This project page is move-protected.

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

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Regex: new section)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
+
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ {{Discussion Rooms}} {{Shortcut|WB:CHAT|WB:RR/G|WB:GENERAL}} {{TOC left|limit=3}}
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|minthreadsleft = 1
 
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
 
|algo = old(21d)
 
|key = abb03c394aadaf87e9a4bc3fb7d2d674
 
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
 
|archive = Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
  +
|algo = old(60d)
  +
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
  +
|minthreadsleft = 1
  +
|key = 7a0ac23cf8049e4d9ff70cabb5649d1a
 
}}
 
}}
Welcome to the '''General reading room'''. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. 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}}
   
  +
== Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1 ==
== Producing refereed academic papers on Wikibooks ==
 
  +
  +
<div style = "line-height: 1.2">
  +
<span style="font-size:200%;">'''Universal Code of Conduct News'''</span><br>
  +
<span style="font-size:120%; color:#404040;">'''Issue 1, June 2021'''</span><span style="font-size:120%; float:right;">[[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1|Read the full newsletter]]</span>
  +
----
  +
Welcome to the first issue of [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct News]]! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
  +
  +
Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/UCoC Newsletter Subscription|subscribe here]].
  +
  +
You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please [[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/Participate|add your name here]] if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.
  +
</div><div style="margin-top:3px; padding:10px 10px 10px 20px; background:#fffff; border:2px solid #808080; border-radius:4px; font-size:100%;">
  +
* '''Affiliate consultations''' – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. ([[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1#sec1|continue reading]])
  +
* '''2021 key consultations''' – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. ([[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1#sec2|continue reading]])
  +
* '''Roundtable discussions''' – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. ([[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1#sec3|continue reading]])
  +
* '''Phase 2 drafting committee''' – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. ([[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1#sec4|continue reading]])
  +
* '''Diff blogs''' – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. ([[m:Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/1#sec5|continue reading]])</div>
  +
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:SOyeyele (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SOyeyele_(WMF)/Announcements/English&oldid=21570140 -->
  +
22:07, 10 June 2021‎ (UTC)
  +
  +
== Wikimania 2021: Individual Program Submissions ==
  +
  +
[[File:Wikimania logo with text 2.svg|right|200px]]
  +
Dear all,
  +
  +
Wikimania 2021 will be [[:wikimania:2021:Save the date and the Core Organizing Team|hosted virtually]] for the first time in the event's 15-year history. Since there is no in-person host, the event is being organized by a diverse group of Wikimedia volunteers that form the [[:wikimania:2021:Organizers|Core Organizing Team]] (COT) for Wikimania 2021.
  +
  +
'''Event Program''' - Individuals or a group of individuals can submit their session proposals to be a part of the program. There will be translation support for sessions provided in a number of languages. See more information [[:wikimania:2021:Submissions/Guidelines#Language Accessibility|here]].
  +
  +
Below are some links to guide you through;
  +
* [[:wikimania:2021:Submissions|Program Submissions]]
  +
* [[:wikimania:2021:Submissions/Guidelines|Session Submission Guidelines]]
  +
* [[:wikimania:2021:FAQ|FAQ]]
  +
  +
Please note that the deadline for submission is 18th June 2021.
  +
  +
'''Announcements'''- To keep up to date with the developments around Wikimania, the COT sends out weekly updates. You can view them in the Announcement section [[:wikimania:2021:Announcements|here]].
  +
  +
'''Office Hour''' - If you are left with questions, the COT will be hosting some office hours (in multiple languages), in multiple time-zones, to answer any programming questions that you might have. Details can be found [[:wikimania:2021:Organizers#Office hours schedule|here.]]
  +
  +
Best regards,
  +
  +
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/MediaWiki message delivery|contribs]]) 04:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  +
  +
On behalf of Wikimania 2021 Core Organizing Team
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Bodhisattwa@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/VisualEditor/Newsletter/Wikis_with_VE&oldid=21597568 -->
  +
  +
== Please provide input here or [[m:Talk:Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021|on Meta]] and during [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021|an upcoming Global Conversation on 26-27 June 2021]] about the Movement Charter drafting committee ==
  +
  +
{{anchor|Please provide input here or on Meta and during upcoming Global Conversations on 26-27 June 2021 about the Movement Charter drafting committee}}
  +
Hello, I'm one of the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators working on community engagement for the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Charter|Movement Charter]] initiative.
  +
  +
We're inviting input widely from users of many projects about the upcoming formation of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Movement_Charter_Drafting_Group|''Movement Charter drafting committee'']]. You can provide feedback here, at the [[m:Talk:Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021|central discussion on Meta]], at [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021#Local conversations|other ongoing local conversations]], and during a [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021#Global Conversation, June 26-27|Global Conversation upcoming on 26 and 27 June 2021]].
  +
  +
{{cquote|The Movement Charter drafting committee is expected to work as a diverse and skilled team of about 15 members for several months. They should receive regular support from experts, regular community reviews, and opportunities for training and an allowance to offset costs. When the draft is completed, the committee will oversee a wide community ratification process.|4=[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021#Creating_the_drafting_committee|Creating the drafting committee]]}}
  +
  +
Further [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Events/Movement Charter Global Conversation, 26-27 June 2021|details and context about these questions is on Meta]] along with a recently-updated [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Charter/Overview|'''overview of the Movement Charter initiative''']]. Feel free to ask questions, and add additional sub-sections as needed for other areas of interest about this topic.
   
  +
If contributors are interested in participating in a call about these topics ahead of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Strategy/Events/Movement_Charter_Global_Conversation,_26-27_June_2021#Global_Conversation,_June_26-27|Global Conversation on 26 and 27 June]], please let me know. [[User:Xeno (WMF)|Xeno (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Xeno (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Xeno (WMF)|contribs]]) 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
For some time I have had the idea of using the internet to produce academic papers in the public domain. Wikibooks might be the place to do this. The idea is that an author submits a new draft paper. People can jump in to make additions and possibly add their names as co-authors. People can jump in to edit and add their names as editors. When the paper has sufficient content it can be frozen for refereeing. Suitably qualified referees can be invited (or maybe just drop in) to determine if the paper is suitable for publication. If it is suitable it can be sent to Wikisource and linked (if appropriate) to articles in Wikipedia. Wikibooks academic papers would need a special format.
 
   
  +
The three questions are:
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.
 
  +
#What composition should the committee have in terms of movement roles, gender, regions, affiliations and other diversity factors?
  +
#:
  +
#What is the best process to select the committee members to form a competent and diverse team?
  +
#:
  +
#How much dedication is it reasonable to expect from committee members, in terms of hours per week and months of work?
  +
#:
   
  +
== Editing news 2021 #2 ==
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)
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
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)
 
  +
<em>[[m:Special:MyLanguage/VisualEditor/Newsletter/2021/June|Read this in another language]] • [[m:VisualEditor/Newsletter|Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter]]</em>
   
  +
[[File:Reply Tool A-B test comment completion.png|alt=Junior contributors comment completion rate across all participating Wikipedias|thumb|296x296px|When newcomers had the Reply tool and tried to post on a talk page, they were more successful at posting a comment. ([https://wikimedia-research.github.io/Reply-tools-analysis-2021/ Source])]]
:What you are describing sounds more like [http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Wikia]. We have a [[WB:OR|policy]] against original research here on Wikibooks. [[User:Recent Runes|Recent Runes]] ([[User talk:Recent Runes|talk]]) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Please, I beg of you, let's not advertise for Wikia, as that is a conflict of interest with the Wikimedia Foundation board. As for the "[[WB:OR|policy]] against original research" here, I personally think that is something that ought to be reconsidered by the community. Having now carefully read that policy, I am wondering if [[World_War_II/Strategic_Bombing_in_Europe|this recent output]] is actually in violation of Wikibooks policy? -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] ([[User talk:Thekohser|talk]]) 19:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::Oh, don't worry about "advertising" on this level. It is traditional to suggest to people, before nuking their silly contributions, to point out other places that will take them, "this is better for Wikia" is quite a bit nicer than "get that crap out of here!" We could also point out, for example, [http://mywikibiz.com MyWikiBiz]. Just don't ''you'' point it out, okay! More to the point, though, is that Wikiversity is a great place for original research, it is explicitly allowed, just don't try to present it as a scientific consensus, for example, if it isn't. But you can put up a page on your Favorite Crackpot Theory, note that it's not accepted, and then pretty much say what you want as long as it isn't illegal or fattening. At least that's the theory, the execution of the theory gets a bit ragged sometimes, but we are working on that.
 
   
  +
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of [[mw:Talk pages project/Replying|the Reply Tool]]. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped [[mw:Talk pages project/Glossary|newer editors]] communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
:::As to your brilliant paper, while one might quibble with some words at the end, one might also allow an author some flexibility, especially if the conclusions reached are obvious, and Wikibooks policy on Original Research seems far more flexible than that of Wikipedia. In the end -- in both places! -- the real standard is consensus, there is no way around that unless the Foundation wants to step in, i.e., no way, so my advice: remember to be nice! Now, if I could just take my own advice..... --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:[[v:|Wikiversity]] is a good place for this, which is still within the Wikimedia projects. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Yes. My opinion is that it is possible that Wikiversity could establish a peer review process, and that it could become, effectively, a publisher of peer-reviewed papers. There are quite a few obstacles to overcome, though. I don't expect to see this soon. However, papers can be written there, just as students and teachers may present, in classes, original research. An exciting idea is the collaborative writing of papers that might be submitted for publication elsewhere, under normal peer review. I've even set up a lab resource at [[Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Lab|Cold fusion/Lab]], something that would be completely inappropriate on Wikipedia or here. I work extensively on Wikiversity because of the great academic freedom that is the ideal there. It's largely realized, and there have only been problems arising from WMF critics using Wikiversity to criticize WMF projects, and then individuals criticized, often politically powerful within the WMF community, and their friends, also came to oppose, sometimes also in disruptive ways. The use (for "Wiki studies") is theoretically possible, but will require the establishment of ethical standards, and I wanted Thekohser to be unblocked there precisely so that he could support the development of those standards, from the critic side, and I assume that there will be others who will participate from the "defense." If, absent such standards, he abuses the relative freedom of Wikiversity to prematurely criticize, I will act to prevent it. But I don't expect it to be a problem. He's been very cooperative. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
The key results were:
:: Dear Logicalgregory,
 
:: That sounds like an excellent idea. However, as Darklama and Recent Runes pointed out, other wiki exist that would be an even better place for it than Wikibooks.
 
:: If you are thinking about publishing some particular paper, perhaps it would be even better to post an outline on a wiki dedicated to whatever particular field you are interested in. A few such narrowly-focused wiki are:
 
::* [http://www.scienceofspectroscopy.info/ Science of Spectroscopy wiki]
 
::* [http://openwetware.org/ OpenWetWare wiki: biology]
 
::* [http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Design Renewable Energy Design wikia]
 
::* [http://www.sklogwiki.org/ SklogWiki dedicated to thermodynamics and statistical mechanics]
 
::* [http://wiki.biomine.skelleftea.se/wiki/ BioMineWiki: biology and hydrometallurgy]
 
::* [http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ UsefulChem Project wiki]
 
::* [http://prettyscience.wikia.com/ Pretty Science Wikia]
 
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] ([[User talk:DavidCary|talk]]) 19:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
* Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were [https://wikimedia-research.github.io/Reply-tools-analysis-2021/ more likely] to post a comment on a talk page.
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)
 
  +
* The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also [https://wikimedia-research.github.io/Reply-tools-analysis-2021/ less likely] to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
: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)
 
   
  +
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
:If you prefer to stay within the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, then [[v:|Wikiversity]] is the only place that original research is acceptable. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
::Having been peer reviewed means the work isn't original research per say. The existing peer reviewed journals where the work was previous published and polished up could be cited as sources. However the papers are probably most useful if preserved as papers, so Wikiversity would be the place for that since papers are a type of educational resource acceptable there, while non-book materials are not meant to hosted at Wikibooks. Anyone could use the papers when made available at Wikiversity as a bases for developing books at Wikibooks, if they cite the journals where the work was peer reviewed. Since copyright seems to be a concern I think confirming permission with OTRS should be done before making the papers available at Wikiversity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<strong>Looking ahead</strong>
: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)
 
   
  +
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
:: <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 next step is to [[phab:T280599|resolve a technical challenge]]. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the [[phab:T267379|Wikipedias that participated in the study]]. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
== Goodbook ==
 
   
  +
You can turn on "{{int:discussiontools-preference-label}}" [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures|in Beta Features]] now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion]].
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)
 
   
  +
–[[User:Whatamidoing (WMF)|Whatamidoing (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF)|talk]])
== We need another bureaucrat ==
 
  +
</div> 14:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:Elitre (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/VisualEditor/Newsletter/Wikis_with_VE&oldid=21624491 -->
   
  +
== Server switch ==
Wikibooks could certainly benefit from another bureaucrat. I think any wiki with only one bureaucrat will suffer from a problem: if a bureaucrat decision is challenged, there is nobody to reverse it. (No really, I know bureaucrats cannot uncheck admin rights, and I don't know if a renaming can be reversed but...) Also, if there are two bureaucrats the bureaucrats can keep an eye on one another to see if they made any 'crat mistakes. However I won't nominate anyone in case the nominee refuses, and other admins who are also, IMO, eligible to become a 'crat take offence. If you think you can become a 'crat, please self-nominate. :) [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:A bureaucrat decision naming a sysop can be questioned and reversed at meta, with a showing of local consensus. I do agree, though, that it's better to have two. It may be more important, though, that a 'crat be highly trusted to remain neutral. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="plainlinks">
== [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]]'s bureaucrat nomination ==
 
   
  +
[[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/Server switch 2020|Read this message in another language]] • [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Tech%2FServer+switch+2020&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]
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)
 
   
  +
The [[foundation:|Wikimedia Foundation]] tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems. <!--
== Placement of HTML tags: Wiktionary or Wikibooks? ==
 
   
  +
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on '''Tuesday, October 27 2020'''. -->
Hello. I am a Wiktionarian administrator, interested in seeking feedback and opinions from Wikibookians, to solve an issue directly related to both projects.
 
   
  +
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in [[mw:Manual:What is MediaWiki?|MediaWiki]], all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
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''.
 
   
  +
'''You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.'''
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.
 
   
  +
*You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, 29 June 2021. The test will start at [https://zonestamp.toolforge.org/1624975200 14:00 UTC] (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 WEST/BST, 16:00 CEST, 19:30 IST, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday 30 June).
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.
 
  +
*If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
   
  +
''Other effects'':
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?
 
   
  +
*Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
Thanks in advance. --[[User:Daniel.|Daniel.]] ([[User talk:Daniel.|talk]]) 17:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
*There will be code freezes for the week of June 28. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
   
  +
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can [[wikitech:Switch_Datacenter#Schedule_for_2021_switch|read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org]]. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. '''Please share this information with your community.'''</div></div> [[user:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
:I would consider that page more of an alphabetical index of tags and the note is indicating that the chapters shown at the root of the book will use those tags as needed based on the functional organization of the book. The book as a whole is based around what kinds of things you want to do with HTML rather than going through each tag in turn. HTML tags are not anything close to what I'd imagine being hosted at Wiktionary and it seems like that's a reach for Wiktionary's scope. I compare [[HyperText Markup Language/Tag List/img]] with [[wikt:Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language/img]] and the former is far superior. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
<!-- Message sent by User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=21463754 -->
   
  +
== What can I do here? ==
:: 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)
 
   
  +
Im scared to edit. I dont know what to do. Help, anyone? Thank you 😊. [[User:Unazcorp0|Unazcorp0]] ([[User talk:Unazcorp0|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Unazcorp0|contribs]]) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
:(edit conflict, above comments by Adrignola and CodeCat not yet read.)That is an interesting question, and one I don't know I have a quick answer to. My feeling is that the tag list you point out is certainly appropriate for the book it is in, that is as an appendix to the textbook on HTML. As to the individual structure of the book, one entry per page seems a bit cumbersome but I usually defer to individual book contributors for how they like to structure their books. So I imagine that the pages are reasonably covered by our scope. I am less familiar with wikitonary's scope, but roughly speaking traditional dictionaries have appendices on all sorts of things (how to convert cups to tablespoons, etc.), and I am not surpirsed that wikitionary has such an appendix. But then again, it really becomes a line as to where the scope begins and ends, this wouldn't be covered in a more traditional dictionary... so, to summarize, I don't know how to feel about these pages at wikitionary, but the pages pointed to in wikibooks are well suited to our scope. I am not sure how to handle the duplication of effort problem. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:Hello, [[User: Unazcorp0|Unazcorp0]], and welcome to Wikibooks. You may want to start ''reading'' books and start small, e.&#8239;g. by [[Using Wikibooks/Correcting Errors|correcting spelling or grammar mistakes]]. [[Special: Diff/2271075|My very first edit here]] was also just that. [[User:Kai Burghardt|Kai Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Kai Burghardt|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kai Burghardt|contribs]]) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (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)
 
   
  +
== WikiAsk ==
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)
 
   
  +
I ran across [[meta:WikiAsk (recreated)|WikiAsk]] proposal recently. Some people oppose it with argument that the content fits in Wikibooks scope. So my question is, does Q&A fit in Wikibooks scope? Does any subset of Q&A, e.g. short HOWTOs, fit in Wikibooks scope? Is there any Q&A content already? I couldn't find any myself. HOWTOs occur only randomly as part of larger books. Policy seems to prohibit Q&A. HOWTOs could be argued to be instructional, but they are by no means textbooks. — [[User:Robert Važan|Robert Važan]] ([[User talk:Robert Važan|talk]]) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
:: Re Dan: Maybe, but the implication is that there will be more than just one reference book. If there is a HTML reference, then we'll also want a reference book for C, Python and so on for every other computer language with a sizable collection of names. [[User:CodeCat|CodeCat]] ([[User talk:CodeCat|talk]]) 20:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:{{re|Robert Važan}} HOWTO materials aren't prohibited - after all, many of the more programming-oriented books and strategy guides are forms of "HOWTO". That being said, while we do have [[WB:RR]], Wikibooks is not a replacement for StackOverflow, because the latter allows people to ''ask'' for questions to be answered, which is not the purpose of Wikibooks. MediaWiki in general is a poor choice for a Q/A style website - StackOverflow-style places are forum-first, not wiki-first, and something like Discourse would be a better choice. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 11:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Wiktionary has developed a consistent format to organize morphemes of multiple languages. I believe it may as well be consistently expanded to include commands, tags and other characteristics of computer codes, that may in turn be further organized by categorization and indexes. For example, once this project reaches a certain level of maturity, a page called [[wikt:Appendix:Control flow statements]] could explain "go to", "for" and "while" of various languages together.
 
:::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)
 
   
  +
::{{re|Leaderboard}} Wiki is a good platform for Q&A if it is used correctly. Notice that many answers on StackOverflow are "community wiki" already, which is a workaround for flaws of the standard StackOverflow page structure. But usability of wiki for Q&A is beside the point here. I am asking about inclusion criteria and site structure. Can there be standalone (short) HOWTOs on Wikibooks or should they be always a part of some book? And if someone creates a page that asks a question, i.e. it contains only a notice requesting someone to fill in the content, will the page get deleted? — [[User:Robert Važan|Robert Važan]] ([[User talk:Robert Važan|talk]]) 13:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
== Five-year WMF targets ==
 
  +
:::{{re|Robert Važan}} While there is some precedent of what you describe, in general no, because a FAQ in itself cannot comprise a book. As part of a book perhaps. And "someone creates a page that asks a question" will generally be speedily-deleted after a week as abandoned or out-of-scope.
  +
:::A book that contains FAQs as a side would be OK, a book that's only a FAQ isn't because that's not a book. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 16:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
::{{re|Leaderboard}} PS: Do FAQs belong in Wikibooks? Because Q&A site is essentially a giant shared FAQ. — [[User:Robert Važan|Robert Važan]] ([[User talk:Robert Važan|talk]]) 13:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There was a thread on the foundation-l mailing list on [[wmf:Resolution:Five-year_targets|five-year Wikimedia Foundation targets]] excluding non-Wikipedia projects. Below are some highlights that would be most relevant for those concerned with Wikibooks. The full postings are linked. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
:{{reply to|Robert Važan}} I don’t think so. Wikibooks is, hence its name, a site for ''books'', you know, [[Wikibooks: What is Wikibooks#What is Wikibooks|like textbooks]]. As such they are at some point “[[:Category:Completed books|finished]]”, so you can, in theory, ''read'' them stem to stern. This will hardly be the case for a mere {{abbr|Q‘n’A|question and answer}}‑“book”. Most users will simply [[w:DuckDuckGo|duckduckgo]] their question and after it’s been solved [ideally] never consult the source again. {{abbr|IMO|In my opinion}} this is pretty similar to a [[WB:DICT|dictionary]]. (Nonetheless, {{abbr|FAQs|frequently asked and answered questions}} may still appear ''as part'' of books, but they rather have a “preemptive” character.) [[User:Kai Burghardt|Kai Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Kai Burghardt|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kai Burghardt|contribs]]) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
== Clarification on [[WB:NFCC]] ==
{{cquote|The vast majority of our users are using Wikipedia and not the other projects, which means even a small improvement to Wikipedia is likely to have more impact than even a large improvement to one of the other projects. Sue was very clear that prioritising Wikipedia only applies to the WMF. The community can, and should, continue to improve the other projects, the WMF just feels that its limited resources are better used where they will have more impact.|||Thomas Dalton|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061533.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
   
  +
I'm looking for some clarification on [[WB:NFCC]]. I'd like to use [[Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney/Episode 2: Turnabout Sisters/Day 2 - Trial]] as an example page. This page (and the whole book associated with it) makes extensive use of non-free images, and I feel this contradicts a number of the Criteria.
{{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]}}
 
  +
* 1b) The images are used repeatedly for aesthetic purposes.
  +
* 4) StrategyWiki is not the original copyright holder for any of these images.
  +
I believe 1a) is also not met on a number of pages, but not specifically on this one. -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prod|contribs]]) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
:There's some pages with more images than that, but in the rationale for those images (still being kept to a minimum) it says that these images show what the characters and icons look like. [[User:2005-Fan|2005-Fan]] ([[User talk:2005-Fan|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/2005-Fan|contribs]]) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
{{cquote|But let's not kid ourselves -- transformatively increasing the productivity and success of efforts like Wiktionary, Wikibooks, and Wikisource is not just a matter of tiny injections of bugfixes and extensions here and there. It's a matter of serious assessment of all underlying processes and developing social and technical architectures to support them. I hope that we'll eventually be able to make such investments, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to prioritize lower risk investments.|||Erik Moeller|[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061608.html foundation-l mailing list]}}
 
  +
::After the first interaction, the player should know who the character is without showing the same picture repeatedly. Having the image on the characters page should suffice. -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prod|contribs]]) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  +
:::This is a good point. It prob does violate 1b, although I figured the rationale stated that the image wasn't uploaded solely for aesthetic purpose, but is to illustrate someone in the guide. [[User:2005-Fan|2005-Fan]] ([[User talk:2005-Fan|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/2005-Fan|contribs]]) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  +
::::To me (and this is just my opinion looking at the page, others can disagree), I don't think it contradicts the criteria. While {{re|SuperHamster}} is right in that other Wikimedia projects are unlikely to tolerate the use of these non-free images, this is Wikibooks and to me at least, I can imagine the quality of the page being diminished if these images are removed (citing rule 8). I would agree with {{re|2005-Fan}} here. We certainly don't want to be as hard as Wikipedia with their irritating DatBot. Consider it as my thoughts under personal capacity. [[User:Leaderboard|Leaderboard]] ([[User talk:Leaderboard|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Leaderboard|contribs]]) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  +
:Do you guys feel that having [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsxhb1j4xm4&t=2386 the exact content from the game] included on these pages falls under wikibooks fair use? -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prod|contribs]]) 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  +
:: Linking to an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsxhb1j4xm4 over two hour video of gameplay footage] without greater context, time stamps (I understand that since the YouTube shortlink is blocked on Wikimedia projects, this is a bit difficult to share natively), etc. makes it less likely to get a response, especially from general wikibooks users who aren't involved video game strategy guides (Since we are in the general section of the reading room). I think I get the gist of what you are saying though. At 1:09:18 (?t=4158) the Bellboy makes his testimony in the game. In the import from strategywiki at [[Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney/Episode_2:_Turnabout_Sisters/Day_2_-_Trial#Bellboy's_Testimony:_Miss_May's_Room_Service]], this testimony is transcribed verbatim. I didn't scrub the video for other testimony scenes, but I understand you are saying that '''every''' testimony in this guide is transcribed in such an exact way, correct? Granted the proceeding and following conversations are not transcribed (Otherwise this guide would be '''substantially''' longer), but that is roughly a paragraph or so of direct quotations per testimony. I'm not knowledgeable enough about policy to comment on what exactly should be done though. Still I hope that this explanation helps other Wikibooks users make a decision. (Assuming I understood Prod correctly.) --[[User:Mbrickn|Mbrickn]] ([[User talk:Mbrickn|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mbrickn|contribs]]) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  +
:::Sorry, I thought i copy-pasted the timestamp. I've updated the link above (t=2386), which corresponds to [[Phoenix_Wright: Ace Attorney/Episode_2: Turnabout Sisters/Day 2 - Trial#Gumshoe's Testimony: Maya Fey's Arrest|this section]]. But yes, as you mentioned, these segments of the game are transcribed verbatim from the game into the guide. -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Prod|contribs]]) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
== Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2 ==
:Wow, how extraordinarily depressing. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
<section begin="ucoc-newsletter"/>
::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)
 
  +
<div style = "line-height: 1.2">
  +
<span style="font-size:200%;">'''Universal Code of Conduct News'''</span><br>
  +
<span style="font-size:120%; color:#404040;">'''Issue 2, July 2021'''</span><span style="font-size:120%; float:right;">[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2|'''Read the full newsletter''']]</span>
  +
----
  +
Welcome to the second issue of [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct|Universal Code of Conduct]] News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.
   
  +
If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Global message delivery/Targets/UCoC Newsletter Subscription|here]] if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/Participate|here]] if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.
:Maybe I should get to work again! -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
</div><div style="margin-top:3px; padding:10px 10px 10px 20px; background:#fffff; border:2px solid #808080; border-radius:4px; font-size:100%;">
   
  +
*'''Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review''' - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review|continue reading]])
: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)
 
  +
*'''Targets of Harassment Research''' - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Targets of Harassment Research|continue reading]])
::Quantity matters as much as quality. -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
  +
*'''Functionaries’ Consultation''' - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Functionaries’ Consultation|continue reading]])
  +
*'''Roundtable Discussions''' - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Roundtable Discussions|continue reading]])
  +
*'''Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities''' - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities|continue reading]])
  +
*'''New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee''' - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee|continue reading]])
  +
*'''Wikimania''' - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Wikimania Session|continue reading]])
  +
*'''Diff blogs''' - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. ([[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Newsletter/2#Diff Blogs|continue reading]])
  +
</div><section end="ucoc-newsletter"/>
  +
Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. [[User:Xeno (WMF)|Xeno (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Xeno (WMF)|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Xeno (WMF)|contribs]]) 02:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
== Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (Aug 2 - Sept 1, 2021) ==
:::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)
 
   
::::I think the biggest reason why WP is popular is because it's comprehensive. Whenever I want the basic info about something, I use WP. It's what makes WB less likely to succeed than WP... [[User:Kayau|Kayau]] ([[User talk:Kayau|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Emailuser/Kayau|email]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Kayau|contribs]]) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
+
The [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee|call for candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee]] is now open. The full announcement is below. [[User:Xeno (WMF)|Xeno (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Xeno (WMF)|discuss]] [[Special:Contributions/Xeno (WMF)|contribs]]) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Announcement_2021_07_27|Read in other languages]]''
:::::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)
 
  +
----
  +
Movement Strategy announces [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee|the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee]]. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.
   
  +
The Committee is expected to represent [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Diversity_and_Expertise_Matrices|diversity in the Movement]]. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.
:::::: Well one thing we have going for us is price, the text book for the course I am teaching at the moment is $209 from the book store. Multiply that by the 140 students I am requiring to by the text, times the number of years the course has been running, it is really quite a lot of money. And the book is ''required'', I would love to convince the department to require something free (modulo printing costs) but we have to get the books there first. On the other hand I have seen many departments print and sell notes developed by the faculty, so if we had something that was a suitable replacement it would be possible to convince them. Last I checked university departments are not so in love with publishing companies either. (I mean really! They make minor tweaks every two years so there can be a new edition, which means students cannot by the old books used as easily. It is an amazing racket.)
 
:::::: Of course, secondary education and below is a whole different ball game, it would be much more difficult to get a wikibook adopted at that level in the US. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 15:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 
   
  +
English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.
:::::::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)
 
   
  +
We are looking for people who have some of the following [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee#Role_Requirements|skills]]:
::::::::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.
 
:::::::::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)
 
   
  +
* Know how to write collaboratively. (demonstrated experience is a plus)
== Proposing new deletion process ==
 
  +
* Are ready to find compromises.
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)
 
  +
* Focus on inclusion and diversity.
  +
* Have knowledge of community consultations.
  +
* Have intercultural communication experience.
  +
* Have governance or organization experience in non-profits or communities.
  +
* Have experience negotiating with different parties.
   
  +
The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.
== Regex ==
 
   
  +
Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee#Candidate_Statements|here]]. Please contact strategy2030{{@}}wikimedia.org with questions.
What regex would I use to remove every ref on a page? -[[User:Arlen22|Arlen22]] ([[User talk:Arlen22|talk]]) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 14:31, 2 August 2021

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

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

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit source]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

22:07, 10 June 2021‎ (UTC)

Wikimania 2021: Individual Program Submissions[edit source]

Wikimania logo with text 2.svg

Dear all,

Wikimania 2021 will be hosted virtually for the first time in the event's 15-year history. Since there is no in-person host, the event is being organized by a diverse group of Wikimedia volunteers that form the Core Organizing Team (COT) for Wikimania 2021.

Event Program - Individuals or a group of individuals can submit their session proposals to be a part of the program. There will be translation support for sessions provided in a number of languages. See more information here.

Below are some links to guide you through;

Please note that the deadline for submission is 18th June 2021.

Announcements- To keep up to date with the developments around Wikimania, the COT sends out weekly updates. You can view them in the Announcement section here.

Office Hour - If you are left with questions, the COT will be hosting some office hours (in multiple languages), in multiple time-zones, to answer any programming questions that you might have. Details can be found here.

Best regards,

MediaWiki message delivery (discusscontribs) 04:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikimania 2021 Core Organizing Team

Please provide input here or on Meta and during an upcoming Global Conversation on 26-27 June 2021 about the Movement Charter drafting committee[edit source]

Hello, I'm one of the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators working on community engagement for the Movement Charter initiative.

We're inviting input widely from users of many projects about the upcoming formation of the Movement Charter drafting committee. You can provide feedback here, at the central discussion on Meta, at other ongoing local conversations, and during a Global Conversation upcoming on 26 and 27 June 2021.

The Movement Charter drafting committee is expected to work as a diverse and skilled team of about 15 members for several months. They should receive regular support from experts, regular community reviews, and opportunities for training and an allowance to offset costs. When the draft is completed, the committee will oversee a wide community ratification process.

Creating the drafting committee

Further details and context about these questions is on Meta along with a recently-updated overview of the Movement Charter initiative. Feel free to ask questions, and add additional sub-sections as needed for other areas of interest about this topic.

If contributors are interested in participating in a call about these topics ahead of the Global Conversation on 26 and 27 June, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The three questions are:

  1. What composition should the committee have in terms of movement roles, gender, regions, affiliations and other diversity factors?
  2. What is the best process to select the committee members to form a competent and diverse team?
  3. How much dedication is it reasonable to expect from committee members, in terms of hours per week and months of work?

Editing news 2021 #2[edit source]

14:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Server switch[edit source]

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do here?[edit source]

Im scared to edit. I dont know what to do. Help, anyone? Thank you 😊. Unazcorp0 (discusscontribs) 20:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Unazcorp0, and welcome to Wikibooks. You may want to start reading books and start small, e. g. by correcting spelling or grammar mistakes. My very first edit here was also just that. Kai Burghardt (discusscontribs) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAsk[edit source]

I ran across WikiAsk proposal recently. Some people oppose it with argument that the content fits in Wikibooks scope. So my question is, does Q&A fit in Wikibooks scope? Does any subset of Q&A, e.g. short HOWTOs, fit in Wikibooks scope? Is there any Q&A content already? I couldn't find any myself. HOWTOs occur only randomly as part of larger books. Policy seems to prohibit Q&A. HOWTOs could be argued to be instructional, but they are by no means textbooks. — Robert Važan (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Važan: HOWTO materials aren't prohibited - after all, many of the more programming-oriented books and strategy guides are forms of "HOWTO". That being said, while we do have WB:RR, Wikibooks is not a replacement for StackOverflow, because the latter allows people to ask for questions to be answered, which is not the purpose of Wikibooks. MediaWiki in general is a poor choice for a Q/A style website - StackOverflow-style places are forum-first, not wiki-first, and something like Discourse would be a better choice. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: Wiki is a good platform for Q&A if it is used correctly. Notice that many answers on StackOverflow are "community wiki" already, which is a workaround for flaws of the standard StackOverflow page structure. But usability of wiki for Q&A is beside the point here. I am asking about inclusion criteria and site structure. Can there be standalone (short) HOWTOs on Wikibooks or should they be always a part of some book? And if someone creates a page that asks a question, i.e. it contains only a notice requesting someone to fill in the content, will the page get deleted? — Robert Važan (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Važan: While there is some precedent of what you describe, in general no, because a FAQ in itself cannot comprise a book. As part of a book perhaps. And "someone creates a page that asks a question" will generally be speedily-deleted after a week as abandoned or out-of-scope.
A book that contains FAQs as a side would be OK, a book that's only a FAQ isn't because that's not a book. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: PS: Do FAQs belong in Wikibooks? Because Q&A site is essentially a giant shared FAQ. — Robert Važan (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert Važan: I don’t think so. Wikibooks is, hence its name, a site for books, you know, like textbooks. As such they are at some point “finished”, so you can, in theory, read them stem to stern. This will hardly be the case for a mere Q‘n’A‑“book”. Most users will simply duckduckgo their question and after it’s been solved [ideally] never consult the source again. IMO this is pretty similar to a dictionary. (Nonetheless, FAQs may still appear as part of books, but they rather have a “preemptive” character.) Kai Burghardt (discusscontribs) 14:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on WB:NFCC[edit source]

I'm looking for some clarification on WB:NFCC. I'd like to use Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney/Episode 2: Turnabout Sisters/Day 2 - Trial as an example page. This page (and the whole book associated with it) makes extensive use of non-free images, and I feel this contradicts a number of the Criteria.

  • 1b) The images are used repeatedly for aesthetic purposes.
  • 4) StrategyWiki is not the original copyright holder for any of these images.

I believe 1a) is also not met on a number of pages, but not specifically on this one. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's some pages with more images than that, but in the rationale for those images (still being kept to a minimum) it says that these images show what the characters and icons look like. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the first interaction, the player should know who the character is without showing the same picture repeatedly. Having the image on the characters page should suffice. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 19:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. It prob does violate 1b, although I figured the rationale stated that the image wasn't uploaded solely for aesthetic purpose, but is to illustrate someone in the guide. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me (and this is just my opinion looking at the page, others can disagree), I don't think it contradicts the criteria. While @SuperHamster: is right in that other Wikimedia projects are unlikely to tolerate the use of these non-free images, this is Wikibooks and to me at least, I can imagine the quality of the page being diminished if these images are removed (citing rule 8). I would agree with @2005-Fan: here. We certainly don't want to be as hard as Wikipedia with their irritating DatBot. Consider it as my thoughts under personal capacity. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you guys feel that having the exact content from the game included on these pages falls under wikibooks fair use? -- Prod (discusscontribs) 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to an over two hour video of gameplay footage without greater context, time stamps (I understand that since the YouTube shortlink is blocked on Wikimedia projects, this is a bit difficult to share natively), etc. makes it less likely to get a response, especially from general wikibooks users who aren't involved video game strategy guides (Since we are in the general section of the reading room). I think I get the gist of what you are saying though. At 1:09:18 (?t=4158) the Bellboy makes his testimony in the game. In the import from strategywiki at Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney/Episode_2:_Turnabout_Sisters/Day_2_-_Trial#Bellboy's_Testimony:_Miss_May's_Room_Service, this testimony is transcribed verbatim. I didn't scrub the video for other testimony scenes, but I understand you are saying that every testimony in this guide is transcribed in such an exact way, correct? Granted the proceeding and following conversations are not transcribed (Otherwise this guide would be substantially longer), but that is roughly a paragraph or so of direct quotations per testimony. I'm not knowledgeable enough about policy to comment on what exactly should be done though. Still I hope that this explanation helps other Wikibooks users make a decision. (Assuming I understood Prod correctly.) --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 16:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought i copy-pasted the timestamp. I've updated the link above (t=2386), which corresponds to this section. But yes, as you mentioned, these segments of the game are transcribed verbatim from the game into the guide. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 2[edit source]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 2, July 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the second issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

If you haven’t already, please remember to subscribe here if you would like to be notified about future editions of the newsletter, and also leave your username here if you’d like to be contacted to help with translations in the future.

  • Enforcement Draft Guidelines Review - Initial meetings of the drafting committee have helped to connect and align key topics on enforcement, while highlighting prior research around existing processes and gaps within our movement. (continue reading)
  • Targets of Harassment Research - To support the drafting committee, the Wikimedia Foundation has conducted a research project focused on experiences of harassment on Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Functionaries’ Consultation - Since June, Functionaries from across the various wikis have been meeting to discuss what the future will look like in a global context with the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable Discussions - The UCoC facilitation team once again, hosted another roundtable discussion, this time for Korean-speaking community members and participants of other ESEAP projects to discuss the enforcement of the UCoC. (continue reading)
  • Early Adoption of UCoC by Communities - Since its ratification by the Board in February 2021, situations whereby UCoC is being adopted and applied within the Wikimedia community have grown. (continue reading)
  • New Timeline for the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee - The CRC was originally expected to conclude by July 1. However, with the UCoC now expected to be in development until December, the timeline for the CRC has also changed. (continue reading)
  • Wikimania - The UCoC team is planning to hold a moderated discussion featuring representatives across the movement during Wikimania 2021. It also plans to have a presence at the conference’s Community Village. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs - Check out the most recent publications about the UCoC on Wikimedia Diff blog. (continue reading)

Thanks for reading - we welcome feedback about this newsletter. Xeno (WMF) (discusscontribs) 02:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (Aug 2 - Sept 1, 2021)[edit source]

The call for candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee is now open. The full announcement is below. Xeno (WMF) (discusscontribs) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read in other languages

Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.

The Committee is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation.

English fluency is not required to become a member. If needed, translation and interpretation support is provided. Members will receive an allowance to offset participation costs. It is US$100 every two months.

We are looking for people who have some of the following skills:

  • Know how to write collaboratively. (demonstrated experience is a plus)
  • Are ready to find compromises.
  • Focus on inclusion and diversity.
  • Have knowledge of community consultations.
  • Have intercultural communication experience.
  • Have governance or organization experience in non-profits or communities.
  • Have experience negotiating with different parties.

The Committee is expected to start with 15 people. If there are 20 or more candidates, a mixed election and selection process will happen. If there are 19 or fewer candidates, then the process of selection without election takes place.

Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy here. Please contact strategy2030﹫wikimedia.org with questions.