Fukushima Aftermath/Fukushima Aftermath/Series Manual of Style
Manual of Style: Basic Principles
"Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Wiktionary can each be thought of as hosting a single book for instance. Keeping this in mind should help you to understand many of Wikibooks' differences." SOURCE:Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikimedians
Wikibooks are not encyclopedias
Wikibooks are not wikipedia
They have independent history, precedent, attitudes, structure.
Wikibooks are preferentially textbooks
Basic differences from Wikipedia as applicable to this series
Developmental stage and editorial background
Wikibooks is in the earlier stages of its development relative to Wikipedia, but more its editors tend to have prior experience. Thus there is greater flexibility and room for innovations. Because it is relatively younger in its development, there is more room for departure from what may be established as status quo at Wikipedia. A healthy manifestation of this flexibility may arise from the content of a given book.
Aggregation of topics
Books such as the FA series tend to aggregate topics, typically as chapters, which, on Wikipedia would be scattered on different articles. Articles on Wikipedia are connected by hatnotes, disambiguation pages and hyperlinking of individual words; they are also connected through projects, task forces and portals. This book seeks to establish a standard of greater precision in chapter titles than is customary on Wikipedia articles. See for instance the lengthly discussion required to disambiguate nuclear "energy" policy from nuclear policy in general, which also includes nuclear "weapons" policy. Rationale: This is deemed necessary because of the technical nature of nuclear energy policy.
Basic aspects of the FAS: Real name editing is well established
This book and the series were established by an editor writing in his own name. That precedent might not suit editorial objectives which rely upon anonymity as a key strategy, for instance writing which seeks to take a highly contentious, controversial, polemic or unusual approach. While such approaches might past the stylistic constraint of Neutral Point of View, it may be possible that it would be inconsistent with the historically established pattern of real name editing. In such a case, it might be more advantageous for such an effort to be independent of the FA Series.
Corllary: Real name hence real courteousy
As a corollary: Editing in one's real name is not required in this series but it exists in this series. Editing in your real name means that you do not have anonymity. Words have consequences and without the cloak of anonymity it is prudent to be courteous and respectful. That higher level of respectfulness is consistent with the possible attraction of contributions from persons with topical expertise. There is an advantage in that persons with topical expertise can be invited and are more likely to contribute where a tone of collegiality prevails.
Consequential points of style
The bottom line is the suggestion that the development of FA Series books be more attentive to good quality interaction and conflict resolution than is typical at Wikipedia. In order to attract real name editing that higher level of respectfulness is explicit that cavalier remarks which may be injurious to any class of persons on the basis of race, sex, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, creed, religion, ability, age, mental or physical disability, and so forth is expected to be at a higher standard than at Wikipedia. The rationale includes but is not limited to the following content-specific, series-specific characteristics: (a) the Fukushima event was a grave tragedy which involved thousands of lost lives, persons suffering permanent disabling injuries and persons made destitute and homeless. As such, the whole trend of English-speaking intellectual history is consistent with a humanitarian sentiment which is strictly not recognized at Wikipedia, which disdains humanitarian subjectivity with a highly clinical and detached emphasis on neutrality and a high emphasis on "free speech" as a universal slogan which may be tolerable or appropriate for general content but which is not consistent with a higher education focus on a particularly tragic event. Persons who are inclined to minimize the humanist dimension may wish to create separate and distinct books which are outside of the subject areas of political activism, for instance, books solely within the subject area of nuclear engineering.
This book was conceived and initiated by a person editing in his real name and seeks to maintain a style which is conducive to that mode of editing. Thus, a higher level of courtesy and respect is required than generally prevails on collaborative internet editorial projects.
The level of the material assumes completion of high school for non-science majors.
which stresses the scope of each book which thus far limits the scope of FA:DNC to issues pertaining to the past, present and future of the Diablo Canyon Plant.
Manual of style: issues of terminology
Terminology of plants
The debate over nuclear power plants has spawned subsidiary debates about crucial terminology. Two areas of contention exist with regard to terminology.
- Power Plant or a Nuclear Power Plant?
Terminology of the Fukushima event
- Was the event at Fukushima an incident, an accident or a disaster?
Choosing nomenclature to characterize the Fukushima event
- Incident is a technical term for classifying nuclear events which contradict plans. There is a graded system of levels of nuclear incident.
- Accident implies a failure of human or machine.
- Disaster suggests a natural catastrophic event.
An accident can be a disaster, in terms of its consequences. Thus, accident refers more to a specific malfunction or series of malfunctions, whereas disaster incorporates the consequences as well as the underlying incident or accident which caused it. But in effect, disaster tends to focus attention on the consequent, and it has an implication of massive scale.