User talk:Norton

Welcome message
Hello, and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
 * Make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;
 * There is a box at the top of the edit window (if javascript is enabled on your browser) that will insert it too (looks like part of a signature). This will let others know who left it, and make it easy to reply back to you.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox (global to the system) or in a page on your own userspace.
 * Remember to use Commons project for image uploading.
 * You can tell the community something about yourself in your userpage.
 * You can get to this page by clicking the tab at the top of the page labeled with your registered username.
 * Wikibooks are open-source textbooks. (What is Wikibooks).
 * If you are a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Reading Room with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Help us by participating in policy and guideline creation.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to keep a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you have questions, visit the Study help desk, the Reading Room, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add that page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

(This is not an automated message, I'll be watching during a time for any reply you make to it...)

Good luck! --Panic (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikistution
Please put this at Wikiversity instead. It is not a textbook in line with our scope. Wikiversity allows class projects of that sort where experiments are performed. We do not allow original research. – Adrignola talk 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Adrignola - I think my use of the word "experiment" in my introductory section was misleading, and I'm afraid this wikibook won't fit in well with wikiversity. I don't want to move it there only to have editors ask me to move it to wikibooks. It is not a class or instructional project (though students and classes are welcome to use it). This wikibook is not original research; no one is looking for new facts, findings or interpretations. It is experimental only in the very loose sense in which collaborative anonymous worldwide editing is inherently experimental. I chose it for wikibooks because it's not for a class and it's in line with the "annotated texts" that wikibooks invites. Unlike most annotated texts, in this case editors can change the original text itself. This makes it unusual as an annotated text, but I'd like to ask for some room for this innovation under the principle laid down under "Annotated Texts" that "There are no absolute rules for texts of this kind [ie annotated texts] and any reasonable decision by the contributor(s) should be respected." Thank you! Norton (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I will confer with a user here who heavily participates here and at Wikiversity to see what he thinks of the project. One thing that still concerns me is that it may conflict with point # 1 in this section, that "Wikibooks does not allow original fiction or literature".  – Adrignola talk 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Adrignola! (And I can assure you that this wikibook is in no sense fiction or literature.) Norton (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * New pages you create should have BookCat on them, I should note. – Adrignola talk 19:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Adrignola! I'll add that to the all pages I created.  Your help is greatly appreciated!  —Norton (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity has Great Repeal Bill which was started by two Members of British Parliament and has had some media coverage. Its an experiment in which the general public collaborate to help rewrite British law with the aim that those two Members of British Parliament hope to present the proposed changes to the full Parliament for adoption as law. I realize that isn't quiet what you are doing, but I think its a good example of the type of things Wikiversity allows which aren't exactly "for a class" or an "instruction project". Books at Wikibooks are intended to be useful by teachers and students in a class, but can also be useful for self-learning. Wikiversity compliments Wikibooks by providing a place for other works that might be useful in a class, but aren't strictly so either. I invite you to open discussion at Colloquium to obtain feedback, if you still have doubts on whether your experimental constitution would be welcome at Wikiversity.

While there are no rules on how to annotate texts, I believe the intentions is to only include annotations of works which have been previously published and might be discussed in a literary class, such as the works of Shakespeare. In this sense Wikibooks' scope overlaps with Wikisource. Wikisource includes previously published works which are in the public domain or have been released under a license compatible with CC-BY-SA, and annotations of those works. If you wanted to just annotate the American Constitution this would be a different conversation. I have seen occasions at Wikibooks where there was potential to push the envelope by including works that might bind Wikibooks' inclusion policies some before, but I doubt this would be considered acceptable at Wikibooks if presented for discussion in the reading room, or others would suggest moving to Wikiversity as well if nominated for deletion. Wikiversity itself is considered an experiment in using wiki technology for collaborative learning, which I believe to be more in line with what you want to do than what Wikibooks is meant for. --dark lama  23:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Darklama, I appreciate your advice very much; thank you for taking the time. I do want the best fit for this project.  I may take you up on your suggestion to put this to discussion at the colloquium, because as a person interested in selecting the most appropriate venue for this project, I reviewed the scopes for Wikiversity and for Wikibooks; it seemed pretty clear from them that a non-instructional text not associated with a class project or an educational mission is a stretch for Wikiversity.  I don't want to move there if editors there tell me it's not in their scope.  On the other hand a source text with no class- or school-related purpose, inviting annotations (and in this case editing as well) seems to be a better fit at Wikibooks, given the quite inclusive guidelines for annotated texts ("There are no absolute rules for texts of this kind [ie annotated texts] and any reasonable decision by the contributor(s) should be respected.")  It seems to me that the guidelines, especially under "Annotated Texts," would need some rewriting if wikibooks is to avoid more projects such as this one.  Other Wikibookians' thoughts may help.  Thanks, — Norton (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting that this work is not educational that would actually put it outside the scope of all Wikimedia projects. However I believe your experiment is educational, just more suited within Wikiversity's scope than Wikibooks' scope. What you want to do doesn't seem like a stretch of Wikiversity's scope to me. I believe your project would be considered an unreasonable use of Wikibooks though. Additionally annotations are notes made while reading information in a book. No existing book is being referred to since you are encouraging people to write there own constitution, which means it is not an annotation and those guidelines do not apply. However writing your own constitution is a learning opportunity and encouraging other people to participate in that learning makes it within Wikiversity's scope, while not within Wikibooks' scope. Your work encourages people to engage in learning while contributing to the work which is good for Wikiversity, but not good for Wikibooks because that involves engaging in the process of developing new and original ideas when Wikibooks is about educating people in what is already known. It is up to the Wikibooks community to decide whether the guidelines on Annotated Texts is in need of a rewrite, or when a work is reasonably an annotated text. Since the guidelines on annotated text is a somewhat young and hasn't presented much issues for Wikibooks yet there hasn't been much need to clarify, this may or may not present a reason to clarify. --dark lama  03:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it is educational, like presumably all wikibooks, and did not mean to suggest otherwise, but it's not associated with any particular educational mission, class, or school-related purpose; Wikiversity invites "teachers, students, and researchers to join us in creating open educational resources and collaborative learning communities." This is what makes me fear going through the same process at Wikiversity if this is moved there.  I see no suggestion in Wikiversity's scope that they accept an existing document (though of course they might), but an explicit statement to that effect in Wikibooks' scope.  The fact that this existing text can also be edited seemed to me to put it at the intersection of Wikibooks' categories of 1) existing texts and 2) editable new material associated with a subject field.  Since the original text is never lost, the line between annotation and editing is difficult to draw.  The new material on Wikistution I conceived as critique and commentary on the existing material, not as "new and original ideas."  Yes, very clearly it's up to the Wikibooks community to decide whether the Annotated Text guidelines need a rewrite; for now the guidelines suggest existing texts for annotation are welcome under very broad parameters; indeed the wording seems to encourage some innovation.  But I fear I'm giving the wrong impression here.  I absolutely do not have any wish at all to try to push Wikistution here if it doesn't belong here.  I will happily agree to a move to Wikiversity if it is indeed appear to be Wikibookians' consensus that this book does not belong here, and Wikiversitians' consensus that the book does belong there.  For this reason I hope another Wikibookian or two will comment, and meanwhile I'll seek advice at Wikiversity.  - Norton (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity doesn't restrict itself to any sort of traditional meaning of teacher, student, or researcher. A teacher is anyone that wishes to teach. A student is anyone that wishes to learn. A researcher is anyone that wishes to research. People may participate at Wikiversity in any number of roles. See Wikiversity:Who are Wikiversity participants?. Yes some innovation is encouraged in annotating texts. Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter is presumably an example of that. For Wikistution to work at Wikibooks, the United States Constitution would need to be preserved as a static text with only notes added, removed, edited and changed. I believe the most that would be considered reasonable would be to update the wording of the United States Constitution using modern English language, but that would need to preserve and be a reasonable proximity of the original meaning. In the notes you could refer to changes to parts of the US Constitutions that other people have suggested and published in some form, but all in all you would not be able to propose changes you would like to see to the US Constitution yourself unless you do that at Wikiversity. You can even provide an analysis of the US Constitution in the notes, but they need to reflect published sources, unless you do that at Wikiversity. If anyone questions the validity of an analysis or suggested change it would need to be removed unless a published source can be found. I hope you get the drift of where the line in general is. This could even be a cross-wiki collaboration project with parts done at Wikibooks and parts done at Wikiversity depending on what is wanted. --dark lama  10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly persuaded that Wikistution might be be best suited to Wikiversity, and without repeating myself I'll add that under the written scope of Wikibooks, Wikistution might be best suited to Wikibooks. I have your position on this, Darklama, which I appreciate.  I am now seeking advice at Wikiversity, and I hope to get the view of another Wikibookian or two.  My only goal is to find the best place for Wikistution.  - Norton (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My intent isn't to persuade you, rather to provide you with information so you can find the wiki best suited for what you want to do. In that regard our goal is the same. I'm most likely the user Adrignola said he would confer with, since he left me a message about this on my talk page and hasn't contributing to this discussion since than. --dark lama  14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought you wanted to do more than inform me of your interpretation of Wikibooks' written scope, but also to persuade me that it is the more valid interpretation. And I'm open minded and prepared to be persuaded.  Since Wikibooks' annotated texts guideline is, as you said, "young" and still evolving, its precise limits are unclear (as the guideline notes), despite its general call to defer to good-faith contributors on such judgments.  I think at this point we need another Wikibookian's interpretation.  Meanwhile, several hours ago I posted an inquiry on Wikiversity's colloquium about the suitability of Wikistution for Wikiversity.  If the consensus here is that Wikistution is ill suited to Wikibooks, and the consensus at Wikiversity is that it is well suited to Wikiversity, I'll be entirely in favor of a move to Wikiversity.  So far there have been no comments at Wikiversity, and no other Wikibookians' views (besides ours and Adrignola's) have been presented here.  So I suggest we suspend this matter for a few days, or until we have some more suggestions.  I'm sure this will reach a conclusion satisfactory to us all, since we all agree that we all want the best place for Wikistution.  - Norton (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wanted to give you some perspective both from Wikibooks side of things and the Wikiversity side of things, so you could make an informed decision of where you want to go from here. I generally assume that I have no ability to persuade anyone to do anything, and try to focus on being informative instead. I also assume that most people don't need to be persuaded, but rather just need information. Your interpretation could easily be just as valid as any other interpretation. I usually try to avoid making judgments, and prefer to ask questions instead when I can think of any. For me this has just been about giving you another perspective in addition to Adrignola's so that you got more to work with and can better decide what to do next. It is the individual wiki communities that decide what is valid or not, I'm just one voice. Adrignola apparently thought my input was worth something, but I wouldn't assume that you would feel the same because you don't know me and the worth of anyone's input varies. That was probably more than what was necessary to understand my personal philosophy. --dark lama  19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Darklama. In the spirit you suggest, I'm gathering information.  I do think your input is valuable, and you've helped me appreciate the breadth of Wikiversity's scope, for which I am indebted to you.  When I have sufficient information for a decision, or when a community consensus becomes more evident, I'll take the appropriate course.  I remain entirely open to a move to Wikiversity, if and when such a move appears to be in the best interests of both communities.  So far you have been my best source of information.  I'll give it a little more time so that I can get a somewhat clearer sense of the two communities' views.  Appreciatively, - Norton (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Darklama was indeed the person whose input I desired. I've solicited additional input in the projects reading room. You should monitor that page in case anyone responds there rather than here. – Adrignola talk 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Adrignola, for your help. I'll keep an eye on the reading room.  - Norton (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Professionalism
101 students? I'm glad you're able to manage them all. I'm especially glad that you like Wikibooks as a platform so much that you're starting a second book here with a class. If Wikibooks can help you and your students learn, achieve goals, and produce a product that you can be proud of, I'm all for it. We recently redid our help pages at Help:Contents, so if any of your students are new to wiki formatting and editing, that'd be a good place to direct them to. Let me know if there are any questions, concerns, or problems. – Adrignola discuss 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your words of welcome, Adrignola. (And to be honest, I don't know if I can manage 101 students!)  Since day one of my use of Wikibooks, your help has been generous and indispensable.  Yes, I do like Wikibooks as a platform, a fact which I attribute to 1) my students (whose feedback about their experience has been emphatically positive) and 2) to helpful Wikibookians (above all you).  I'm glad to know of the revised help page, to which I will refer the authors (though most of them are veterans from our first wikibook together last fall).  I appreciate your invitation to consult you. Norton (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership
You cannot revert changes because "this is a class assignment and the three main authors have to retain control over the content for now.". You, and no other editor, has "control over the content" as this is against Wikibooks policy. If you revert edits for this reason you may be blocked. QU TalkQu 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the predicament but unless the information is invalid or disputable please do not remove it. I have intentionally (because I understood the spirit of the contributions) avoided being more proactive over the content, that would not be the case if it wasn't a class project. This was already stated in my reply in Talk:Lentis/Mass Collaboration. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Panic. I'm grateful to you for what you've had to offer and I hope you'll continue. I hope Wikibooks policy is not at issue, as I'm not telling you not to edit until this Thursday, I'm just asking you, as a request. This Wikibook would not exist but for these students' efforts, and so if the book has any value to Wikibooks, then the many fine editors who contribute to Wikibooks may find it worth their while to voluntarily limit content editing to formatting and corrections for four days. Such flexibility should pay off many times over, by encouraging instructors who create wikibooks to stay here. I think I and most instructors will never ask (and I do mean ask) for more than modest accommodations, such as limited postponements of content edits. With such accommodations, I and other instructors will be encouraged to contribute further to Wikibooks, to the benefit of everyone; without them we may feel have to look elsewhere. I chose Wikibooks 15 months ago because it welcomes class assignments and its helpful editors have so far been very willing to make accommodations to instructors' needs. In that spirit, would you be willing to hold off on further editing of Lentis chapters for 4-5 days? And would you mind if I deleted a couple of your latest edits--those the students ask me to delete? I'd be grateful. Thank you. Norton (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, but I ask the consideration that any removed meaningful content be restored if in the meantime it is not addressed but active editors. I also think that these pages would benefit from the use of a template that explains and limits in time the "voluntarily restriction" of outside editing, pointing to the relevant talk as a way address issues and permit the logging of any reversal. This would permit not only for other editors to understand the situation but provide the acknowledging of valid "pending" contributions (and a easy way for anyone to restore them later), it would also permit addressing other edits that may not be valid. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Panic! Your consideration is much appreciated. Your suggestions are very reasonable and I'll try to act on them. On the main page of Lentis, I wrote "Until December 14, 2011, would-be contributors who are not students in the class are asked to edit sparingly—but are also invited to comment freely on discussion pages, where their suggestions and advice will be welcomed and appreciated." Obviously many editors would miss this request, and a template would be much harder to miss--I'll use one in the future (I need to figure out how to do it first), with an invitation to log edits on the talk page for later consideration. Thanks for these suggestions. Norton (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course if in the future you wish to prevent all outside (of the class project) edits you could just use your own userspace and place a notice on the top of the page stating that it is a class project (for people doing administration not block the edits that wouldn't be done by the owner), this somehow defeats the purpose of collaborative editing but would grantee editorial control. These pages could be later moved into the proper place (and would in any case by default of licensing be open for reutilization of content if they failed to be moved by the class project). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lentis: The Social Interface of Technology" / chapter: Drivers' and Bicyclists' Perceptions of Each Other
Hello! A student team is writing this chapter of: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis/Drivers%E2%80%99_and_Bicyclists%E2%80%99_Perceptions_of_Each_Other They're repeatedly triggering this error message: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." I've asked them to report the error, but I also hope to relay to them some advice they can use to prevent this problem. Thank you! Norton (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"Lentis: The Social Interface of Technology" / chapter: The U.S. Presidential Election of 1992: Media, Public Opinion, and Politics
Hello! I need assistance restoring a chapter that was deleted from Lentis ( https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Lentis ). This book is a class project, and marked as such. A student team added a chapter called "The U.S. Presidential Election of 1992: Media, Public Opinion, and Politics." The chapter was deleted, apparently without explanation. (At least, the students didn't find an explanation.) Can the chapter be restored as soon as possible please? Any assistance will be very greatly appreciated! Norton (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. A couple of general notes (I replied to the specific question at the reading room).  The markup you want for a link to the book is , which produces this:
 * Lentis
 * There is also a special page for finding all pages on the wiki whose names start with a certain string; this is particularly useful for finding all the pages of a book:
 * Special:PrefixIndex/Lentis
 * That's how I found the chapter you were asking about: it's there on the list produced by the special page (I did a string search for "1992"). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pi zero! You're extremely helpful.  Norton (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)