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/June.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
}}
 
}}
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the [[../Proposals/]] reading room.
 
{{clear}}
 
{{clear}}
   
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
+
== De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''This is an [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages|update]] from the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Wikimedia Affiliations Committee]]. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|Translations are available]].''
  +
  +
Recognition as a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliate]] — a chapter, thematic organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia mission.
  +
  +
The principal Wikimedia movement affiliate in the Hong Kong region is [[m:Wikimedia Hong Kong|Wikimedia Hong Kong]], a Wikimedia chapter recognized in 2008. As a result of Wikimedia Hong Kong’s long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, the Wikimedia Foundation and the Affiliations Committee have determined that Wikimedia Hong Kong’s status as a Wikimedia chapter will not be renewed after February 1, 2017.
  +
  +
If you have questions about what this means for the community members in your region or language areas, we have put together a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate de-recognition FAQ|basic FAQ]]. We also invite you to visit the main [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia movement affiliate|Wikimedia movement affiliates page]] for more information on currently active movement affiliates and more information on the Wikimedia movement affiliates system.
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Affiliations Committee]], 16:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee/MassMessages/De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong - February 2017|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Affiliations Committee|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery/en&oldid=16316437 -->
  +
Signed for the bot. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
  +
  +
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
  +
The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.
  +
  +
This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.
  +
  +
The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.
  +
  +
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
  +
  +
Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:
  +
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/15 December 2016 - Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 1 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (15 December 2016)
  +
** Introduction to process and information about budget spending resolution to support it
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/23 December 2016 - Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 2 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (23 December 2016)
  +
** Start of search for Lead Architect for movement strategy process
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/8 January 2017 - Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 3 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (8 January 2017)
  +
** Plans for strategy sessions at upcoming Wikimedia Conference 2017
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/11 January 2017 - Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 4 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (11 January 2017)
  +
** Introduction of williamsworks
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 February 2017 - Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 5 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 February 2017)
  +
** The core movement strategy team, team tracks being developed, introduction of the Community Process Steering Committee, discussions at WikiIndaba conference 2017 and the Wikimedia movement affiliates executive directors gathering in Switzerland
  +
* [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/10 February 2017 - Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 6 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (10 February 2017)
  +
** Tracks A & B process prototypes and providing feedback, updates on development of all four Tracks
  +
  +
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
  +
  +
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Initial announcements review|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
  +
</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16297862 -->
  +
Signed for the bot. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process ==
   
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.
+
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
  +
''Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
   
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.
+
As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.
   
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)
+
Regular updates are being sent to the [[mail:Wikimedia-l|Wikimedia-l mailing list]], and posted [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates|on Meta-Wiki]]. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Signup|Sign up]] to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.
   
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)
+
Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/16 February 2017 - Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 7 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (16 February 2017)
  +
** Development of documentation for Tracks A & B
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/24 February 2017 - Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 8 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (24 February 2017)
  +
** Introduction of Track Leads for all four audience tracks
  +
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/2 March 2017 - Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process|Update 9 on Wikimedia movement strategy process]] (2 March 2017)
  +
** Seeking feedback on documents being used to help facilitate upcoming community discussions
   
: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)
+
More information about the movement strategy is available on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017|Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal]].
::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)
+
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]], 19:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates/Overview 2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process|{{int:please-translate}}]] [[m:Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Updates|Get help]]''
:[[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)
+
</div>
::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)
+
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16350625 -->
   
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
+
Signed for the bot. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
:: 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)
+
== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections]] ==
: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)
+
<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
::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)
+
''Please accept our apologies for cross-posting this message. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki]].''
  +
[[File:Wikimedia-logo black.svg|right|150px|link=m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017]]
   
: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)
+
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, I am pleased to announce that self-nominations are being accepted for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Board_of_Trustees/Call_for_candidates|2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections]].
   
:: <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)
+
The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]] (Board) is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long-term sustainability of the Wikimedia Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. More information about this role can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees|on Meta-Wiki]]. Please read the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Call for candidates|letter from the Board of Trustees calling for candidates]].
   
== Goodbook ==
+
'''The [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Candidates|candidacy submission phase]] will last from April 7 (00:00 UTC) to April 20 (23:59 UTC).'''
   
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 will also be accepting questions to ask the candidates from April 7 to April 20. [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Board of Trustees/Questions|You can submit your questions on Meta-Wiki]].'''
   
== We need another bureaucrat ==
+
Once the questions submission period has ended on April 20, the Elections Committee will then collate the questions for the candidates to respond to beginning on April 21.
   
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)
+
The goal of this process is to fill the '''three community-selected seats''' on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. The election results will be used by the Board itself to select its new members.
: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 full schedule for the Board elections is as follows. All dates are '''inclusive''', that is, from the beginning of the first day (UTC) to the end of the last.
   
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)
+
* April 7 (00:00 UTC) April 20 (23:59 UTC) '''Board nominations'''
  +
* April 7 – April 20 – '''Board candidates questions submission period'''
  +
* April 21 – April 30 – '''Board candidates answer questions'''
  +
* May 1 – May 14 – '''Board voting period'''
  +
* May 15–19 – '''Board vote checking'''
  +
* May 20 – '''Board result announcement goal'''
   
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
+
In addition to the Board elections, we will also soon be holding elections for the following roles:
   
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
+
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)'''
  +
** There are five positions being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee|on Meta-Wiki]].
   
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''.
+
* '''Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson (Ombuds)'''
  +
** One position is being filled. More information about this election will be available [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Funds Dissemination Committee Ombudsperson|on Meta-Wiki]].
   
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.
+
Please note that this year the Board of Trustees elections will be held before the FDC and Ombuds elections. Candidates who are not elected to the Board are explicitly permitted and encouraged to submit themselves as candidates to the FDC or Ombuds positions after the results of the Board elections are announced.
   
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.
+
More information on this year's elections can be found [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|on Meta-Wiki]]. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|election talk page on Meta-Wiki]], or sent to the election committee's mailing list, <tt dir="ltr" style="white-space:nowrap;font-size:12px;line-height:1.5">board-elections[[File:At sign.svg|15x15px|middle|link=|alt=(at)]]wikimedia.org</tt>.
   
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?
+
On behalf of the Election Committee,<br />
  +
[[m:User:KTC|Katie Chan]], Chair, [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]]<br />
  +
[[m:User:JSutherland (WMF)|Joe Sutherland]], Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation
   
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+
''Posted by [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] on behalf of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections committee|Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee]], 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC) • [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017/Updates/Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections|{{int:please-translate}}]] • [[m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2017|Get help]]''</div>
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:GVarnum-WMF@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=16441214 -->
   
: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)
+
Signed for the bot. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/George Ho|contribs]]) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (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)
+
== Copyrighted but freely-available circuits and electronics textbook ==
   
:(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)
+
https://www.circuitlab.com/textbook/ —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]][[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]][[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
:As it is clearly copyright I'm not sure what you are suggesting? [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
::That someone could read it and learn things about electronics. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:30, 18 July 2017 (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)
+
== Accessible editing buttons ==
   
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)
+
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">The MediaWiki developers have been slowly improving the accessibility of the user interface. The next step in this transition will change the appearance of some buttons and may break some outdated (non-updated or unmaintained) user scripts and gadgets.
   
:: 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)
+
You can see and use the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=submit&ooui=0 old] and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=submit&ooui=1 new] versions now. Most editors will only notice that some buttons are slightly larger and have different colors.
   
:::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.
+
<gallery mode="nolines" caption="Comparison of old and new styles" heights="240" widths="572">
:::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)
+
File:MediaWiki edit page buttons accessibility change 2017, before.png|Buttons before the change
  +
File:MediaWiki edit page buttons accessibility change 2017, after.png|Buttons after the change
  +
</gallery>
   
== Five-year WMF targets ==
+
However, this change also affects some user scripts and gadgets. Unfortunately, some of them may not work well in the new system. <mark>If you maintain any user scripts or gadgets that are used for editing, please see '''[[:mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons]]''' for information on how to test and fix your scripts. Outdated scripts can be tested and fixed now.</mark>
   
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)
+
This change will probably reach this wiki on '''Tuesday, 1 August 2017'''. Please leave a note at [[:mw:Talk:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons]] if you need help.</div> --[[m:User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[m:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]]) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Quiddity (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Whatamidoing_(WMF)/Sandbox&oldid=17043399 -->
   
{{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]}}
+
: Sadly, although these sorts of initiatives by the Foundation are evidently ''intended'' to be improvements, to me they are mainly rolling dice to see whether the Foundation breaks something they don't care about. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
   
{{cquote|It's absolutely not clear to me (and I don't think anyone) that a focused investment in, say, textbook development is actually going to result in predictable payoff in a transformatively larger number of sustainable content contributors. That doesn't mean that there isn't a potential for such an investment to be successful, and it doesn't mean that it's not a risk worth taking.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
+
== Use of the Transwiki: namespace ==
   
{{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]}}
+
What is it's use?
  +
{{#switch:}}|Wikibooks=[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]|#default=<span style="font-variant: small-caps" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]</span></span>}} 03:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|PokestarFan}} [[m:Help:Transwiki]]. This is useful because sometimes there is content on a Wikipedia that is written like a guide and can be imported here. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 05:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:Importers and Administrators can bring a page in from another Wiki. It is placed by default into the Transwiki namespace where it can be worked on before being moved into the mainspace. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/QuiteUnusual|contribs]]) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Is the End of StackOverflow Documentation an opportunity to improve Wikibooks ? ==
   
::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)
+
StackOverflow will "sunset" its Documentation feature on August 8 ([https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/354217/sunsetting-documentation/ Blog post]). All contributions to Documentation are licensed under CC-BY-SA licence. Therefore it should be possible to massively import content to Wikibooks and improve some important wikibooks such as [[R Programming]]. We just need to find the right way to cite contributions from StackOverflow contributors. Any volunteer ? --[[User:PAC2|PAC2]] ([[User talk:PAC2|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/PAC2|contribs]]) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|PAC2}} Good find. Someone (me?) could use wget to download them on the day that they are closed. —[[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> 08:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
== Wikibooks's author ==
   
: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)
+
Hello Everyone,
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
I am newbie on wikibooks. So please don't mind. I want to know that what is the policy have on wikibooks about writing a wikibooks's author name. You can see both page [[European History]] and [[High School Mathematics Extensions]]. They both have author name. Is it right or not. Are there any policy on that. Thanks-[[User:Jayprakash12345|Jayprakash12345]] ([[User talk:Jayprakash12345|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jayprakash12345|contribs]]) 17:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:{{Ping|Jayprakash12345}} Several of them have it. I personally think it's a bad idea. If you want, you can create a page like [[Book title/Contributors]] and move the content there. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::{{Ping|Jayprakash12345}} The issue is not settled. On one side, there are wikibookians who think that authorship is against a true spirit of cooperation. On the other side, we think that authorship gives a strong motivation to complete a wikibook and hence could help to make of Wikibooks a great pedagogical library. The issue is not only to sign a wikibook. Everyone agrees that an open list of names of contributors is authorized. But we disagree about the author's right to refuse unwanted modifications. I think that an author can claim such a right. But this issue is not a real problem. Noone never tried to modify my wikibooks against my will.
  +
:: Welcome to Wikibooks. Remember it' a kind of anarchy. I hope you will enjoy it --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 16:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: TD (sorry to be blunt), your outspoken views on authorship &mdash; contradicting project policy &mdash; are admittedly authoritarian in character, but that does not make the project an anarchy. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 17:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:::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)
+
:::Again you a mixing things. So far no one expressed any concerns about authorship in regards to cooperation. More it would be extremely futile to refute authorship and damaging to the project to object to rightful claims of it. Again no one has raised so far any issue on those points.
  +
:::The communal objection is for auhorship granting any special administrative regards to the users on wikibooks. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
::{{Ping|User:koavf}} Authors are not simple contributors, there are legal and moral considerations involved on the distinction. Authors should not use a page named contributors if they not make there the distinction clear. Most of the negative regard people have to this is due to lack of knowledge and civility that is prone to create a mess of the process. That is why I think those pages should be administratively edit protected. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} I get the distinct impression this claim is BS. Please substantiate. 17:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::{{Ping|User:koavf}} See [[w:author]] as I get the impression you lack the understanding what an author is and what differentiates it from other content contributor (there are contributors that even don't add content, so think also about that). In any case the most pressing distinction is about the legal rights that are attributed to author's (or those that pay for their creative work). This has implications on re-use of content, re-licensing etc and to the individual author, for instance, in capability to claim work done, to be proud to be associated with it, to sign it and demonstrate effort made understanding on a given subject. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} Oh, that's rich. Yes, I know what an "author" is but in a collaborative environment, there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor". Who is the author of [[w:en:Abraham Lincoln]]? And again, I think these legal distinctions are sheer hokum. There are legal implications for moral rights in the EU--is that what you're talking about? If so, it's irrelevant as this is an American site. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 15:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::{{Ping|User:koavf}} Well I have no intention in having a fight over this so what I said stands. Consider that in my view your "understanding" of what an author is is incorrect, I'll go a bit more into the below as we are on the public forum, but this is it for now, as we don't have the common ground to continue.
  +
::::::As I stated somewhere on this discussion encyclopedic content is not copyrightable so there is no legal author (one that has rights and obligations) and I at least give accolades for those that really do the research and expansion work of content, and this recognition I have for work done is in levels of degree in regard to those efforts, even if ultimately it is all about the team, as in sports not all the players are equal in importance but ultimately its the group effort that wins. This of course can be translated to our projects Wikibooks is not a collection of articles (even if legally it may be considered a collection/aggregate), efforts here are more sub divided and require more and prolonged dedication, so individual action is not only legally more relevant (I have discussed the issue ad infinitum, form legal protection of the work to re-licensing there are a myriad of important benefits in claiming authorship) but morally, civil and ethical. Here on this project the sub-communities that do the different projects most of those do not even have an interest about Wikibooks or Wikimedia at all and see this as a public resource, a tool for public work.
  +
::::::To state that «there is no distinction between an "author" and "another contributor"» is a disservice to all those involved in the creative work, the harder part of the work we all benefit from. Of course we should recognize even the water boy (the bot that runs at nigh) and treat it as any one else on the team but ultimately everyone knows that his contribution is limited by function as many others. On wikibook there are water boys that do more work that many authors and should and are recognized for that in many ways. No dedicated people would have any objection in having other be recognized by their own work here. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 11:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} You said there's a legal distinction but cited no laws. That makes me think you are making up stuff. Of course, in a given page or book it's very possible that one person will do most of the writing and another will do virtually nothing ''original'' writing-wise but maybe some small formatting. You can call these "authors" and "collaborators" if you want but this is just an arbitrary distinction that you are making. Everyone who contributes to Wikibooks gets credited because page histories are preserved--I don't know what more anyone else needs. Why there has to be some prestige or an ability to veto certain edits is beyond me. I've definitely written things at Wikipedia that got deleted or revised and I wished they weren't but that's the price I pay to work on a collaborative research project. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 16:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::{{Ping|Koavf}} Well as I said I'm done arguing with you as we don't share a common ground/definition of things we are speaking about, so there is really no point to it beyond preventing confusion on the public forum. Go read about what an author is and a bit about copyright laws to get the legal definition if you still don't understand the differences and implications in comparison with other types of editing. I cringe to think about what type of content contributions you have made to Wikimedia projects as you seem not to be able to understand the different licenses we use and their implications. That or you are just pulling my leg. Morally, ethical and by civility the distinction to me is self evident I can't even empathize with you when you bunch all work as having the same intrinsic characteristics and even the same merit. On my side I do not donate my work to Wikimedia, I license it to the public. I own, protect, am responsible and sign my work.
  +
::::::::I gave examples that should show anyone in good faith that all edits aren't the same, even if I do agree that for the good of the projects and to promote participation we should only make it evident on the necessary legal side of things, without making any grand fanfare about the issue. This is important because many Wikimedia users are similar to yourself in their understanding of deeper requirements and implications. Not even considering problems with age etc...
  +
::::::::Formatting, spelling and atheistical issues are made by "editors" there are many niches for them ([[w:Author editing]], [[w:Copy editing]] and more) not to mention changes done by publishers etc none of this work is copyrightable and they certainly aren't authors.
  +
::::::::Regarding the edit histories I could enter in more details but to any proficient Wikimedia contributor and for those that spend some time on wikimedia projects the reliability and certainty of the logging is problematic, even more when it does indeed bunch all sorts of edits together and people point to them as a roster of participation. It is what we have but its utility is more for administrative actions than anything else, it serves Wikipedia well but not WIkibooks and a few other Wikimedia projects.
  +
::::::::Again Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and status of authors and other contributors by the work done is also very distinct. Wikipedia doesn't have authors and most users are at the same level, its for the community to attribute quality and status and base the attribution of rights on the project based on those, I'm not a Wikipedian so I can't comment much on the fairness there, after a few revertions some years ago I only edit talk pages to point or ask stuff (so I can empathize with you there). On Wikibooks things are more insular, each project does indeed have a sub-community that is similar to how Wikipedia operates but in a very smaller scale and in general are abstracted from the rest of the project, any status if any is normally project specific and has very limited distinctions, authorship does not have any specific meaning in this context beyond the authors being the more active contributors and those that stay more consistently with projects (but should, even if not on the level proposed by [[User:Thierry Dugnolle]]). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} The burden isn't on ''me'' to substantiate ''your'' claims that there is some legal distinction between an "author" and a "collaborator". How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"? Laws in which jurisdictions? Again, you're not saying anything meaningful or substantial here. If you personally think there is a distinction, that's fine for you to propose as an idea. To claim that the law says something about this, offer nothing to back up this claim, and then demand that ''I'' just do the research is laughable and frankly asinine. The point that I have made and that you seem to miss is that while there certainly are individual edits which are very substantial and others which are more-or-less trivial, there are a lot of edits in between and that's why some distinction between the "primary author" and "secondary collaborators" is useless and will inevitably break down. The longer Wikibooks exist, the less and less that anything you personally have added will continue to be here, so 200 years from now calling you the "author" of the textbook on algebra is just ludicrous since what you did contribute will no longer be in the book itself. I honestly have no clue what the point is of a post that says, "As I said before, I'm done. Also, you do my research because I refuse to cite anything I say. Also, there are ''problems'' with edit histories but I will refuse to say what those are as well." What could possibly be the purpose of a post like this? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 17:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::::::::::{{Ping|Koavf}} I did not make any claim, I stated facts that you refused to accept as valid, some should be self evident even so I did go to the trouble of providing examples and link to pages that you could ascertain the validity of what I stated. Even our own license states that the right of attribution is reserved for those that did meaningful contributions, on wikibooks those would be project authors. In any case open any text book you have at home and you will see that the editor and even the publisher aren't included as authors, even a signed article on a newspaper will have only the reporter listed not the people that did the copy edit or the graphic montage.
  +
::::::::::Any legal consideration has only meaning on the location of the servers that host the projects, my understanding is that under US law (even with some specificity to the state) authorship is determined case by case but there are general rules (even by international protocol). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::"there are legal... considerations involved on the distinction" What legal considerations? Based on what law? In what jurisdiction? How are they relevant to anything here? If you're not answering these questions, then why are you even writing anything? And yes, a textbook from Houghton-Miflin will not list the editors as authors because they aren't written as wikis. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 18:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::: I have responded above to all those questions (rights, licensing, San Francisco, California, USA), when you wrote «How many kilobytes of a difference does the law say that someone needs to make to graduate to "author"» it at least showed that you understood part of the difference and by participating here you should at least understand the license we work under. The wiki is only a tool it does not change the fabric of reality, it promotes more participation and immediate publication nothing else. --[[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 03:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:::::::::::::{{Ping|Panic2k4}} No, you haven't. What laws? Name some court decision that relates to the collaborative nature of wikis and legal authorship. You release your work here under a CC license that says that anyone can reuse it in any way as long as he gives you credit--that doesn't have to be as a sole credited author. The standard way of crediting someone is with the footers that display in the print editions of these pages. If some books happen to have subpages of contributors, that's fine but anyone can delete or strip away or write over any of those pages at any time. Additionally, anyone can just undo and rewrite anything you write here making you no longer an "author" of any work. You would still be listed in the page history but in no meaningful (legal, moral) sense would you be the "author". —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 06:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::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)
+
:There was a few years ago a movement (I was told by a older wikibookian than I, so it may be eons ago) a movement to remove the authorship claims form the works but it failed to get communal consensus. Today several works even require a page to state the authors and their copyrights, for example any work that uses content from Wikipedia without a history importation, needs to attribute it.
  +
:Just check if your contributions are in fact copyrightable (in size and content in regards to the aggregate of the specific work you want to tag), take other authors' pages as example on how to do it and make clear that you are not a simple contributor, you are claiming rights and responsibility over your work (note also that by norm only the top authors may be named on a final publication in print if the list is too extensive). [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
:::::: 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.)
+
{{ping|Jayprakash12345}} You'd never guess this topic can be contentious, would you? (lol) Some books have a page for authors, some don't. Since it's really easy to contribute to a book without adding one's name to that list, I've always felt uncomfortable about it; you certainly can't get complete information from it about who has contributed, and it gives me one more thing to worry about if I'm considering editing, whereas imho there should be no discouragements from contribution; but then again, maybe some people get more of a sense of community from putting their name on such a list. So, feel free to include, or not include, such a page.&nbsp;:-)&nbsp; -[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::: 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)
+
:{{Ping|User:Pi zero}} When I wrote that Wikibooks is an anarchy, I thought it was a congratulation. I didn't want to be offensive. All I meant is that there are no chief. Everyone is free to speak her or his mind. Why are my views authoritarian in character ?--[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 18:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:: I probably did take the term "anarchy" more negatively that necessary. Your concept of "owned" books has always seemed basically authoritarian to me, I'm afraid. However, perhaps we can agree that, with one thing and another, this discussion has gone rather off track; Jayprakash12345 just asked about whether to include an authors page, I think, and really the answer is "whichever you feel more comfortable doing". --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: Thanks to you for such an answer. It helps me to love life. (I'm drunk, hence I shouldn't publish, but I did) --[[User:Thierry Dugnolle|TD]] ([[User talk:Thierry Dugnolle|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thierry Dugnolle|contribs]]) 19:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
   
::::::::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.
+
An author is someone who has contributed major sections to a book. Most books that have one author are usually maintained by that one author. However, if the new content is truthful, or it helps make the guide better, than it should be accepted no matter what. Only if the book is a subject not many people know does the author get to basically make the decisions of what to write. {{#switch:}}|Wikibooks=[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]|#default=<span style="font-variant: small-caps" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]</span></span>}} 22:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
:::::::::One major problem we may face is CC-BY-SA. <s>I read in some paper a few years ago that it has been proposed to let CC-BY-SA become an alternative to public domain in Hong Kong law. I'm not sure if they have implemented it though...</s>[http://www.ipd.gov.hk/eng/whats_new/news/creative_commons_1710.pdf it was implemented]. [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 09:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
== Proposing new deletion process ==
+
:Not exactly that, authorship is ultimately a legal definition and the legal attributes of the creator(s) of a work. On Wikibooks even the most exclusive content is cared over by the community. I expect it to be very hard to find any significant content that hasn't been edited by more than 2-3 people at least.
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)
+
:Wikibooks is more than a guide or a collection of guides, the objective is to create educational textbooks it has distinct authorship requirements from most other project with the exception of Wikisournce. For example in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable (legal protection or rights).
  +
:Regarding control sadly you are incorrect, while most of the general Wikibooks community validates book specific sub-communities and lets them have most of the control over their creation, there are no rules of guidelines to prevent a cabal or a click of other wikibookians to form, even without intentional malice (the result will always be negative if outside communities interact too much in sub-community concerns) to derail any creative direction of that sub-community, even able to destroy productive sub-communities in the process. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:PS: Note that while I defend authorship in general I have a strong dislike for the present copyright laws and how they are enforced. [[User:Panic2k4|Panic]] ([[User talk:Panic2k4|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Panic2k4|contribs]]) 09:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
   
== Regex ==
+
== Adding a disclaimer to [[Template:Cannabis]] ==
   
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)
+
While I was archiving RFDs I noticed this template. I think we should put a disclaimer on it, like: "Wikibooks and the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for any consequences of using cannabis illegally." There's going to be that one person who sues Wikibooks for it so I am just saying we should put that on the template. {{#switch:}}|Wikibooks=[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]|#default=<span style="font-variant: small-caps" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]</span></span>}} 14:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
: Are there other examples of this sort of disclaimer pre-existing on any of our templates? --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 14:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::I don't think so. But this is '''drugs''' so we should be careful. And maybe one on the suicide manual. {{#switch:}}|Wikibooks=[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]|#default=<span style="font-variant: small-caps" class="vcard"><span class="fn n nickname">[[User:PokestarFan|PokestarFan]]{{*}}[[User talk:PokestarFan|Talk]]{{*}}[[Special:Contributions/PokestarFan|Contributions]]</span></span>}} 14:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
::: In considering such a move I would want to carefully survey how we have handled similar situations in the past. It can sometimes happen, in these sorts of legal concerns, that putting a disclaimer on one thing can increase one's potential legal vulnerability for other things one doesn't similarly disclaim; therefore one should be very sure to consider carefully lest one start down a slippery slope. On the other side of it, there is the matter of disclaimers already inherent in our license etc. I suspect any such disclaimer would be, in effect, a courtesy. --[[User:Pi zero|Pi zero]] ([[User talk:Pi zero|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pi zero|contribs]]) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
I don't really think this is necessary: laws are different in different places and I think most anyone who is reading up on recreational drugs probably knows that they are illegal in a lot of places. I mean, can anyone really imagine the scenario where this is the first time someone is learning this information? Additionally, we ''don't'' have a similar template for alcohol--why is that? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 16:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  +
:I agree with Justin. If someone's reading a wikibook related to cannabis, then it's quite reasonable to assume that they're well-versed with the legal implications in their country. What wikibooks would you apply this to in any case? If it's talking about the chemistry of cannabinoids or the medical uses, then I see no need for a disclaimer. (only if the wikibook begins to discuss recreational usage) --[[User:Caliburn|George]] <small>([[User_talk:Caliburn|Talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Caliburn|Contribs]] &middot; [[Special:CentralAuth/Caliburn|CentralAuth]] &middot; [[Special:Log/Caliburn|Log]])</small> 17:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:10, 23 August 2017

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

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

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Signed for the bot. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed for the bot. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed for the bot. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signed for the bot. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyrighted but freely-available circuits and electronics textbook[edit]

https://www.circuitlab.com/textbook/Justin (koavf)TCM 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

As it is clearly copyright I'm not sure what you are suggesting? QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That someone could read it and learn things about electronics. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Accessible editing buttons[edit]

--Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, although these sorts of initiatives by the Foundation are evidently intended to be improvements, to me they are mainly rolling dice to see whether the Foundation breaks something they don't care about. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of the Transwiki: namespace[edit]

What is it's use? |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 03:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: m:Help:Transwiki. This is useful because sometimes there is content on a Wikipedia that is written like a guide and can be imported here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Importers and Administrators can bring a page in from another Wiki. It is placed by default into the Transwiki namespace where it can be worked on before being moved into the mainspace. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the End of StackOverflow Documentation an opportunity to improve Wikibooks ?[edit]

StackOverflow will "sunset" its Documentation feature on August 8 (Blog post). All contributions to Documentation are licensed under CC-BY-SA licence. Therefore it should be possible to massively import content to Wikibooks and improve some important wikibooks such as R Programming. We just need to find the right way to cite contributions from StackOverflow contributors. Any volunteer ? --PAC2 (discusscontribs) 16:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@PAC2: Good find. Someone (me?) could use wget to download them on the day that they are closed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks's author[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Not exactly that, authorship is ultimately a legal definition and the legal attributes of the creator(s) of a work. On Wikibooks even the most exclusive content is cared over by the community. I expect it to be very hard to find any significant content that hasn't been edited by more than 2-3 people at least.
Wikibooks is more than a guide or a collection of guides, the objective is to create educational textbooks it has distinct authorship requirements from most other project with the exception of Wikisournce. For example in WIkipedia it makes really no sense talking about authors as the content there is mostly not copyrightable (legal protection or rights).
Regarding control sadly you are incorrect, while most of the general Wikibooks community validates book specific sub-communities and lets them have most of the control over their creation, there are no rules of guidelines to prevent a cabal or a click of other wikibookians to form, even without intentional malice (the result will always be negative if outside communities interact too much in sub-community concerns) to derail any creative direction of that sub-community, even able to destroy productive sub-communities in the process. Panic (discusscontribs) 09:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
PS: Note that while I defend authorship in general I have a strong dislike for the present copyright laws and how they are enforced. Panic (discusscontribs) 09:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding a disclaimer to Template:Cannabis[edit]

While I was archiving RFDs I noticed this template. I think we should put a disclaimer on it, like: "Wikibooks and the Wikimedia Foundation is not responsible for any consequences of using cannabis illegally." There's going to be that one person who sues Wikibooks for it so I am just saying we should put that on the template. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 14:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Are there other examples of this sort of disclaimer pre-existing on any of our templates? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. But this is drugs so we should be careful. And maybe one on the suicide manual. |Wikibooks=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions|#default=PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions}} 14:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
In considering such a move I would want to carefully survey how we have handled similar situations in the past. It can sometimes happen, in these sorts of legal concerns, that putting a disclaimer on one thing can increase one's potential legal vulnerability for other things one doesn't similarly disclaim; therefore one should be very sure to consider carefully lest one start down a slippery slope. On the other side of it, there is the matter of disclaimers already inherent in our license etc. I suspect any such disclaimer would be, in effect, a courtesy. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think this is necessary: laws are different in different places and I think most anyone who is reading up on recreational drugs probably knows that they are illegal in a lot of places. I mean, can anyone really imagine the scenario where this is the first time someone is learning this information? Additionally, we don't have a similar template for alcohol--why is that? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. If someone's reading a wikibook related to cannabis, then it's quite reasonable to assume that they're well-versed with the legal implications in their country. What wikibooks would you apply this to in any case? If it's talking about the chemistry of cannabinoids or the medical uses, then I see no need for a disclaimer. (only if the wikibook begins to discuss recreational usage) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 17:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)