Wikibooks:Reading room/General

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

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

De-Recognition of Wikimedia Hong Kong[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimedia-logo black.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 will start on May 5[edit]

The first cycle of the Wikimedia movement strategy process recently concluded. During that period, we were discussing the main directions for the Wikimedia movement over the next 15 years. There are more than 1500 summary statements collected from the various communities, but unfortunately, none from your local discussion (the only comment visible there was imported from Meta). The strategy facilitators and many volunteers have summarized the discussions of the previous month. A quantitative analysis of the statements will be posted on Meta for translation this week, alongside the report from the Berlin conference.

The second cycle will begin soon. It's set to begin on May 5 and run until May 31. During that period, you will be invited to dive into the main topics that emerged in the first cycle, discuss what they mean, which ones are the most important and why, and what their practical implications are. This work will be informed and complemented by research involving new voices that haven’t traditionally been included in strategy discussions, like readers, partners, and experts. Together, we will begin to make sense of all this information and organize it into a meaningful guiding document, which we will all collectively refine during the third and last cycle in June−July.

We want to help your community to be more engaged with the discussions in the next cycle. Now, we are looking for volunteers who could

  • tell us where to announce the start of the Cycle 2, and how to do that, so we could be sure the majority of your community is informed and has a chance to feel committed, and
  • facilitate the Cycle 2 discussions here, on Wikibooks.

We are looking forward to your feedback!

Base (WMF) and SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 16:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Seems to me your process is inherently (and probably irredeemably) flawed. Surely it can't be a surprise that you get no feedback from a project the Foundation has dissed for years. A veteran Wikibookian would naturally expect that participation in the process would be time wasted, and that the Foundation would use their participation to help legitimize whatever the Foundation wanted to do anyway; the difference with non-participation would be that the Foundation would use that as an excuse for ignoring us, which they would do anyway, and without our having invested profitless time in it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The movement and the Foundation are two different beings, and now, we're running a strategy process for the former. The movement has many stakeholders: there are many wikis, developers, readers, long-term donors, affiliates, partners (like GLAM institutions). All of them are to be heard and are being heard, so please, don't imply that there is a match WMF vs. anyone. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Realistically that's a fiction. The "movement", in that sense, is an invention of the Foundation. The Foundation is a centralized organization that, by the nature of such organizations, seeks to centrally control, including defining the rules of the game. The " (WMF)" at the end of your username defies the claim that it's not a Foundation process.

Whatever one calls the evolved means by which such organizations manipulate the perceptions of their personnel, you're within its field of influence. I'm outside. What I see from here is, a stark contradiction between the Foundation (not its personnel) and the volunteers. A striking pattern I've observed amongst WMF personnel is that they pretty consistently underestimate the schism by a huge margin. The problem isn't just that the Foundation needs to "communicate better" with the volunteers, the Foundation's basic objectives (in practice, not on paper) are actively counter-productive. This is visible from a quick list of key concerns from the volunteer side. The sisterhood is a bottom-up decentralized structure, with the primordial goal of empowering The People to have a voice in information providing (of course it sounds idealistic — idealism is the required fuel of all volunteer-driven efforts), wiki markup is the key technical device that makes it possible, and societal evils combated notably include propaganda. The Foundation, as a top-down centralized structure, inevitably seeks to centralize control and thereby disempowers volunteer control of infrastructure, notably including sidelining and undermining wiki markup. As for propaganda... well. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but WMF is younger than Wikipedia. My home Polish Wikipedia was primarily outside of the Wikimedia umbrella and branding, before WMF was established, and simply it's not true that the movement is an invention of WMF. It's precisely opposite. Let's talk about Wikimedia without mentioning WMF. It's possible. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Dzień dobry @SGrabarczuk (WMF): you must know some of the disses concerning only Wikimedia. For example, I couldn't help thinking about the JavaScript developers works sabotages. I'm referring to the broken gadgets, several per site every year for at least five ones (including this week!), which have provoked the resignation of a few qualified fellows.
So naively I didn't propose anything hopping that our website performances, which seems to be taken for granted, would stay a priority. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Salut, JackPotte. I think your concerns fit the strategy discussions. You should elaborate on that during the Cycle 2. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (discusscontribs) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@SGrabarczuk (WMF): In this exchange you repeatedly failed to understand the points I was making. First, you missed my point about the inherent flaw of the process you're describing. You then shifted the topic from that process to the Foundation's relationship with "the movement", where you confused the history of the Foundation with the de facto policies of the Foundation. You appear to have mistaken me for someone ignorant of basic history; and then you suggested that we talk about wikimedia "without mentioning WMF" — which is literally impossible since "WMF" is part of the username of the account you're editing from, as well as impossible in spirit because you are, apparently, editing in an official capacity as a representative of the Foundation. Sadly, I don't think we're going to successfully communicate. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Are there responsible authors in the english-speaking Wikibooks community ?[edit]

A new rule about authorship and responsibility is under discussion : Wikibooks:Respect for authors. TD (discusscontribs)

The new rule comes from the french-speaking Wikibooks community. But it is not a french invasion.

A responsible author is an author who thinks that he or she is responsible for the book, and that he or she has the right to refuse unwanted modifications, because the book is the product of his or her work. If other authors give additions, and if these additions are accepted by the responsible author, he or she is still the sole responsible for the book, except if he or she decides to give up a part of the responsibility. For more precisions, see Wikibooks:Respect for authors.

Am I the sole english-speaking (badly) responsible author in the community ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 10:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has a fundamental right to be "the" authority on a book. It's not uncommon for a book to have one person writing it, and it's just common sense that someone else doesn't barge in and mess up someone else's work; if they can't find a way to cooperate they ought to fork the book so they can pursue their different and incompatible visions. Adopting an abandoned book is also something one does carefully and thoughtfully. But this is all very, very different from having someone whose right to the book is built in, as a formal relationship to the book. There are infinite variations possible on the sometimes-subtle question of who is the active contributing community of a book; you are proposing instead to create a special responsible author status, fundamentally separate from the existing spectrum and with institutionalized right of control, contrary to the spirit of positive cooperation and collaboration we have always tried to nurture here. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think my proposition is contrary to the spirit of cooperation and collaboration the community nurtured here.
Do you think that I will convince many scientists to work with us, if I say to them that they won't have the right to refuse unwanted modifications of their textbooks ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That is an example of what I mean by trying to bias the discussion by insisting on your conceptual framework. This pattern occurs commonly in lunatic-fringe politics: "How many X must suffer Y before Z", where there may in fact be no actual examples of an X suffering Y, and if there are it may have nothing to do with Z. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That I try to convince scientists to write their textbooks as wikibooks is not hypothetical. I want to spend my life working on Wikibooks because I think it will be the best scientific library in the world. How will we do that if scientists don't want to work with us ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But why would someone want to post a textbook here if he is fundamentally opposed to changes to it? Everyone here is against vandalism and anyone can have an account to monitor changes, so the assumption is that if you just have enough eyes on the project, it will work out okay. If you don't believe in those ideas (or if the community itself is insufficient to realize them) then I don't know why someone would choose Wikibooks in the first place. Can you elaborate a little? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
To refuse unwanted modifications is not to be fundamentally opposed to changes to it. Authors on Wikibooks want their books to be modified and criticized. Otherwise they would not write on Wikibooks. I want my readers to change my books, because it would tell me what they think, and because their changes could be useful. But I want to have the right to refuse their modifications if I don't like them. Am I wrong ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: But why are they "unwanted"? Is it because they are genuinely bad--inaccurate, vandalism, unintelligible, redundant, etc.--or just because you don't like them? If they are bad edits, then anyone can undo them and if there is a sufficiently large community, someone will. If they are just edits that you don't like, then you can propose an alternative just like I could. Can you give me a more concrete example of a change that you would want to undo with these elevated author's rights? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That I don't like it is a sufficient reason.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I cannot give you a concrete example, because noone never tried to modify my books, except minor corrections. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course, before refusing a modification I will discuss it. If a reader honors me with his or her reaction to my book, I will be very interested, and I will want to talk. But discussions are fruitful only when participants respect the rules. I don't want to have to justify myself to someone who does not respect the rules. The best way to get rid of such a nuisance is to say : I refuse your modification of my work because I don't like it. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. Wikibooks isn't for personal hosting. You can always keep a draft in your userspace, or you can generate a PDF version from your preferred revision which is far more stable, and as you pointed out, there simply isn't likely to be much in the way of edit-warring here for a variety of reasons. But there will never be an actual rule that grants someone ownership over the material here. Edit: Although, I will say that if you just want attribution, it is perfectly acceptable to have a subpage on primary authorship. Just not ownership. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Ownership is not the same as control, every author on the wikibooks project retains ownership over their contributions they just license several rights away. The nature of that license does removes some degree of control from the authors but never ownership, unless specifically stated or the result of doing the contributive work as part of a "paid" job to a third party (that third party would retain the ownership). Panic (discusscontribs) 10:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To Justin and Panic: It seems you misrepresent me and you don't understand this discussion. I never talk about legal questions, only about the internal rules we need to work in satisfactory conditions.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: No, I realize you're not talking about a legal change--I am not misconstruing you there. I'm saying that there is no prospect that we will adopt a rule that gives someone a kind of carte blanche veto for edits he dislikes. If that is your only reason for undoing an edit, then that is not a sufficient one. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It's your opinion. I respect it. I encourage you to keep on working as you want, except if you want to prevent me from working as I want. You can vote on this subject : Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Is it really necessary to formulate this in terms of "I don't like it" or "working as I want"? There is always some motivation behind a dislike, and -- assuming the authors have clear goals and welcome contributions -- it should be possible to express this motivation as a rationale grounded on how the change affects the book and the plans to further develop it, and therefore to justify the rejection. If the other participants are being "a nuisance" -- by refusing to justify their edits, engage in discussion or look for compromises, or by running roughshod over existing work, etc. -- they are already in the wrong by virtue of being a nuisance, and the authors do not need any form of de jure ultimate authority to point that out and revert the changes as necessary. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 22:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


@Thierry Dugnolle: Your question seems to call for a concrete answer, so I will do what I can, that is, talk about my experience.
I am the long-term maintainer of the Haskell Wikibook. That is a de facto position: no one appointed me or gave me permission. Once upon a time, I did a handful of edits under the guidance of a more experienced contributor; some time later, I returned to the book and started working on my own. Over the following years, I have written several new chapters and rewritten, reworked, reorganised and updated most of the remaining parts. I have plans for what the book should eventually look like, and they are slowly but steadily being put into practice. Whenever the opportunity shows up, I discuss these plans with people who become regular contributors or otherwise show a broader interest in the book, and gather their feedback about my ideas.
I keep a watchlist of book pages, so that I can review changes and respond to talk page messages. I liberally revert changes that I consider inappropriate, be it because of technical inaccuracies or because the changes are a poor fit for the structure and teaching strategies of the book. However, it happens just as often that I hold back from immediately rejecting a change that I didn't like at first glance, and then realise that my dislike was due to some irrelevant stylistic quibble, or that the change can be usefully accepted with a minor adjustment, or by moving it to a slightly different place in the book. Being committed to the open and collaborative nature of Wikibooks helps giving outside contributions a fair evaluation.
The Haskell Wikibook has a list of authors; it already existed before my time here. At some point, I added myself to it; later on, I included two other Wikibookians who contributed sizable amounts of original content. Am I a "responsible author"? I am inclined to say that I am, even though I don't see myself using such a title (when talking about the book elsewhere, I stick to "co-author" or "maintainer"). I don't think I am a "responsible author" under your definition, though... --Duplode (discusscontribs) 23:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This sort of situation, where one person is — for a time — the primary caretaker of a book is not uncommon, I believe. I am currently somewhat in this position myself relative to Conlang. It is a natural part of the continuous range of possible states for the current community of a book. My sense is that this is not what was being proposed, in that it is a de facto situation, not an explicitly legislated arrangement. I think it should remain de facto. Anyone who writes a book is already in such a situation, and on the other hand that situation might change in fifty years, or in five years — or in five hours. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 01:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You work on the original kind of Wikibooks. If you don't want to have the right to refuse unwanted modifications on the books you work on, it's fine. I have no objection against that. The new rule does not prevent you from working the way you like. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course you are a responsible author, even if you are not under my definition. You can give to your responsibility the meaning you want. May be my terminology is not good, but I had to choose an expression to name the concept. If you think of a better expression, feel free to change it. We are at Wikibooks ! The responsibility you're talking about is not full individual responsibility but a kind of collective and diluted responsibility. When such a responsibility is sufficient to complete a book, it's wonderful, but too often books with such diluted responsibility remain unfinished. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Dugnolle: My main point (and, I believe, of Pi Zero's comment as well) is that it is not at all clear that I would have become a long-term maintainer under the different social dynamics that would be in place if the Haskell Wikibook was a book of the second kind. Furthermore, it isn't clear either that the original authors of the book would have chosen the first kind without the strong project-wide commitment to open collaboration, as opposed to traditional authorship. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


I wanted to continue the discussion about Wikibooks, Respect for authors but I don't find it. Is it somewhere ? TD (discusscontribs)

@Thierry Dugnolle: I have remarked on this to you a number of times: WB:RFA is not, and never has been, a shortcut to your page. "RFA" stands for "Request For Adminship". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Why such a lie? You know very well, I wrote it explicitly, on a page of discussion that I do not find again, that I do not want to be administrator. TD (discusscontribs)
If I understand well, finally, my false accusation against you comes from a misunderstanding. When you wrote that WB:RFA means Request for Adminship, I thought you accused me to be a kind of dictator. But this is not what you meant. You only meant that the shortcut was already taken. Am I right ? I'm sorry that I didn't understand, and I hope you will forgive me that I accused you falsely. --TD (discusscontribs) 16:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I only meant that the shortcut was already taken. You are right. It was just a misunderstanding; entirely forgivable, and forgiven. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If all our disagreements end in a similar way, it will be better for you and me, and for everyone. Even if I make many mistakes, like our misunderstanding, I still think I'm a good verbal fighter. But such "fights" are not for my pleasure. I don't like when discussions become too conflictual. My intention is to convince with reason, not to be a dictator, or a wicked guy. When I am, it is against my true will. TD (discusscontribs)
@Thierry Dugnolle: I think I see what happened. You used a template at the top of that page, in which you specify a shortcut. But that doesn't create a shortcut; it produces a notice on the page saying that there is a shortcut. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't know. I only copied and pasted the presentation of WB:OWN and thought it would work. I always work this way. I "steal" the skill of other users. But it's not a theft, and it's how Wikibooks works. TD (discusscontribs)
That's a common way of doing things. With wiki markup, one of the important ways we learn how to do stuff is by seeing how others did it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Why exclude almost all scientists from Wikibooks ?[edit]

This question is currently under discussion on Wikibooks talk:Ownership. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 17:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This is an absurd characterization of the issue you are agitating about. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Read the answer of Justin above : @Thierry Dugnolle: Then yes, I think there will inherently be problems with posting work here. --Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

.

Wikibooks for everyone[edit]

Wikibooks for everyone exposes my personal view of what Wikibooks should be. I hope you will read it and think about it. It's short. Next week I will try to modify the official pages, add new ones and participate in the discussions as long as they are not too sterile. Parts of WB for everyone have already been published in WB:RFA.--Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 15:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Dugnolle:
  • Mainspace is not a place for a policy, if that's what you're trying to create.
  • You seem to be saying that since your proposal is not gaining traction here, you plan to modify our policy pages. That would not be appropriate behavior on your part.
  • It's not surprising your proposal isn't gaining traction. It both violates the core philosophy of the project, pervading large parts of our infrastructure; and also violates our explicit basic policy against using the project as a web host, a policy that exists pretty much specifically to prevent what you are advocating. The thing you want to do does not fit at English Wikibooks; please stop trying to force it on us by volume.
  • As I have mentioned before, "WB:RFA" is not a shortcut to your page.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
If this means that I shall not work on the help pages, it's OK with me. I have already plenty of work. And now that my book User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone is written I did almost all I wanted to do. Thierry Dugnolle (discusscontribs) 10:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

19:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017[edit]

18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionSlider[edit]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)[edit]

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee elections[edit]

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Smoothies?[edit]

Hello. A friend of mine has several recipes for smoothies. It's basically the ingredients, plus usually an evaluation of what the result is. It's basically a trial and error process, documented :) Would that content be OK for the Cookbook? Thanks. --Elitre (discusscontribs) 13:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, we already have Bartending/Cocktails. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Freely available math textbooks[edit]

At least some are copyright reserved: http://people.math.gatech.edu/~cain/textbooks/onlinebooks.htmlJustin (koavf)TCM 03:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Is that material on Wikibooks somewhere? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: No, sorry. First off, I fixed the link. Secondly, I am pointing to available books (almost 80 of them); some of them may be CC licensed such that we can use them here but even if not, someone may see the link and be able to use the books independently. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are CC licensed. Personally I prefer (simply because nobody is interested in the work involved in importing stuff into WB structures) either uploading a PDF version to Commons or getting WS to import them... QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

U of Missouri to use open textbooks[edit]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/20170621/university-of-missouri-to-push-cheaper-textbook-planJustin (koavf)TCM 16:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Search results from Wikibooks now active in Wikipedia's search system[edit]

Just to let you know, as announced via mailing list service, English Wikipedia is now receiving search results of this project, Wikibooks, intended to direct Wikipedia users to this project. Currently, an option to suppress the search results of this project from the English Wikipedia search system is proposed at Village pump's "proposal" subpage, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 19:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The search results were mistakenly included by developers. There was "no consensus" to include those search results. Therefore, I filed a task at Phabricator to suppress those. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 01:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently, another proposal to include Wikibooks in English Wikipedia's cross-wiki search results system is made. --George Ho (discusscontribs) 22:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)