This project page is move-protected.

Wikibooks:Reading room/General

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Call for review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement[edit source]


Just a short message to call people interested to review, comment and discuss my PhD thesis on Wikimedia movement. All the best, Lionel Scheepmans (discusscontribs) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Questions about Wikibooks[edit source]

Hello everyone,

I have a few questions and I didn't know where to put them, so I chose "general". I'm a volunteer in german wikibooks project. I edited a lot on the german wikijunior how things work and some other bits and pieces, though my main interest at the moment is wikibooks in general (the housekeeping, if you'd like). I went on wikibreak for ~the last two years, but I'm trying to slowly intensifying my work again.

Recently there is a new book-project (actually bookS :-)) ongoing (a lot of law researchers started to write open books on german wikibooks, it's awesome!), but to support the group I'd like some more insight in wikimedia/-books-processes, that are currently not implemented in wb:de or are not visible and/or understandable to me, because I'm not an admin.

Especially at the moment the group asked for the "review"-feature and we are missing experienced admins.

So I have the following questions at the moment:

  1. are you in general or someone specific able and willing to support me, when I have questions about wikimedia-processes and the like?
  2. there's a site-note on top of your pages concerning the video game strategy thing. If I recall correctly, when I see a site-note on wb:de there is no "button" dismiss; how does this work?
  3. could someone tell me anything about the reviewing process in wb:en (that's going beyond Help:Tracking_changes#Reviewing_page, I'm especially wondering about the "levels", how do they work)? How long are you using it? What steps would be necessary to implement it? Is there any feedback from academic editors? How big is the administrative workload?
  4. would it be somehow possible to get first hand insight (maybe precisely timed and/or personally guided or something)? I didn't want to ask for permissions right away, because it would be pretty awkward in respect of me not editing activly in wb:en.
  5. there are some in the de-community that say: hey, let's just try, what could possibly go wrong? Would that concern anyone of you? (it concerns me, because a) we lack experienced admins and b) everyone is quick to try, but lazy with cleanup, if it doesn't work. Sadly I'm not immune to this as well. Or, in the worst case, cleanup is only possible for admins.) From your point of view, how much could actually go wrong if anything? Let's say in a few month everybody doesn't use the feature any more... How much cleanup would be needed? How much overhead is to be expected?

Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks a lot --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 01:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yeah if I'm around ask here or on my talk.
  2. Well the page that needs to be edited is MediaWiki:Sitenotice (you have to have admin access to edit). I think the hide function is a built-in part of that page.
  3. Well the levels work much as explained there; you can simply alter the level during the review process. It works on any site with mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs. Configuration is complex, but you need to do it through Phabricator. The workload is not too bad, because unreviewed pages are normally displayed without problem. I'm not aware of any feedback from academic editors.
  4. Well for permissions, you need to ask at WB:RFP. Some of them have automatic requirements, such as reviewer. If you don't fulfill them, you may still be granted them, but its at the discretion of an admin or bureaucrat.
  5. Well not too much would probably go wrong if you implemented pending change review. If pages aren't reviewed, most of them are unaffected (the exception is the Wikijunior pages, that default to the "stable version", but this can be configured). However it is complex to set up, particular in creating the 'reviewer' user group; but not something I'm experienced with. If you look at Wikibooks:FlaggedRevs Extension it explains to some degree how it was done.
--Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Though during discussion we found out, that the extension is not installed anymore by wikimedia, see m:Flagged_Revisions and m:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions deployment. So we need to think about another way and my other questions are no longer valid. Best regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 20:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HirnSpuk: fine, although you may be able to get it installed if you tried, although it will be quite technical. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we'll try. Though I strongly oppose it and don't see who could take care of this undertaking in wb:de. I don't know yet, where the discussions might lead. If you're interested, I'd keep you posted?
I am advocating editions (short: on request of the author(s), blocking a fixed, proof read version (→ 1. Edition) by an administrator, so further editing needs to take place on an "unstable version", which, in time, could be promoted to the next edition). Though there are a lot of problems to take into account, before using such a practice.
Btw: thanks for the welcome-Message! Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 20:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HirnSpuk: well you could keep us informed, although I don't speak Deutsch so I'm of limited use. If you don't like the sound of it, I don't think it's too necessary; English Wikipedia have very few pages protected in this way. Another way is to semi-protect pages, which should keep most vandalism at bay. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the sound of it"? Well no problem with "Deutsch" ;-), for the most parts (except for some "sounds of it" ;-)) I don't have trouble understanding english and I hope my english isn't too bad. And I'm really really grateful for your offer to help.
Well it's not about vandalism. The problem is, capable authors will finish their books more or less by themselfs. It's not meant that way, but it's the experience in wb:de over the years. When those authors finished their book and leave, which happens from time to time, it's really hard to judge if an edit is valid or not. Sure, the obvious vandalism is easy to fix (and it's not that big of a deal), but take medicine for example, an error here can be pretty significant, but a "normal admin" is not trained in medicine, so an edit, that seems valid, doesn't need to be, and hence could not be checked accordingly.
To make things worse we have first hand experience with a user, that said he knows, edited really much, and it took us some time to realize, he actually doesn't know anything. There is a ton of collateral damage. And although blocked he even comes back from time to time with a new user-name. It takes around a week to recognize him by his editing-behaviour. Most of his edits are hard-core-physics like quantum-physics or theory of special relativity. This is really hard to review. When there is a fixed Edition he could edit an unstable Version all he likes, if anytime a pro comes along, he or she can judge, what is done, but we still have a valid page to show the average visitor.
My experience with the reviewing in wp:de is pretty bad, because my edits got rejected more than once for citing primary sources or using personal experience as a source. I wasn't aware, that it's possible in a way you do it, which seems pretty reasonable, if I do understand it correctly.
Hmm... That got pretty long... Sorry for that, I've no intention to spam. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HirnSpuk: "the sound of it" is an English phrase meaning "judging from what you have heard or read about something". It seems to me, from what you've said, that pending changes protection may be a perfect antidote to your problems. And you could install it on your project and try it out. And there is not much of an overhead, as long as you don't default page view to the stable version. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now I understand. I know the phrase, but didn't recognize, what you were referring to. Yes, but are we able to install it ourselfs? I thought the Wikimedia-Techteam needs to deploy this? Referring to phab:T66726: "it means that there is no new FR installations any more and question is now what to do with existing ones." --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 01:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: FlaggedRevs appears to be in maintenance mode indeed, and from the looks of it, I don't think de.wikibooks will be to install it themselves. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HirnSpuk, Leaderboard: I wasn't aware of phab:T66726. I've been looking through phabricator, and it looks like they're no longer deploying. I came across phab:T205145 from 2018 "Deploy FlaggedRevs on bn.wikibooks"; the status is "Open, Stalled, Needs Triage". I also came across m:Requests for comment/Flagged revisions deployment. Well it doesn't look very likely it would be accepted, although it could still be requested I suppose. I don't think it would be possible to install without system admin access. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing German Wikimedia Open Science Project - OpenRewi[edit source]

Hi folks,

My German Wikibooks friend @HirnSpuk has already talked about work related to our project. Therefore I like to introduce myself and the project properly. Also because we like to start writing books at the English Wikibooks community.

I am a legal scholar based in northern Germany. My research interests are (critical) legal theory, human rights and data protection. Currently I am writing my PhD about the human right to data protection from a post-individual perspective.

In the past months (2020/21) I have been an Open Science Fellow of the Wikimedia Foundation Germany. My project is called "OpenRewi" (Rewi="Rechtswissenschaft"=legal science). Our goal is to write Open Educational Ressources on various legal topics. Currently we have projects on human rights, criminal law, intellectual property law, law on migration and asylum as well as empirical legal studies. Our projects consist of teams with "editors" and "authors". Although we use traditional terminology, we try to work in a different way. The teams are supposed to work in an agile way without hierarchies. Editors moderate the process of planning and writing. Contents and concepts of our book are planned by the whole project team.

We write our texts currently at the German Wikibooks version in booksprints. Each booksprint consists of several weeks of writing as well as an open peer review process. We try to use the material in our university seminars as much as possible in order to get the feedback from students. After our prototype books reached a satisfactory quality we will publish them as an Open Access Version (CC-BY-SA) with one of the traditional publishers. As we are starting an international team in public international law that will work in English, we are eager to get in contact with the English Wikibooks community. :)

We would like to ask for your opinion on the project structure we imagined to be reiterated in the english Wikibooks community. Currently in the German Wikibooks we got our user page as a project where we collect how-to-guides and best-practices regarding our quality standards for our books. Of course each author/editor has her own user page, which they use to write actual content within the books. Our books as well as templates (in German "Vorlage") are all preceded by OpenRewi. Do you think this organizational structure would also work in the English version?

If you agree on that, we would start translating our German project page for the English version and try to rebuilt the templates in the English Wikibooks version. You can of course always reach me for questions. We are all pretty excited about this!

Cheers Max --Maximilian.Petras (discusscontribs) 08:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @User:Maximilian.Petras don't forget to ask about your Linking-wishes, visual editor and the way you are numbering headings. I looked into the help pages here quickly and didn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it's not there. I'm on mobile right now, so a little bit short on ressource and time :-), so sorry for leaving in depth Description up to you. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 10:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@all much better editing non-mobile :-). To clarify: The OpenRewi-project relys on e few things, that might be contradictory to how things might be done around here. First: They want to rely heavily on the visual editor and mobil use. I don't know about wb:en, but in wb:de we see both as some kind of "yeah, they're there, but not really useful". With that, there come some implications e. g. that we "softened" our rules concerning templates. The preceding "OpenRewi" with templates helps a great deal using and navigating the templates in visual editing. Second they want to number headings, which in wb:de is normally discouraged, because it has potential for making problems in the long run. Third they want to use not interwiki-links but normal links frequently, to prepare for using the stuff outside the wikimedia-world. All of this might touch some of your guidelines and policies, though I wasn't able to find something. But I didn't review them in depth.
Did I miss anything, @Max? He will probably be able to elaborate further if necessary. Regards --HirnSpuk (discusscontribs) 12:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @User:HirnSpuk for raising the issue of visual editing. The reason why we want to rely heavily on both visual editing and mobile use is that we are convinced that it reduces barriers. For the public international law project, this may be even more important, given that some of our authors and (hopefully) a large part of our readers will be based in the Global South. Sué González Hauck (discusscontribs) 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I am also part of the "OpenRewi" community and am currently participating in a book project co-edited by @Maximilian.Petras on fundamental rights in German constitutional law. I have a PhD in public international law from St. Gallen University in Switzerland and am part of the editing team of, the leading academic blog on public international law in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Together with three colleagues, who are all doing doctoral and post-doctoral research in public international law, we want to write an open access textbook on public international law with a gender-balanced and geographically representative team of authors.
Cheers, Sué -- Sué González Hauck (discusscontribs) 14:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian.Petras, HirnSpuk, Sué González Hauck: Welcome to English Wikibooks!

Well looking through your proposal, and it looks fine to me. We always welcome high-quality translations, and this is no exception. I will make the following points:

  1. Our naming policy for books is at Wikibooks:Naming policy. Now if you want to include OpenRewi in your book titles there is nothing prohibiting that. So your organizational style seems to me to be acceptable.
  2. Again your templates seem fine. I think it would be fine to use OpenRewi in their titles.
  3. Visual editing is accepted here, and is the default for editors. If your templates help with mobile viewing, this is a bonus.
  4. Our advice on styling is at Help:Local manuals of style and Wikibooks:Manual of Style. Now neither of these are policies, they just provide general guidance on good practice. If you wish to number headings, or use interwiki-links, both would be allowed.
  5. If you are writing books on international law, these would normally be placed on Shelf:International law. To do so please read Wikibooks:CCO Resources.
  6. Your user page may be best placed within our Wikibooks:WikiProject pages.
  7. Any further questions please ask. We have a general help page at Help:Contents which might be helpful.

Good luck with your books! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd: Thank you for the warm welcome! All this sounds just excellent. I guess we will start with a Project-Page an go on from there. Really great, that you got this project feature. --Maximilian.Petras (discusscontribs) 07:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribed history podcast[edit source]

I am part of the team working on a maritime history podcast by history professor John Curtis Perry. We have been publishing it in Apple Podcasts (and the like), and also donating the episodes to Wikimedia Commons, under the standard Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. This podcast is based on a graduate school course. I wonder if we could offer the compiled transcripts as a Wikibook here. We would appreciate your guidance. JCPod (discusscontribs) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? "Although we do not permit verbatim copies of pre-existing works, we do permit annotated texts, which are a kind of text that includes an original text within it and serves as a guide to reading or studying that text. Annotated editions of previously published source texts may only be written if the source text is compatible with the project's license.
As a point of overlap between the two projects, Wikisource also allows the inclusion of annotated texts. If you would like to write a sparsely annotated text or a sparsely critical edition of a text, consider hosting your work more appropriately on Wikisource instead."
I hope that answers your question. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jules for your answer. JCPod (discusscontribs) 03:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct – 2021 consultations[edit source]

Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2[edit source]

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a universal baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire Wikimedia movement and all its projects. The project is currently in Phase 2, outlining clear enforcement pathways. You can read more about the whole project on its project page.

Drafting Committee: Call for applications[edit source]

The Wikimedia Foundation is recruiting volunteers to join a committee to draft how to make the code enforceable. Volunteers on the committee will commit between 2 and 6 hours per week from late April through July and again in October and November. It is important that the committee be diverse and inclusive, and have a range of experiences, including both experienced users and newcomers, and those who have received or responded to, as well as those who have been falsely accused of harassment.

To apply and learn more about the process, see Universal Code of Conduct/Drafting committee.

2021 community consultations: Notice and call for volunteers / translators[edit source]

From 5 April – 5 May 2021 there will be conversations on many Wikimedia projects about how to enforce the UCoC. We are looking for volunteers to translate key material, as well as to help host consultations on their own languages or projects using suggested key questions. If you are interested in volunteering for either of these roles, please contact us in whatever language you are most comfortable.

To learn more about this work and other conversations taking place, see Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations.

-- Xeno (WMF) (talk)

20:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion[edit source]

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikibooks users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikibooks. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Line numbering coming soon to all wikis[edit source]

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for asking for import an article which written in English in ja.wikibooks[edit source]

Hello! I've found ja:AI in Open and Distance Education, which is the article in subject. I thought it's better for the article to be belong this wiki than ja.wikibooks. However, I'm not familar about acceptable topics and importing policy for this wiki. Please let me know if the article can be transwiki-ed into this wiki, thank you. --Semi-Brace (discusscontribs) 10:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Semi-Brace:, we can definitely transwiki the article here, but I need to ask whether that is supposed to be a book, because from what I see it looks more like an encyclopaedic article. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 12:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of Human Physiology[edit source]


I'm not really sure what to do about this since it's a cross Wikibooks/Commons matter, so I'm posting about it here.

The cover image of Human Physiology is quite low resolution compared to other featured books, which lead me to look for a higher resolution one. I identified the work as w:Fritz Kahn's Man as an industrial palace / Der Mensch als Industriepalast

However I found further information about the work which brings some concern at the NIH. The poster made in 1926. Could someone who knows more about fair use determine what should be done?

Thank you for your time! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original image was deleted as a copyvio: see c:File:Man as machine high res.jpg. I think the best thing would be to request deletion of the image c:File:Human Physiology Cover Thumb.png at Commons, and replace Wikibooks usage with something more suitable. I'm bit short of time at the moment, but I'll look into it later. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! If it helps you, I went ahead and put in the deletion request on commons. Thanks for your help! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 20:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Values[edit source]

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]