User talk:Frog One

Getting started
I am new to Wiki Books. I welcome advice. I have an idea for a Wiki Book but I'm not sure it fits the policies. It is not actually a text but a guide to resources for kids with behavioral/emotional/psychiatric problems. I want to find out if this is OK.

Your contributions
Youa asked about finding one of your contributions about Costa Rica. Did you see the "my contributions" link on the top of the page. I had a look and could not find anything about you adding to costa rica. Remember that you are given a preview before changes are saved. Is it possible that you forgot to save your changes? Juliusross 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Your book
I am certainly no authority but starting a guide seems reasonable to me. There is not procedure for getting something approved so you can just go ahead. In the event there are objections there is a process to suggest deletion, and you will have time to take what you have written elsewhere. Good luck and have fun. Juliusross 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How to add "meta comments" about templates
You are asking how to demonstrate the use of a template in a discussion. Since this is a meta-meta discussion, it is going to be even harder to demonstrate, but you can use the "edit" feature to see how I did this, so it shouldn't be too difficult to just see what I'm doing.

There is an HTML markup tag that you can use in your writing called "nowiki" as in &lt;nowiki&gt; and &lt;/nowiki&gt;, which you can then use to do something like this:

"If you wish to have this page marked for deletion, all you need to do is add the template   somewhere in the module that you are editing, preferably at the top of the page."

I hope this is useful to you on how to do discussions about templates without actually using them. You can also look for more information at m:Help:Editing for more details and other things you can do like this. --Rob Horning 02:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Internal Squabble about Wikbooks
I want to thank you for your comment about how you feel about Wikibooks and this change in policy. I hope you don't mind, but I posted the comment on the Foundation-L mailing list, as I think it is very representative of the attitude here on Wikibooks by its participants.

BTW, I did get a reply (of a sort) from Jimbo, but he seems to be fanning the flames rather than trying to put out this fire. See this e-mail from Jimbo about the whole thing.

I am trying. I am active not only here on Wikibooks (giving you a perception that I'm in the center of power here) but I'm also active in other discussion forums where overall policy decisions are being made for the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Keep in mind I'm just an ordinary editor/contributor such as yourself, but just a little more active. I may have supporters as well, but I hope that is because I'm trying to fight for this project and I think it can be a very beneficial service to the world at large if it isn't messed up in the first place. The only "power" I've been given is to be nominated and elected to become an administrator here on this project, which I've been very reluctant to use except in extreme circumstances. I don't think Jimbo's view of vandalism and abuse are necessarily one of these extreme circumstances.

I see this whole mess also as a sign of growing pains, and in many ways a good thing. In the beginning of this project it was largely the domain of just a few visionaries who wanted to write a few textbooks and have some fun doing something that couldn't be done on Wikipedia due to its book-like nature. In the past few months, we have started to attract many individuals like yourself who have not been involved earlier with projects like Wikipedia, but are becoming involved with Wikibooks directly. There has been some substantial growth in Wikibooks both in terms of content added and in terms of overall governance of what is going on here. I welcome the whole debate over what this project should become, although it is interesting not only who is vocal about this whole issue, but also generally vocal individuals who have been noticably absent from the discussions here as well.

Please keep up your contributions you have done so far. Generally speaking I don't see that any of them are in grave danger of being culled from this project, and in general I think Wikibooks will become a stronger project after this whole mess has been settled. Thank you for being here on Wikibooks and helping turn this into a bright future for our children and grandchildren. --Rob Horning 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * About where the "real" decision power here lies. That is a big question, and in truth the Wikimedia projects are run with a loose sort of anarchy (as you seemed to have guessed so far).  A "rough" heirarchy can go something like this:


 * Anonymous Contributor
 * Registered User (you are one of these)
 * Administrator (about 40 currently on Wikibooks)
 * Bureaucrat (about 3 currently on Wikibooks)
 * Steward (none specific for Wikibooks, but some that cover all english-language Wikimedia projects and can act here if necessary)
 * Developer (the group that actually runs the equipment running all of these web servers)
 * Wikimedia Foundation Board


 * Of these people, Jimmy Wales is the chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, mainly by virtue of the fact that he help start this whole thing in the first place and wrote the checks to pay for the equipment when everything was first starting out. It is now an official IRS 503(c) non-profit corporation with no stockholders and a charter to help run and do fundraising for all Wikimedia projects, of which Wikibooks is a part.  The board consists of five members, two of which are directly elected by users of the Wikimedia projects.  The last election was held in June of this year.  The intention is that eventually the whole board will eventually be directly elected by the users.  The equipment and maintainence budget is now financed directly through fundraising activities, mainly through direct solicitations of the users themselves.  Some groups like Google and Yahoo are providing some server support services as well, with a few minor donations like the Beck Foundation which help set up Wikijunior.


 * Becoming a Steward, Bureaucrat, or Administrator is through direct election by ordinary users, and anybody who has proven themselves generally worthy to not make a mess out of everything and has the desire to help do the job can apply to become any of these positions. Becoming a developer is not much harder, but it does require some technical knowledge of also being able to operate the equipment and to be able to write some of the computer software that is running this whole thing.  Generally the Developers stay out of the political process and only get involved when there are technical issues or somebody doing a direct attack on the computer systems.


 * Technically, Jimmy Wales can shut down the whole of Wikibooks on a whim, but that would also alienate a huge number of volunteer editor/contributors such as yourself, and have reprocussions beyond just Wikibooks itself. A major portion of the whole debate that is going on right now within Wikibooks is to determine just how much authority are we as a group going to give Mr. Wales directly in this regard to make policy.  There is some resistance to giving him any at all.  By being the CEO and chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation, his opinion does, however, have a lot of weight regardless.


 * I hope this clears up the heirarchy idea here. Generally speaking Mr. Wales has kept a "hands off" policy with most Wikimedia projects and letting the general community try to decide these issues.  I don't know what has caused this current ruckus, but sometimes people try to appeal decisions directly to the top and get his input even when it isn't strictly necessary on many issues.  I also think I inadvertantly ticked him off a few days ago when he came in under an assumed name and pushed his nose into the current set of policies where I thought he may have been out of line.  He has been known to do that from time to time so he can contribute without throwing his weight around like a ton of bricks.  Honestly I think it is a good idea in general, but he needs to be careful when he is speaking from an official capacity as the CEO, as he did recently to create all of this hubub.  If he had a problem with me personally, I wish he would have also dealt with me directly than taking it out on the whole project.  --Rob Horning 22:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarifications
"I also think I inadvertantly ticked him off a few days ago when he came in under an assumed name and pushed his nose into the current set of policies where I thought he may have been out of line." No, I have never edited Wikibooks under any assumed name.

"If he had a problem with me personally, I wish he would have also dealt with me directly than taking it out on the whole project." No, I have absolutely no problem with Rob, other than his getting very upset for reasons that I don't understand -- but I place the blame for that squarely on my own shoulders, not his.

Anyway, I'm easy to reach, you can leave a message on my user talk page either here or in english wikipedia, or you can email me. jwales at wikia.com

--Jimbo Wales 03:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)