User talk:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone

''Remember that this discussion began with a previous version of this book. See the History page.''

Double-think
The title of this page is deceptive, as is the title of the related page "Respect for authors". "Respect for authors" is about giving authors the right to disrespect the community, and "Wikibooks for everyone" is about allowing authors to set up local authoritarian regimes that are just for the claimant, not for everyone. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * “Authorship is freedom, simply because an author is free to make of his or her book what he or she wants. If wikibookians always have to justify what they publish to others, they're not free, they are under the yoke of the dictatorship of opinion.” Wikibooks for everyone, Wikibooks. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I note you added that supposed-quote here before you added it to the page from which it's quoted. The sentiment is misguided.  Here's the first sentence of Bigwelcome: "Wikibooks is for collaborative development of free textbooks."  We have an explicit guideline against web hosting; our purpose is collaborative editing.  We have guidelines for inclusion, which already means people aren't "free" to post any old thing they want to here.  If somebody writes a book here and continues to maintain it, that's great; if, for example, they revert edits to the book because they simply don't like the other contributor's face, that's not okay.  We do what's obviously right, and it's not even difficult to tell what's right &mdash; unless one has a brittle rule that forbids us to do what's right; that's what you're proposing.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I first published it the third of May, 15:46, see the history page. Even if I had done what you said, would it be wrong ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (I'm not sure how I manage to misread the timestamps, since I rechecked them several times; ah, well.) No, it would not be "wrong" as such; it would however be something that ought to be clarified. Thank you for doing so.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Commentary
I don't know the sort of feedback you are looking for with respect to this essay. Still, I think it might be helpful to point some divergences between the description it offers and the policies and customary practices of the project. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Authors can decide how their readers are invited to contibute to their book. They have the right to refuse any unwanted modification. To avoid conflicts, it's better that they claim explicitly this right when they create the book. TD"

This is being discussed at length at the talk page for your proposal, so I will not dwell for too long on its implications. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Authorship is freedom, simply because an author is free to make of his or her book what he or she wants. If wikibookians always have to justify what they publish to others, they're not free, they are under the yoke of the dictatorship of opinion. TD"

If taken in the context of current Wikibooks practices, this sounds hyperbolic. It's not like authors here have to submit decisions to a vote, or justify every choice with an essay (edit summaries, after all, are limited to 200 characters). Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Invoke the rules. If you think your opponent is not right, you have to find a good rule which proves it. TD"

This is somewhat confusing. Sure, if the discussion involves Wikibooks policy there will be rules to invoke. How does it apply to content and editorial questions, though? Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know precisely. There are official rules. The community decided to make them official, through consensus. There are common rules. They are commonly accepted. There are personal rules, and it's anarchy. The founding principles of Wikipedia, human rights, should be enough to live with such an anarchy. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"There are not any clear and conclusive criteria for the appropriateness of content in the library. TD"

There are clear general criteria for appropriateness. See What is Wikibooks?, and in particular its What Wikibooks is not section. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a criterium which is more selective than pedagogical ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other criteria which cannot be properly compared with "pedagogical" in terms of selectivity, as they work across different dimensions -- for instance, some of them are about form rather than content. Some examples: WB:SOAP, WB:OR, WB:NOTWIKIPEDIA, WB:DICT, etc. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. I wrote “If your content is unusual and not clearly pedagogical, you might have to convince other wikibookians that it has its place in the library. Since there isn't any conclusive consensus, you will probably be allowed to publish any kind of content, if you know how to defend it, and if it is neither illegal, nor unethical or contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia : human rights.” I did'nt write "will be allowed". Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Since we cannot be selective (who could take such decisions ?) there can be bad wikibooks in our library. TD"

While this is largely true, in a handful of occasions very poor quality books have been deleted as a result of community deliberation following the usual requests for deletion procedure. Here is one such case. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Very well. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

"Through consensus we can choose rules to elect the best wikibooks. TD"

This already exists, in the form of the featured books list and the corresponding nomination procedure. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Aside on the page move
This discussion could be continued on User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. By the way, there is a command for moving pages automatically; you can find it in the "More" menu in the page navigation bar at the top. Besides convenience, other advantages of using it are that edit history and talk pages are moved as well, and that a redirect is left behind in the old page. Also, it is not customary to a space after the slashes in path names -- doing so, for instance, affects alphabetical listings -- so I recommend using User:Thierry Dugnolle/Wikibooks for everyone as the title instead. (Incidentally, this also means that you still have the option of moving Wikibooks for everyone to that title without admin assistance, if you want to preserve the edit history, etc. -- moving a page to an occupied title requires an admin to delete the occupying page beforehand.) --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except if I am told that it is important not to do so, I will keep my habit of free spacing. Otherwise, I would have to change all the titles of the chapters of two books. I want both pages, this discussion one and the other, to be deleted, and no trace of their history. See the new head-up on the discussion of User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 07:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a general issue, I think that machines shall be adapted to the freedom of human beings, and not conversely. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it will be a good thing for the future development of Wikibooks that my book Wikibooks for everyone remains im my personal space, because it will give readers the idea that they can write freely their own books in their personal spaces. This is why I would like this discussion to happen in my personal space. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask about the spaces at the Technical Assistance room, to check whether there are any other issues related to them that we haven't thought of. Two other reasons I'd suggest for not adding spaces after slashes are that it seems quite easy to not notice the space and mistype the page name when writing a wikilink ( User:Thierry Dugnolle/Wikibooks for everyone versus User:Thierry Dugnolle/ Wikibooks for everyone ), and that they make off-wiki URLs a bit uglier (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Thierry_Dugnolle/Wikibooks_for_everyone versus https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Thierry_Dugnolle/_Wikibooks_for_everyone). In case you change your mind: I do agree that moving all preexisting pages of your books would be a quite joyless endeavour, though the bulk move tools admins have might (we would have to ask to be sure) be able to help.
 * As for leaving "no trace of their history", that can be done with an automated move too -- you just have to, once the move is done, ask for speedy deletion of the redirect left where the page used to be. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You may read at User talk:Thierry Dugnolle, section "strange embedded spaces in page names", what I think about the first point : I don't care. On the second, the same. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Userspace books
This is specifically about a detail amidst the recent additions to the guide:

"And even if your book is excluded from the catalog, you can always place it in your userspace, where you are free to do what you want - if it is neither illegal, nor unethical, nor contrary to our founding principles. [...] If you already have your own readers, you don't need to be in the catalog of Wikibooks, because all your books can be in your userspace, and your user page may be a starting point for your readers, where you show the covers of your books, and give all additional information you want."

This section of WB:USERPAGES suggests that in most cases this wouldn't be advisable, and it certainly wouldn't in response to an RfD whose outcome is deletion. The gist of it is that there should be an expectation for regular books (as opposed to e.g. "meta" works such as Wikibooks for everyone, or strictly personal writings related to the project) created in userspace to be eventually moved to the main space. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't know this rule, but it is not an official one. Who could forbid me to make my user space what I want, if it is clear that I am an ordinary user, not a parasite ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Although there is more flexibility in userspace, there are limits to what is allowed even there. Wikibooks is not a web host.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are there other limits than the following ones ?

It shall not be : --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * illegal
 * unethical
 * contrary to the founding principles of Wikimedia, human rights
 * a kind of parasitism (the user space would be used like a text repository, but there would be no other ordinary activity of the user)
 * explicit commercial promotion


 * The point is that, for instance, undermining an RfD "delete" decision by keeping the book in userspace regardless would be, as you put it, "a kind of parasitism". More generally, you have a lot of freedom in how you use the userspace, as long as it is used to further your (or others') activities in the main space, either directly (drafts, experiments, TODO lists, etc.) or indirectly (meta-essays, introducing yourself and your interests to those you'll team up with, etc.). --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I can write in my user space all the drafts I want. Do you agree ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, for sure. No objections as long as they are really drafts of a main space book (or of parts thereof). --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that I have not the right to do what I did ? If my book is deleted from the main space, I have not the right to put it in my personal space ? Are you sure ? Is there an official rule which says this ? Is it your personal view of what Wikibooks should be ?
 * My intentions : I want to continue working at the english-speaking Wikibooks, but in my own way, without respecting all the unofficial rules you seem to like. If I do not have the right to put in my personal space a book which I wanted to place in the main space, I will not write anything again in the main space. I will write only drafts in my personal space. Is that how I should proceed? TD (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The community discussion of the deletion nomination favored moving the book to userspace. That is why moving it to userspace was acceptable.  If the community had voted to actually delete the content, it would not have been appropriate for you to recreate the material in userspace. It seems clear you don't understand the conceptual framework by which the community operates here; you imagine that there is a problem, which you want to fix.  I'm sorry you don't understand, but I don't know what to do about it.  I've been unable even to get through to you that "WB:RFA" is not a shortcut to your page; that's a simple technical fact, and you responded to it by accusing my of lying.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It would not be appropriate for you to write books in userspace with no intention of ever putting them in mainspace. That would be using Wikibooks as a web host.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I said you lied because you said I wanted to be an admin, which is, as you know, false.
 * All the drafts in my user space will be intended for a future location in the main space. But before I put them there, I want to be sure that it is not a space of intolerance.
 * The problem I want to fix here is first and foremost my problem. How will I work here ? I don't want unwanted modifications of my books Handbook of epistemology and Quantum theory of observation. How will I do that ? They are in the main space, as you know. Shall I put them in my personal space ?
 * Are there other things I don't understand or any rule I should respect and I didn't ? TD (discuss • contribs)
 * I did not say you wanted to be an admin. It would make no sense for me to say that. You created a page called Respect for authors.  That is totally unrelated to the page WB:RFA, which is a shortcut that has existed here since 2005, and goes to the page where requests for adminship are discussed.  You have repeatedly made the technical mistake of typing "WB:RFA" as if that page name were a shortcut to your page.  It is not a shortcut to your page, it is a shortcut to a totally unrelated page.  And you then accuse me of lying, which also does not make sense.  It would have made more sense for you to conclude that you were misunderstanding something than to believe I was lying. We strive to protect the rights of all users to improve the books in our collection.  That includes protecting books from destructive edits.  It does not include giving certain users the right to arbitrarily prevent others from contributing.  If you contribute a book, and somebody else wants to add something to it that you do not agree with, you can discuss it with them, and perhaps you can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement; if what they want to do is truly incompatible with the way you have set up the book, so that it cannot exist in a book with that set-up, it's possible the appropriate solution would be to split the book up, but that is just speculation.  If everyone involved is most interested in the quality of the book, it's likely that some less drastic agreement can be reached. I have no way of knowing what else you might be misunderstanding.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. I created the page Respect for authors the 28th of April, with its shortcut (see the history of the page). We discussed this page, with its shortcut, during a few days after its creation. The shortcut did not lead to Requests for permissions. Why does WB:RFA now leads to Wikibooks:Requests for permissions, which is about another subject, unrelated to Respect for authors ? TD (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that somehow you thought you had created WB:RFA, but didn't. Looking at your user contributions, the only pages you created on that day were Respect for authors and its talk page.  As for the shortcut, it has been in place on the site for a very long time; here is its revision history:  .  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I simply wrote the shortcut at the top of the page. --TD (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * About the user space : it's not difficult to guess what I think, even if I don't write it. I write it, because I want my intentions to be clearly known. It could look like a provocation. And it is. But not a wicked one, at least I hope so. If I'm forced to accept an unwanted modification in my books in the main space, I will delete my signature and copy my version of my book in my user space. That's all. TD (discuss • contribs)