +
I was thinking of making an AWB run to add {{Tl|Bookcat}}. I was hoping to see if i could get a list of pages that needs it, aside from Subject pages and main topic pages. Would that be good? [[User:Artix Kreiger|Artix Kreiger]] ([[User talk:Artix Kreiger|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Artix Kreiger|contribs]]) 22:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  +
: {{ping|Artix Kreiger}} The cases where it isn't used are very customized, and strike me as something for manual attention; I'm [[WB:PROPOSALS#Category infrastructure (continued)|going through]] all the book categories now, a process that I've been at since April and am likely to finish sometime early in the new year. I ''think'' there are folks who go through adding {{tl|BookCat}} to uncategorized content subpages. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  +
::Moreover my bot already teats the obvious [[Special:UncategorizedPages]]. [[User:JackPotte|JackPotte]] ([[User talk:JackPotte|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/JackPotte|contribs]]) 18:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
   
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
:::ahh ok. Thank you. [[User:Artix Kreiger|Artix Kreiger]] ([[User talk:Artix Kreiger|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Artix Kreiger|contribs]]) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:10, 17 December 2017

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

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

Relation between Wikipedia and Wikibooks[edit]

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

Please go to Wikibooks:Requests for import to bring materials from Wikipedia.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 21:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Doostdar: Regarding differences of Wikibooks from Wikipedia, to my understanding,
  • Wikibooks can go into great depth on a subject, much greater than would be allowed on Wikipedia; an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize/synopsize each topic it covers.
  • A book has overall structure, whereas a grouping of encyclopedia articles does not; a book's modules are usually meant to be read in a particular order, they typically follow various conventions that are common to that particular book but not to other books (nor to an encyclopedia, which often has its own conventions that most books don't follow).
  • A book is relatively self-contained, whereas a Wikipedia article goes out of its way to link to other articles quite freely. Within the text of a book (thus not counting various kinds of lists of external links), we're most willing to wikilink between parts of a single book, sometimes we'll wikilink to another book. Links to another sister (such as Wikipedia), let alone external links (outside the wikimedia sisterhood) are rare.
I've observed that each book is, to a significant extent, a microproject; all these microprojects have banded together to share a common administrative infrastructure, which makes a lot of sense because most of the individual books are orders of magnitude smaller than would ever justify having it own separate administration, but any book may have some differences of organization from all other books as well as all other sisters. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there any guide on how to dewikify? As a sample considering this page what changes should be applied? --Doostdar (discusscontribs) 13:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
For whatever it may be worth, template {{dewikify}} links to page WB:Dewikify. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please make a bot to dewikify red links? Manually dewikifying is cumbersome.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
It's been tried before, and it doesn't work reliably. For example, piped links need a manual review to check which words should be left in the page. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good candidate for semi-automation, if I can get moving with the next phase of that. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey 2017[edit]

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (discusscontribs) 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the global ban policy[edit]

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Newby questions[edit]

I'm new to Wikimedia (2 months) and I'm just getting to know a bit about Wikimedia's strategy and projects. In Wikibooks, I just took a look at some 'in progress' books on photography (sub-categories of 'visual arts'). Photography is one of my hobbies so I was drawn to the books. Since there are already very many excellent and free resources (on-line courses, articles) available on the web, I wondered why Wikibooks saw the need to develop and maintain it's own books. Browsing through the current Wikibooks contents, my impression is that the contents are author-determined rather than by the intended audience. On Wikipedia, there are reasonably clear guidelines on what is - and what is not - relevant for inclusion, information sources, etc. I wonder what the equivalent is for Wikibooks. Who decides - and how - whether there is a real need for a Wikibook? Who decides - and how - to which audience (infomation needs, competences, etc.) a book should be targeted? And how are well-intended but non-sustainable books culled? It seems to me that in some knowledge domains (such as photography, Wikibooks could have the greatest value by 'curating' existing webcontent rather than trying to (sustainably) replicate it. Mikemorrell49 (discusscontribs) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mikemorrell49: These are good questions. Wikibooks exists as a free equivalent of expensive and inaccessible textbooks, written at any educational level. For what it's worth, I think that many of your--legitimate--concerns are addressed by just having more editors. And there have been some real-life uses of Wikibooks; I think we should have more data on how well that works... —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind response, @Koavf:. You helped me better understand the goal of Wikibooks (which I support). I agree that the more people that contribute to generating/reviewing proposals for Wikibooks and writing Wikibooks, the better. I'll continue to learn more about Wikibooks and the foundation's other projects. Regards, Mikemorrell49 (discusscontribs) 10:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mikemorrell49: Mike, thank you for wanting to help. Let me know if there's anything I can do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mikemorrell49: Hi and welcome. I'll offer a few of my own ravings thoughts on the big picture of wikimedia and Wikibooks.
  • This first point may sound kind of deep, but perhaps it'll give you something to think about, and whether you agree with, as you explore the wikimedian sisterhood. I think there's a mismatch between what motivates the volunteers to contribute to the wikimedian sisterhood, and what the Wikimedia Foundation thinks its mission is. The Foundation says its mission is to enable the volunteers to provide educational material; and they apparently think (that is, they collectively behave as if) their mission is actually to provide information, treating the volunteers as unpaid labor. Don't let that discourage you, though; I sure don't. Volunteer projects thrive on passionate idealism, and the visceral idealism that volunteers across the entire wikimedian sisterhood share, imo, is that the ordinary citizenry of the Internet should have a voice in information providing. I see educational material as the output consequence of that idealism.
  • Wikimedian sister projects are of varying size; in English, at least, Wikipedia is the largest and Wikinews is arguably the smallest, but Wikibooks complicates this picture. Based straightforwardly on activity at Special:RecentChanges, Wikibooks is between those extremes in size; but in a sense, one might think of each book on Wikibooks as a sort of microproject (or nanoproject), and Wikibooks as a whole as a confederation of several thousand of these microprojects banding together to share a common administrative infrastructure. They have some common properties that make shared administration possible, but there's also a great deal of variation between them, and most of them are so small they make Wikinews look huge. It's not uncommon for a book to have, in effect, only one active contributor in a given month, or even in a given year; adopting a book is a common pattern of behavior here. Wikis work by collaboration, and very small projects have to get their collaboration by distributing over time, to the point where on very small projects (such as a single wikibook) a current contributor acts as if past contributors are semi-participants in current "consensus" discussions; respect for past contributors tends to increase as project size decreases.
  • My own working theory (fwiw) is that what the sister projects need in order to grow (even Wikipedia) is support for wiki communities to nurture their own local project-managing expertise. The Foundation can't possibly do this for the various wikimedian sisters, let alone for the individual microprojects/books here, because it's the contributors who have the expertise. I figure to build on the idea of ordinary netizens as information providers by allowing them to provide not only end content but also provide their own semi-automated assistants — software wizards and the like. (This becomes trickier because it conflicts with the well-meaning-but-misdirected software development efforts of the Foundation; but I do have a plan.)
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Pi zero: and thank you for taking the time to give such a considered and detailed response. Much appreciated! The points you make here and on your user page help me think more clearly about how the WMF and the community work in practice and how this perhaps might be improved. Your comments have also deepened my understanding of collaboration within the community. At the moment, I don't know nearly enough about this to weigh in. But I do value and appreciate your 'food for thought'. I agree that the various programs and projects (big and small) need to be initiated, managed and supported by collaborative groups in the community, whether these are content-related or not. It'll be interesting to learn more about how different initiatives (content, tools, ways of working) are proposed, supported/resisted/modified and are sustained (or not). At the moment, I'm in awe of the vast scope and ambition of the various projects and of the ways in which so many people freely contribute to these. I hope to make small contributions where and when I can. Kind regards,

Mikemorrell49 (discusscontribs) 11:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

{{BookCat}}[edit]

Hi, I was thinking of making an AWB run to add {{Bookcat}}. I was hoping to see if i could get a list of pages that needs it, aside from Subject pages and main topic pages. Would that be good? Artix Kreiger (discusscontribs) 22:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Artix Kreiger: The cases where it isn't used are very customized, and strike me as something for manual attention; I'm going through all the book categories now, a process that I've been at since April and am likely to finish sometime early in the new year. I think there are folks who go through adding {{BookCat}} to uncategorized content subpages. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Moreover my bot already teats the obvious Special:UncategorizedPages. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
ahh ok. Thank you. Artix Kreiger (discusscontribs) 22:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)