Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2006/May

Creating account does not work
When trying to create an account the picture wouldn't show up blocking me from creating the account. In other wikis this is no problem. I use Firefox 1501, several extensions which work perfectly well with other wikis. Java/script are on.

-- Hvezd 09:12, 2006-04-29 (UTC)


 * Can you try again at Special:Userlogin? From my copy of (outdated) Firefox 1.0.6, I was able to see image.


 * Of course, check that you did not tell Firefox to block images from en.wikibooks.org. (Most of the images on this site are from upload.wikimedia.org, so you would still be able to see them.) Right-click the words-image and make sure "Block images from en.wikibooks.org" is not checked. --Kernigh 08:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I never blocked any file of any wiki-site. I created accounts in other wikis before without any problem. I could create an account in wikibooks via IE. Firefox showed the missing picture file in other wikis, just not in wikibooks. Now, 3 days later, it works again. No idea why. -- Hvezd 12:45, 2006-05-02 (UTC)

Sidebar
I've been bold and tried to improve the sidebar. Unfortunately, for some reason I can't fathom, the two items under "search" appear out of kilter. The page that feeds into the sidebar is MediaWiki:Sidebar. If anyone can see what's wrong please let me know (the page is protected so only admins can edit it). Of course, if you have ideas for improvements yourself, let us know too:) Jguk 07:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This shows that Be bold should apply to "MediaWiki:" pages even though only administrators can edit those.


 * The problem with "search" was that the text was centered. This is because both the "search" (By subject, Alphabetically) and "search" (text field, Go button, Search button) sections are  in the HTML. The stylesheet centers the second "search" section, and thus also the first. I believe that I fixed the problem by changing "search" to "books". --Kernigh 08:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ... maybe I should have set it to "textbooks" instead of "books" ... --Kernigh 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

BDSM on Votes for undeletion
Since the Votes for undeletion page is rarely used, this is to notify everyone that I have listed a module there. --Kernigh 06:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Preparing for an Employment Interview
I would like to rename this book to something that is more concise, and would be easier to find. I'm looking for suggestions now, because I would like to start doing some major work on this book, such as breaking it down into sub pages, and working on the formatting etc. I don't want to make a bunch of subpages now, and then have to go back and rename all of them when we think of a better name. I would certainly appreciate any suggestions that anybody has on this matter. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's a bit of an awkward title, but I couldn't think of something nicer unless you want to roll it into a general-purpose "Interviewing" book. Kellen T 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but even then, it covers resume building and cover-letter writing. I was thinking something like "Get a Job", but i feel like that's too base. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Preparing for a job interview? Jguk 06:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That still seems too long a title. Maybe i'm just being unnecessarily picky, however. I just want something that will be easy to find in the "search box" by newcomers, although maybe this subject doesn't lend itself easily to that. Since this is on the "How-to bookshelf", I'm thinking we can go with the general scheme of things over there and imply the title with How-To: "Get a Job". --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 16:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most titles on Wikibooks are actually short. We have many one-word titles like Calculus? Feminism? I suggest longer titles. With very long titles, one can attempt shorthand, as in Guide to Unix for "Wikibooks Guide to Unix Computing". --Kernigh 00:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer shorter titles, just because it is easier to do an effective search for a short title then for a long one. For instance, it would be much quicker to search for Unix then for Guide to Unix. That's just me though. I'm leaning towards (how to)Find a Job. because it's on the how-to bookshelf, and many of the titles there imply the "how to". --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 13:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interview preparation is another and shorter option. GarrettTalk 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think i'm going to just name this one "Find Employment" for now, because I would like to start working on this project more, and i'm impatient. If anybody has a better title for it, feel free to move it. --Whiteknight (talk)(projects) 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

what do i need to do to be able to hear the sound files here at wikibook?
im havin troubles, since its in .ogg format :(

Jane kiedis 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Jane kiedis
 * Winamp can play .ogg quite well. Grue 21:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.vorbis.com/setup/ --Kernigh 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Talk:Ada Programming/Contributing was deleted?
As you can see, this page was deleted with the unique comment of "There is no module". I think this page does not qualify as a speedy deletion. This one was a page with metainformation about the Ada Programming book targeted to the contributors. I guess it was deleted because there was not a corresponding module page, but a deletion of useful content without warning is a bit aggressive behaivour. Please, could some administrator undelete it? On the other hand, is there an appropiate space for metainformation about a book? We discussed that topic in Talk:Ada_Programming/Contributors_lounge and then we moved the page, that previously was in the main namespace Ada Programming/Contributing, to the talk namespace. I didn't feel totally satisfied, but never thought a useful talk page would be deleted only because there was not a correspondent content page. ManuelGR 12:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The book contributors should be able to choose whatever forum they like to discuss the project as a whole. The cookbook uses Talk:Cookbook as a sort of staff lounge, but we also have Cookbook:Policy for defining contributing guidelines. An admin should undelete the page. Kellen T 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored. GarrettTalk 21:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC Jimbo
I have requested Jimbo explain wikimedia's policy with respect to howtos on his WP talk page. Kellen T 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo has responded. His position is that most of the howtos should go. Kellen T 18:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting Contributors
I have been working on a very ambitious Wikibook project since October, and have so far attracted two contributors. One of them has disappeared, and I expect the second one to disappear soon because the module for which he has expertise is nearly complete.

I have been trying to attract more contributors from the community at which this work is directed, but so far, I have had little success. So now I have an idea that I'd like to get some feedback on.

I would like to have custom lapel pins made for Wikibook contributors. Contribute to "my" book, and I'll send a free pin. Unfortunately, it looks like the minimum order is 50 or 100, depending on who you go to, and then the price for the whole lot runs from between $170 to $250 (US). First, I surely am not going to need anywhere near 50 pins - 5 or 10 is probably more like it. Also, I am unwilling to devote my financial resources to something that has a risky return (pins might not attract contributors).

However, if the pin design were a generic Wikibooks design, then I can imagine that the risk (and cost) could be shared by many Wikibookians. The most promising supplier looks to me like it might be | these guys (no minimum order, but the difference between 20 pins and 50 pins is very small). I have no affiliation with them, and found them via Google.

Is anyone interested in something like that? Maybe the Foundation could have a couple hundred of them made and sell them in onesies and twosies for a small profit. Thoughts?

Jim Thomas 00:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt wikimedia would be up for this, and I don't know that it'd actually encourage people to stick around or even to contribute in the first place, but it might be fun. You're looking at lapel pins, which are quite expensive as they are produced from custom-made diess. If you looked instead at 1-inch buttons (think punk kids), you would find the price to be way more reasonable and maybe even something you might feel comfortable bankrolling for your book in particular. Kellen T 00:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My target audience is into pin trading, which is why I suggested that. Since we're a scouting-type of an organization, we have uniforms, and the pins go nicely there.


 * Ah yes, good point. Kellen T 01:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia already has a CafePress store. There's a general Wikimedia button pack, but no Wikibooks one. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to sell a Wikibooks logo-stamped button through CafePress, so I suggest you e-mail wikipedia@cafepress.com if that's what you would like. Don't count on selling quality pins through the foundation however. Hope you find something, ✉haginძazt\c 01:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hagindaz. I sent cafepress an email asking if they'd consider offering lapel pins.  We'll see what happens. Jim Thomas 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

please help
I have been blocked by inshanee on charges that are wholly trumped up and false. in fact, i am working on the very issue myself; i was blocked for alleged "attacks". Everything i have said is cogently factual, and thus, not an attack, with a single possible exception being a vote i made.

Even there, i could provide logic to show that in fact, i am just making a cogent observation.

The truth is that this is a pov warrior event and inshanee is abusing his admin priveledge.

I am working on the problem of personal attacks, in fact, and this is one reason why i am being targeted. Inshanee and strotha both like to use sly attacks, and then pounce on you when you defend yourself. My version of reality being the cogent analysis and recognition of this tactic puts them in a hard spot where they would not be able to use the method if i can get the problem resolved.

what follows is what blocking me kept me from posting in response to the "personal attacks" topic posted on Jimbos talk page.

Prometheuspan 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, thats a slippery slope, a hyperbole, and, its untrue. Using logic, we can discern between attacks and useful conversation about people. More importantly, right now Wikipedia has become an ad hominem fest. In fact, wikipedia has become extremely abusive, thanks to no clear means to deal with the abusiveness. This is a circular problem in that people with expertise won't participate if they can tell just by browsing the talk pages that its psychological mob warfare defending VS the ignorant to bother to try. For example; I'm not adding any material regarding Psychonautics. I might just be one of the worlds foremost experts on the topic, having managed to obtain waking Theta states in both myself and others. The topic is allready controversial amongst the well educated. Add to this the inevitable problem of facing down an ignorant mob as soon as you say something the thought police finds dangerous to maintaining ignorance, and you have a formulae for abuse. IF logic and cogency were the dominant paradigm on Wikipedia, then experts might feel safe to come here and contribute. All of the sciences at advanced levels become politically inconvenient for the dominant religious and political paradigms. Those paradigms can only continue to exist via the vaccum created by intentional ignorance. Ignorance is maintained via anti intellectual pack psychology. And right now, Wikipedia as a form of government falls easilly into the category "pack psychology driven MOB".

THE ONLY way to fix this is to make real changes in policy and methods of enforcement regarding personal attacks. (And other considerations of logic, including straw man arguments and false dillemmas.) Prometheuspan 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

- Now, I am getting really sick of being gamed and played by abusive people here, and my next step is to start taking my complaints to people who will listen. Wikiwatch has allready featured me. For instance.

I am trying to resolve these problems, and these people are being patently abusive.

If these problems can't be resolved, then it seems that i will be forced to leave wikibooks and wikipedia, and to make certain that the world knows that wikipedia is an extremely abusive place.

Prometheuspan 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Trying to be helpful) I have no idea what you're talking about here. You have given insufficient context. Your formatting is also a serious problem that is inhibiting communication; try to write in paragraphs containing one or more sentences, try not using breaks (instead, use indentation or quoting). Finally, write focused sentences that state the facts, with appropriate references (links) to where these things occured; leave your emotional appeals out of it since they only distract from your point. Kellen T 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to figure out exactly what the problem is. you are clearly able to leave a message here, which indicates to me that you are probably not blocked from wikibooks. maybe you should be more specific as to how you are blocked, and how we can help. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He is apparently talking about being blocked at WP: w:User_talk:Prometheuspan, where he has made a bunch of disruptive edits, especially in AFD. Kellen T 20:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive edits. the characterization begins. sorry if i am badly formatted, i loose some amount of my dyslexia compensation when i am po'ed. Those VFDs were mockeries of consensus process. What good is WP:No attacks when the rule is only selectively applied to people rogue admins want to fast track or intimidate into silence? I made cogent and rational additions to 3 vfds which were all of them started by an ad hominem. And all of which were patently pov warrior gaming of the system. In most cases, i just pointed out factual ad hominems. As votes. Maybe i should have invoked WP: remove attacks, and deleted said votes. Hard to tell what the right move is in such a corrupted double standard system.

In any case, thats not why i am being blocked. I am being blocked for defending myself against attacks, using cogent and factual logic. The double standard here is apalling. Nevermind in any case, apparently the only way to deal with the abusiveness of this system is to go outside of the system and unleash the fury of a Sociologist with depth knowledge of Logic.

obviously, if after a week and a half of abuse has gone unpunished, and nobody cares about it on admin noticeboards, and theres no method to get abuse dealt with, esp by abusive admins, this is a futile effort also. By all means, just ignore me and dismiss me, its all anybodies done so far, i have come to expect it. Prometheuspan 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 21:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey man, listen up, your ego is astounding. First off, your not going to get anywhere in this place by getting angry, thats not how wiki works. Secondly, its not a great idea to threaten to leave because nobody cares, there are a thousand people here any of which could take your place. Thirdly, stop ranting about the abusive system because the system owns you, your account, everything you have written here, and they know your IP address. Fourthly i think you just threatened all of us with, and I quote: "Nevermind in any case, apparently the only way to deal with the abusiveness of this system is to go outside of the system and unleash the fury of a Sociologist with depth knowledge of Logic."That is highly abusive of your privilige to write here, so in future please save a couple bytes of hard disk space and submit any complaints like a good wikibookian. Hope you haven't already vandalized the system and your wikibookian soul can still be salvaged! Basejumper123 23:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. Whatever it is you have or haven't done over there it doesn't involve Wikibooks. Please feel free to take your case to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you haven't already. Thank you. GarrettTalk 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Text Wrap
In Wikijunior: Solar System, we're having some trouble with pictures moving text too much, what is the wiki-code for text-wrap? Basejumper123 23:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean; if you use the right/left/center modifiers on Image, you get text wrap automagically. See w:Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax. If you're trying to prevent images from descending into other sections you can use  Kellen T 03:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

MSRI video lectures
This might be of interest to people who maintain the mathematics section of wikiversity.

MSRI has a large collection of videolectures here. Download is free, and although I am not sure that they have the right license, the fact that they keep most of their videos on archive.org indicates that the license is free enough.

Please, answer me on my talk page.

Using Wikibooks logo in a link?
I'm trying to set up a link from my website to a wikibook (Stuttering) that doesn't have its own graphic or image. Can I use the Wikibooks logo that appears in the upper left corner of the Main Page? Where can I get this image (or a link to it)? This is for a list of recommended books, and the other books have the cover on the left, and my recommendation on the right. It looks bad to not have some image for the wikibook.--Thomas David Kehoe 17:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikimedia Foundation has established guidelines for use of their logos. They can be found at Wikimedia visual identity guidelines. Hope this helps. Gentgeen 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed I didn't answer your question about where the file can be found. It is located on the Wikimedia Commons at Wikimedia. Gentgeen

How To Build A Pykrete Bong
I would like to suggest that How To Build A Pykrete Bong be deleted as it is innapropriate material for wikibooks &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Basejumper123 (talk &bull; contribs)


 * Erm. It was deleted until you made the page again? Kellen T 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * no, it was still on the bookshelf &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Basejumper123 (talk &bull; contribs)


 * The page was already deleted. This was evidenced by the fact that you were the only contributor to the book when you posted the above comment. If it was still on the bookshelf, you could have removed it and that would have been end of story. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes, like so: ~ Kellen T 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Physical Science
Hi everyone, Im trying to write a simple, 8th grade science text that is an "introduction to physical science". It will try to stick to the following syllabus I have already written the first chapter, please help out if you have time, the link is here Introduction_to_Physical_Science thanks,
 * laboratory procedure
 * measurement
 * calculation
 * properties
 * basic experimentation

Basejumper123 00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review - vote now!
There are a lot of policies that have not been resolved. How about focussing on No personal attacks this month? Can we wrap-up the vote on this? I would also move for Ad hoc administration committee to be deleted because it looks like it will never go to a clear majority vote. RobinH 16:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy governing voting
Perhaps before reviewing any other policies the following proposed policy might be reviewed(!): General voting rules RobinH 10:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Positive language policies
I've just read a bunch of the policy pages and I find myself agreeing with User:Jguk and User:Zephram Stark that we should be attempting to form policies that are in positive terms and not so legalistic and punitive in nature. Jguk proposed something along the lines of Always act civilly. Zephram has also pointed to this posting by Jimbo for some other context. Kellen T 17:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Zephram is an odd case since he was banned multiple times from Wikipedia for disruption, etc. You may want to take this into account as you deal with him in the future. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but I still agree with his position. Kellen T 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Just letting you know where he's coming from. -- LV (Dark Mark) 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I support Jguk's intention but am doubtful about his means of achieving it. For instance, suppose a user reverted a policy page that had been moved, after a vote, from "proposed" to "enforced" back to "proposed" without any warning at the staff lounge or elsewhere. Suppose I reverted this reversion of the "Enforced" status to "Proposed". Suppose the user reverted that reversion and I reverted that... How would "be nice" solve the resulting fracas?

I support a minimum of rules, perhaps 3 major rules such as: These would contain most problems that could arise here when "being nice" has broken down. For instance the reversion problem above would be forestalled by General voting rules and would fall under Editing disputes policy if a vote had not been taken. RobinH 10:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) General voting rules
 * 2) No personal attacks
 * 3) Editing disputes policy


 * For your revert scenario, common sense prevails, an admin temporarily blocks the provoking user and instructs them to act civily or leave. The net effect is the same, I think. Having a policy doesn't really make people act more or less sensibly. Kellen T 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But which user is in the wrong? Would you back me if I reverted a change in the fashion described above? RobinH 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I misread your scenario. If both people engaged in a revert war rather than discussing the change, they should both be temporarily blocked from editing the page and forced to discuss the matter. Kellen T 19:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, what basis would you use to determine if a "revert war" was indeed taking place? One mans's revert war is another man's innocent correction.


 * Secondly your suggestion that they be "blocked from editing the page and forced to discuss the matter" is none other than the Editing disputes policy.


 * Your point also places admins at the top of the control hierarchy, like tribal leaders. But suppose an admin reverted the policy page without any warning and another admin reverted the text to its original form. Who should block the admins when there is no policy? If we go for 100% consensus one or other of the admins can just refuse to agree. At the minimum we would need General voting rules to resolve the situation. RobinH 09:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It becomes a revert war when the two people who are reverting do it to the same page multiple times. At that point they can't claim that it's just an "innocent correction" because they're actively engaging each other.
 * I think Editing disputes policy is common sense and if not then it's dictated by the idea of "acting civily"
 * Admins are at the top of the control hierarchy. It's a fact of life. If they step out of line, though, then they're stripped of their powers. Admins can block other admins as they see fit.
 * You're misunderstanding what consensus means. Consensus decision making is predicated upon several things; that all users are working towards the same mission (to build textbook-ish instructional materials), that all users are acting in good faith, and that all users will work towards compromises when disputes arise. If a user is not working towards our goal, not acting in good faith, or not attempting to find compromises, the community can and should ignore or ban them depending upon the severity. Consensus is about evaluating the positions of users on issues, not counting their votes. If only 1 person in a straw poll is saying no, but they provide no acceptable reason, they get ignored. If they are disruptive, engage in revert wars, employ sockpuppets, etc they get banned. If after all of this, you still have reasonable people acting in good faith who can't agree, then either (a) the issue is dropped since it doesn't have sufficient support (b) (if one group is very large) the motion is passed despite the complaints. In the case of (b) the opposition can learn to live with the decision or decide that due to the decision, WB is not the place for them, or a particular book/article isn't worth the effort for them; that's their decision, and that's okay. This isn't as "easy" as just strict voting, but you end up with more broadly acceptable policies. Kellen T 10:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Kellen, there are some good points here. Perhaps I should let someone else contribute on the side of voting - is there anyone else out there interested in how Wikibooks operates ???!! I'll come back to this in a week or so - even though this is fascinating and very important I should also be adding to some books! RobinH 10:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't keep away. Kellen, is your point 4b basically a statement that you agree with some kind of vote? In the example above, suppose a vote had demonstrated consensus according to 4b, would you ban the dissenting user if they reverted the change from "enforced" back to "proposed"? RobinH 12:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of collaborative work is not so much about the changes as the context and social interactions. If the user appears to be acting in good faith in reverting the policy (say, maybe, if there is some serious harm that they claim will come from it) then no, it probably doesn't warrant a ban. If they are just being stubborn and refusing to accept the community's decision, and then they engage in a revert war, they are acting in bad faith and could be banned for being disruptive and not acting civily. Kellen T 14:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And no, 4b does not mean I agree with some kind of vote. Here is an flowchart I made for consensus decision making. The reality on WB is a bit different (and a bit muddled) due to asynchronous communication.
 * [[Image:Consensus2.png]]
 * People who vote no on something on wikibooks are of two types; stand-asides and blocks. Those who learn to live with the decision, despite the fact that they don't totally agree are implict 'stand asides' in the consensus process. The decision hasn't made them question their fundamental commitment to working on the goal of WB. (Other types of stand asides would be people who abstain or people who just leave a comment) The people who block are those for whom the decision on the proposal is make-or-break. If the community decides to pass the proposal over their objections, they leave. We see this in contributors who just disappear and in contributors who flame out.
 * A block in a "real life" organization means you're much more serious about your objection to the point where you are willing to leave the organization if the proposal is passed. Since in these organizations you also have a much more highly developed social environment, this is quite extreme. It obviously doesn't work as well on WB/WP since we have a large and anonymous community with a very low barrier to entry. Kellen T 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice flowchart. Voting is introduced in organisations because it is realised that your flowchart is iterative. For example, if a blocker fails to stand aside the decision "shall we override the blocker?" becomes a new proposal, then the decision "shall we override the blocker of the decision to override the blocker" becomes a new proposal. This continues until there are no blockers. However, if blockers at the top level block every other level of the iteration then the only solution is for a gang to form that secretly mounts an attack on the blocker.


 * The iterative process is probably a natural way of handling events in an organisation that has no constitution. It is the method used in tribes and gangs. The down-side is that each iteration takes months or years on Wikibooks and this places immense blocking power in the hands of individuals. This blocking may have nothing to do with the decision under consideration - for instance Zephram has voted "no" to several policy proposals in Wikibooks using the same text.


 * Organisations short circuit the iteration by simply using a majority vote according to some constitution. This allows them to respond to events in a timely fashion. RobinH 11:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a good flowchart. I disagree with what happens where a member still blocks after his concerns have all been addressed (albeit not to his satisfaction). At that time, we need to decide whether to override the blocker, and it is here that voting becomes useful. Informal voting can be useful to gauge feelings before this time, but the emphasis should be on looking to avoid a formal vote to override a blocker if at all possible, Jguk 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, that's not what it implies at all. Yes, there is a feedback loop, but it's not mechanical. If the person blocks, and the community decides to override their block, the community tries to come to consensus then and there. The blocker isn't able to affect that decision making process by blocking again.
 * I agree with you that voting is easier in general and makes it easier to essentially shout down people who disagree with the majority, but I don't think it's the best way to come up with broadly accepted and useful policies. Keep in mind that wikibooks is not a business and time is not of the essence. We don't have to meet quarterly deadlines or make profit margins, and we can take the time to discuss issues rather than counting votes out of convenience. Kellen T 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Hits
Hey, is there anyway to find out how much traffic a certain wikipage is getting? Thanks in advance. Daniel.Stevens 07:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. --Derbeth talk 09:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the discussion at [Hit counting]. Apparently the Wiki hit counters cannot be used either in Wikimedia projects because the "Squibs" serve most pages. RobinH 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The "squids" cache the pages so that they don't have to be regenerated from the database every time. Kellen T 18:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I should claim that I suffer from dyslexia or maybe my subconscious felt that squids sounded a bit fishy. RobinH 10:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well here's why it's called that. Kellen T 10:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rip a karaoke cd on Votes for undeletion
Please comment there, and not here. --Kernigh 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bookshelf reorganization
Please see Wikibooks_talk:All_bookshelves. This is as important as deciding policies and is key to the future growth of Wikibooks. --haginძaz 00:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Academics, Wikibooks, and Authorship
I am new to Wikibooks but one thing I am curious about: is there a strong incentive besides altruism to submit material? Since advanced textbooks are written almost exclusively by academics it seems like the open model for textbooks could be hampered by the incentive that drives academia: authorship. Most professors write books based on classes that they teach but even if your book gets wide distribution the publisher takes basically all of the profit. Academics are paid in recognition which does not seem to be exceptionally prevelant on wikibooks and probably limits the ultimate usefulness of the site. What are the general thoughts that people have here on incentive for academic submissions? It seems to me that altruism can only go so far but "primary authorship" or "textbook coordinator" status or something like it could significantly boost incentive to turn a lot of these stubs into high quality books.Mpickett 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides altruism and it being fun, I don't think there is much of a strong incentive to submit material. That hasn't hampered WP from gaining submissions from highly educated people, though. Kellen T 09:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the books here have a list of principal contributors on the front page. For instance: Ada Programming, Programming:Visual Basic Classic.  As long as it doesn't turn into blatant self promotion I don't think anyone here has a problem with works and authors being associated.  In fact I think it is quite the opposite, reputation counts here, I want to know who the principal authors and maintainers of a book are.  Does anyone have a friend or relative who has a real reputation in the real world who could be persuaded to donate some words?  Could someone persuade Richard Dawkins or Donald Knuth to contribute?  On second thoughts we'd better leave Knuth alone or he'll never get The Art of Computer Programming finished and that would be a much greater loss.  --kwhitefoot 09:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Implementing consensus on No personal attacks
I have just re-read the Talk page on No personal attacks. There really is a consensus on this policy. Those who have voted "No" (two qualifying users) have voted "No" because they disagree with the idea of a vote, or of policies in general, not because they oppose No personal attacks so there is indeed consensus. I propose that No personal attacks should be moved to enforced status. RobinH 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we're still at the stage of "synthesise concerns" per the above flowchart (which looks good to me). The discussion on my concerns has not really moved forward since 27 April. If you'd like to respond to them, then I would be happy to re-engage in the debate. In this regard, I note that others have said that they would only like one behaviour policy, a sentiment that I would agree with. The question then comes down to whether this is it - whether this one needs to be amended before it becomes policy - or whether a different approach entirely is sensible. I have drafted my own discussion draft of what I believe a good approach for a single behaviour policy would look like on Be nice. Hopefully that can help us (directly or indirectly) proceed towards getting us a single final behaviour policy that we are all happy with, Jguk 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out above, the flow chart above would lead to iterations and the possibility of endless blockings by one user. According to the flowchart and discussion, a user who was dedicated to the well-being of the project would stand aside.


 * The "No personal attacks" policy has only one real dissenter, yourself, and you are dissenting on grounds other than opposition to the specific policy. "Be nice" seems to be a carte-blanche for administrators to do as they wish. It does not define "nice". For instance, would it be "nice" for an administrator to archive a warning that a policy was about to be made enforced, then changing it unilaterally from enforced to proposed despite a large majority in favour of enforcement and then blocking it endlessly? Is that "nice"? RobinH 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your production of a meta-policy that includes the other policies but until then we should have something in place. You and Zephram are blocking specific policies on the basis of objections either to multiple policies or any policies. These issues should be discussed separately from whether a specific policy should be adopted. The problem with the model of primitive consensus building in the flow chart is that it does not allow timely decision making, one user can derail all decisions endlessly unless the others gang up on them and override them. I hate gangs. RobinH 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree with you here. First, the flowchart suggests all concerns are discussed. It is only once all concerns have been discussed and there remains a blocking member that we need to decide whether to override that block or not. I note above that here, and only here, do I believe that a binding vote is necessary. At present, none of my concerns have been addressed at all. Maybe they can be, perhaps by improving the language of the proposed policy so that we are all happy with it. If that is not possible, then and only then do you need to decide to override me. Since none of us are arguing that personal attacks are acceptable, there is no reason to believe that it should come to this. This is not my view alone, another user has specifically requested that you address my concerns first before trying again to make this policy.

I would also note that other users have expressed support only on the grounds that they would like a behaviour policy set out, and that the wording can be improved later. In terms of whether this is the right behaviour policy for us to have, it is not too different from my view that the current proposal has some flaws, and these should be ironed out before the policy goes live.

Stepping back further, my Be nice proposal is meant to be a principle-based policy. That is, it sets out the general principle to be applied. This may be where we differ as you seem to prefer a rules-based policy. That is, a policy that sets out precise rules that you either comply with or you don't. Full stop. Black and white. Personally I believe principle-based policies are more flexible and deal with controversial situations better. Plus they are less susceptible to wikilawyering (for instance, in a rules-based policy either you have followed the letter of the law or you haven't, and if you haven't the wikilawyer claims whatever you now do is unreasonable, even though you followed the spirit of the law). The rules-based policy allows for technical offences, and may create loopholes for the abusive editor to exploit. A principle-based policy is not so precise, but generally allows for greater flexibility and for shorter policy (you do not have to list everything that is to be banned). It also can be as strong as a rules-based policy. For example, would you not agree that swearing, excessive and persistent reverting and making legal threats would unambiguously be considered contrary to a general "be nice" principle-based policy, even when "nice" is not defined? Jguk 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that "all concerns" should be discussed but the concern you are raising is the general issue of whether or not policies of the current type should be enforced. Your concern is not directed at the specific policy.


 * Your "be nice" proposal needs renaming because it sounds sickly. Apart from that it is an approach that will need a lot of discussion and has little chance of being adopted for months or even years. Please allow specific policies to be adopted and then start a debate about "be nice" - or "Wikibooks standards of behaviour" or whatever it becomes called. RobinH 12:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a phrase that is pretty much synonymous with "be nice", but which is less vomit-inducing, I'd be grateful for your help. I still haven't thought of a good way of putting it, Jguk 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Implementing consensus on Deletion policy
Deletion policy has had a Vote that shows complete consensus. I propose that this is moved to an enforced policy. RobinH 09:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is merely one of the ways that you need to be bold and simply do it. Mark it as enforced, and if it is questioned, you can point to the vote for confirmation that some significant concensus has gone into the proposed policy.  If half this effort went into the policies on gaming guide removal or the "textbook" definition that seems to taken hold by the deletionists here on Wikibooks, I would have been considerably more supportive of their actions.  --Rob Horning 11:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of Ad hoc administration committee
The number of votes against Ad hoc administration committee is such that it will never become an enforced policy. I am demoting it to "rejected" (even though I proposed it). RobinH 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rejection of No legal threats
Again, too many votes against for a consensus to ever be achieved for No legal threats.

This will reduce the number of proposed policies to 5 if the status of the policies mentioned is changed. RobinH 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - but anyone reading this comment without looking at the background to this rejection should bear in mind that none of the objections was saying that we in any way condone the making of legal threats. We don't, and it won't be long before a user is blocked if that user persists in making such threats, Jguk 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform
I have a detailed page setting out a number of discussion drafts that, if adopted, would constitute a significant simplification of Wikibooks' policies. All constructive comments would be welcome, Jguk 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets clear up the policies that exist before embarking upon a year long reform of policies. You, and another user, have been blocking the enforcement of policies on the basis of the possibility of this reform. You want this reform and the other user wants no policies whatsoever. This reform is no reason for blocking the enforcement of specific policies, it is unrelated to the policies themselves and can be run as a separate issue. Please allow specific policies to be moved to enforced. RobinH 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The sky is not falling. Most of the policies ("general voting rules" excluded) are accepted broadly as common sense and enforced whether or not the module says so. There is no need to railroad policies just to change the color of the little box at the top of each page. Kellen T 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Enforced policies represent the view of the community. Proposed policies represent the view of the proposer. There is a difference. Without clear policies we are operating withing a primitive parallel of a gang land or school playground where anyone who can muster up a couple of supporters can bully the community. Wikibooks is a serious venture that deserves better than this. RobinH 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kellen's right. We already have policies covering the areas you are interested in - they just aren't in a formal written form at present. It may well be desirable to formalise some of the unwritten parts of our constitution (particularly as it allows new contributors to quickly find out what behaviour is generally accepted and not accepted in this community), but there's no need to hurry - we can take time to get things right. For example, at present you are actively working towards writing a "no personal attacks" policy. Let me be clear on this - if someone makes persistent personal attacks on Wikibooks and refuses to desist I and/or other administrators will have no difficulty in chucking them off the site until and unless they agree to abide by the rules. This will happen whether there is a written policy on the point or not. Yes, it might be a good idea to spell this out somewhere, but even if it is not spelt out, if necessary (and I hope it never is), that course of action would be taken, Jguk 16:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The objective of policies that have been approved by the community is to show both users AND administrators the boundaries. Administrators should welcome clear descriptions of what is expected on Wikibooks and enforced policies provide these descriptions. RobinH 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaming manual as a textbook
I'm throwing down the gauntlet here on this issue again. I am sick an tired of a bunch of content being removed simply because it is of a particular theme. In particular, the removal of the gaming guides was IMHO totally out of line, but in this case I would like to prove both Jimbo and the rest of the anti-gaming guide people that they are not only wrong, but flat out wrong about the removal of content simply because of the topic, not because of the content.

I'm willing to consider a number of options, but what I'd like to do is write a real honest-to-goodness textbook that would be of the quality that it could be used for a university class, but that the topic of the textbook is a video game. Specifically I'd like to do Doom if for no reason other than Jimbo has specifically marked it for deletion and claimed that it could never be made into a textbook. I'd love to prove him wrong on this point in particular.
 * You can easily prove me wrong. Show me a University course where the objective is to learn to play Doom, and where the students work from a textbook.  If not, then what is the point?--Jimbo Wales 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My former employer, Columbia College Chicago, has a new game design major. While no course on Doom per se is taught, part of the new curriculum is a course on game engines and writing and designing virtual gaming environments. It seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to use a textbook that is survey of say the original M&M, Doom, and WoW to describe the art and design of these virtual environments. As long as the rigor exists in the treatise, it could very well be used at the course. Of course, one could include historicity and the nature of actually WRITING a game guide as a chapter. Plus, I can't imagine Columbia College is the only higher ed that has a curriculum in this topic .02USD jtvisona 05/28/06


 * I believe what you are saying is that textbooks suitable for students can be written about games. I would agree with that. Indeed, going by Jimbo's amendment to What is Wikibooks, so would he. What we are doing, however, is to systematically remove game walkthroughs (ie books about games which clearly do not fall within the definition of "textbook"), preferably after having found a new home for them elsewhere on the web, Jguk 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a video game walkthrough (which should have been the point of the debate well before the removal of the gaming guides), but rather an in depth scholarly review of this game, and to point out the historical significance that this game has within the computer gaming industry. The historical roots of this game, including Castle Wolfenstein, Commander Keen, and other earlier ID software games, as well as other computer games would be included in this book as well. How Doom has affected the development of other first-person shoot 'em up games would also be a significant point in this book as well.

All other Wikibooks and in general Wikimedia policies should be followed when developing this textbook, which the end goal is to reach a standard that if this is deleted, that wikibooks itself should be simply shut down as a failed project.

I don't know if there are any video game textbook supporters left on Wikibooks, but if there is anybody interested in taking on this project, please let me know. I think a real textbook can be written on this topic. Others may disagree, but this is also to see if there is any room left on Wikibooks to even permit the writing of such a real textbook. My opinion is that just because of the subject matter that it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. --Rob Horning 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Video games are going to be an extremely disturbing phenomenon in the next decade or two as they become enmeshed with real life. When online cash can be withdrawn from ATMs as real cash we are talking about something serious occurring. Wikibooks may well be the "cutting edge" publishing medium that gets out of video games just as they start to take over the world.


 * I do not play these games myself but it is obvious that they are the test bench for the future virtual reality working and trading worlds. There are currently 6 million on-line gamers involved in games that have real world cash interfaces and this type of cash represents over $800,000,000 dollars of real world money (See current edition of New Scientist).


 * Don't get me wrong, I really hate the idea of people going to work by sticking on a VR goggle-set but sadly it looks like the future. It is probably already a reasonable business idea to set up as a shop-keeper or interior designer in an on-line game. RobinH 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But not all games deal with internet cash. In fact, most of the games that deal with internet cash are strictly casino games like Texas Hold' Em or BlackJack, except online. Thats like using Porn movies to say that the movie industry is poor, and Hentai and Porn Books to say that the book industry is also unsuitable for textbook materials. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I was saying is that games that involve cash but which are not casino games or pure porn are a new development that is likely to take off in a big way - see Business week story. These games are a test bed for VR commerce and a VR economy. We should not ditch games just when games are about to "happen". RobinH 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol. I misread your post :-/ Agreed. --Dragontamer 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Robert, I'm still here kicking for Video Games on Wikibooks. My first question is what stance should we take on Doom? The real obvious one is to take the Doom Source code and then do an analysis from there. The primary advantage is that yes, this fits the classical definition of textbook, but it probably wouldn't save the video game bookshelf.


 * Another perspective I see we can do is to see Doom as an art of itself. Using Game Design textbooks like Chris Crawford on Game Design, we could use his vocabulary of what a game is, and then analyse the game akin to a book or movie. Perhaps the level design and how mazes are as they are in Doom, the pros and the cons. Etc. Etc. From this perspective, it would be like the Muggles'_Guide_to_Harry_Potter but for doom instead. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert, as long as it's not just a walkthrough, I'd be fine with it. I have been a big supporter of the Textbook Rule, but if the topic of a textbook is a video game, I'd be more than willing to help. Let's get cracking. -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a textbook on Doom along the lines that Robert suggests. Wikibooks is for textbooks. I believe we all agree that books similar to those used in existing classes in a number of learning institutions are within our scope. Additionally, I believe we all think that Wikibooks' scope is wider than that - although we do disagree on how much wider it is than that and how to define accurately what we mean by a textbook that can't be used for a current class in a learning instition.

To my mind a lot of what a textbook is is in the aim and style and the use to which a textbook can be put. It would be foolish to say that there can be a textbook on every conceivable topic, yet at the same time it is possible to write interesting and informative textbooks that do not correspond to classes in schools, universities or adult education centres. Robert's proposed book on Doom, for me, appears to meet the right criteria. I would stress though that our current book on Doom does not.

I would, however, ask Robert, for his own sake, to think whether he really wishes to pursue his idea - as I'm sure we are all aware, writing a book takes up a surprisingly large amount of time. However, if Robert will put in this effort in essence just to prove a point (and at the risk of Jimbo ordering the book off Wikibooks anyway) then I will not in any way seek to hinder him, Jguk 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic, Robert. How is a "scholarly review" a game manual? The book Doom can't be turned into a textbook without rewriting all of the content, which is what you intend to do. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jimbo has never said that a textbook can't be written on this topic. In his WB:WIW revision, he said quite the opposite. I think what you have to ask yourself is whether a book would be usable in a classroom on any aspect of game design, like an annotated text would be in a literature classroom. I also don't know what to popularity of video games has to do with this. There are even colleges devoted to video game design, but not one has a "How to finish Doom" or "Doom Manual" class. --haginძaz 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So make it a rewrite... even if it has to be from scratch. Monopoly had this happen and has become a much better book as a result.  The opinion of Jimbo was that Doom could never be used as a textbook because of the subject matter.  Yes, he did say a textbook could never be written about this topic.  This was mentioned specifically as an example.  My proposal here is to rewrite, perhaps even from a clean sweep of the current Doom Wikibook being thrown out, to turn this into a textbook that could be usable in a classroom.  Major sections would include game play, economy (weapons and ammo), algorithms, and historical impact of the game both in terms of roots and what games have been developed from this one game.


 * Based on what I am percieving from the people trying to remove video games, they are trying to delete content because of subject matter alone, and not content. The discussion has become so heated that the issue of wheither any university-level courses were taught on the subject, with incredulity occuring when some actual courses were pointed out.


 * In addition to all of this discussion, until Jimbo came in here and really pushed for textbooks, Wikibooks was about books, not textbooks. Essentially, this was for content that would normally be considered acceptable on Wikipedia, but for its length and the need to break it up into multiple sections.  Some additional flexability was granted for Wikibooks to do non-encyclopedia type works.  I will admit that the first Wikibook is the Organic Chemistry, and that was a textbook.  Other content is on Wikibooks however, including content added by WMF board members that is clearly not a textbook in nature.


 * I have been approached now by two different people who are openly trying to encourage me to fork Wikibooks with actual server space to do so. I think this is an unfortunate situation, and I would rather that forking doesn't occur.  I still havn't decided if my effort is going to be used to work on those forks and abandoning this project altogether or if there is something worth saving here.  I do believe that far too much content has been removed from Wikibooks, especially when much of that content was added on good faith that it belonged here.... even surviving VfDs earlier.  While there was and is still cruft on Wikibooks, taking out two major bookshelves (Video Games and How-tos) is not a way to win friends and grow this project.  Especially when there is no place to move it within the context of Wikimedia projects.  Had this been done with Wikiversity (I guess they are next with the axe now) another fairly significant community would have been destroyed as well, with some potentially outstanding ideas lost permanently.  --Rob Horning 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you agree that the content you will be using to create a Doom book would work better as part of larger textbooks, such as as examples? In my opinion, yes, it would be a textbook teaching concepts taught in classrooms, but just not a very good one. I don't think it occurred to Jimbo that someone would bother teaching game design using only Doom, as better examples exist.


 * Has any attempt been made to ask the board or Jimbo himself whether he has the right to dicate policy? I would like to hear someone outside of Wikibooks say that this community has the right to decide upon Wikibooks' scope. If that happens, an active discussion should ensue and I'll give my opinion on the matter. --haginძaz 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said Robert. As for critical study of Doom; I cannot think of a more revolutionary game than Doom. In fact, the word "Doom Clone" described First Person Shooter genre for *years* after Doom was released. It would be great as a case study. --Dragontamer 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others, but my input in this matter has always been from the perspective of a gamer. I originally came to Wikibooks because of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas guide, where a large portion of my contributions were and likely still are. And once it was suggested that they be moved I was fine with that, as to me it makes sense to move to a more focussed, gamer-friendly wiki. Indeed I've talked to many outside of the wiki environment who were surprised that a site called "Wikibooks" had videogame strategy at all!

I bear gaming topics no ill will. If someone starts "A Tempest in a Coffee Pot? Jack Thompson Vs. the Gaming World" I'll be right in there expanding it and linking to interviews and the like. But if someone starts "The Definitive Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories Solutions Manual" I'll take it to Vfd soon after. Serious Wikibooks can and will one day be written regarding videogames, but the current game guides simply don't fit that category. And is moving them off Wikibooks all that dissimilar from your tabula rasa propsal? GarrettTalk 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again and again, this argument comes up. And again and again, people fail to come up with a good reason for why Video Games should be removed. Unless I'm missing something here, but I don't see any good reason for video game guides to go away, aside from stir up trouble in the community.


 * My strongest protest to this move is that it of all things, slaps long time editors in the face, and kicks them out of the wikibooks community. Whether or not this is for the "better" of wikibooks, we will have to live with the fact that we got a bunch of now former editors of wikibooks, who are very disgruntled.


 * As Robert said, this move has made some people to go as far as make forks of Wikibooks. Isn't this a tiny little tipoff that just maybe something is off here? 2 people asking for forks means there are a *whole* lot more than just 2 people pissed. The only reason there is to this nonsense is that "Jimbo Says". If it isn't obvious to anyone yet, Jimbo seems to be more busy at Wikipedia than here, to put it mildly. As I've said before, there have been admin requests that were denyed for having fewer than 270 edits, and having 6 month breaks. As much as I don't wanna downplay Jimbo here... I just wanna point out that "Jimbo Says" is not a good enough reason for all this. --Dragontamer 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm wasn't making any point, merely refreshing what I've said in previous debates before jumping into this one in an attempt to avoid any further confusion in an already complex debate. Bah.
 * I'm not one to go too much against the flow of what the Foundation says, which is why I've largely accepted what Jimbo said. In the end the Foundation owns the servers, however we collectively have supplied both funding and content, thus making users by and large feel that we have some say in how we run things. Jimbo has always encouraged us to make our own policy decisions, however he has stepped in occasionally when those decisions didn't go the way he felt the Foundation stood (e.g. Getting a Girl and other such modules).
 * But recently he's become more and more vocal, and less and less present to clarify his rationale. The videogame policy change is the climax; even to those supporting the move it's a stunning change of events. Is this the Foundation speaking, or is it only Jimbo? And to what extent do the Foundation board members back Jimbo's statements as being ex cathedra, so to speak? And, also, to what extent do we the community (who are arguably responsible for Wikibooks' content and in turn its success) get a say in matters?
 * I'm all for continuing a happy medium, but things are getting out of hand. This is why I have put my transwikiing efforts on hold. I need to know where we stand. If we're to allow game guides, sure, I can use the log to undelete what I've moved and everybody will live happily ever after. If we're not, fine, I can continue work. But I really feel it's time we heard from the board itself, and not just Jimbo. I want to see closure to this issue. I really don't care which decision is reached, as long as it's both official and final. GarrettTalk 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I put a note on Jimbo's WP page.


 * Also, just to be clear, I am not asking people to fork WikiBooks content to my wiki. My wiki in the public domain, and so is not a suitable place to move the content to unless you are the copyright holder. Except for the Pokédex, which as a collection of facts is not covered by the GFDL, I have just finished copying them all. All I did was to letRob Horning (who supported my admin request for simple.wikibooks before) that there are other options. The choices as I see them are to help out one (or more) of these other wiki's, or to use your energy to try and fight Jimbo with no guarantee of success and little to no progress on these books while doing so. Gerard Foley 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just all petition the Wikimedia Foundation for an entirely brand new domain where video game guides and other how-to books could reside (Wikigames or Wikiguides, or some other creative name), leaving Wikibooks for just textbooks (and perhaps while we're at it move Wikiversity too?). Or keep them here and form a Wikitext for only textbooks. We already have a lot of content that could populate both, and it would all be contained under the Wikimedia umbrella. Anyone wanna take this to meta with me? -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll help out with that. I have the same user-name at Meta, so send me a message there, and I will help petition. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing I see that is an issue, is why split a community already so small and fragmented? We aren't even at the "critical point". So much work is needed to start up a new book; editors rarely search outside their pet projects. Newcommers are fustrated as they stumble upon stubs and stubs. The newbies who do find a project they are willing to work for quickly find their contents deleted, sometimes with no explanation, or any clue to where it has gone.


 * Frankly speaking; I think a forking of wikibooks in any way would cause this project to crumble, unless it is a "fresh start" and everyone is actually willing to "do it right" this time (if you know what I mean).


 * And after the fiasco with wikiversity, I'm not... encouraged... to take anything to meta anymore. Though if enough people join the cause, I may change my mind :-/. How many months have those wikiversity people been trying?


 * In closing, I'd like to ask; why not change the Wikibooks policy to include video games, howtos, guides, and other instructional resources? A new domain name would be a difficult goal to aim for, and it seems that changing policy to include what already is on Wikibooks is a *much* easier idea than:
 * Petitioning for a new Domain Name
 * Winning that petition
 * Writing a proposal to Wikimedia board
 * Correcting that proposal over a period of several months
 * Transwiki everything over
 * Restart policy from scratch


 * Chaning the policy only involves telling Jimbo Wales and/or the board that we've changed our mission to what we actually do.--Dragontamer 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We only need a new domain if we want video games guides at a WikiMedia project. Why is this so important? There are already plenty of places willing to accept this content:
 * http://strategywiki.net/wiki/Main_Page For video game guides, uses the GFDL.
 * http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page My own site, Public Domain, but will accept basically anything Wikipedia does. It’s new, so it’s a fresh start.
 * WikiCities I don't know the URL, but I'm sure they have a wiki which will take all this content.
 * That would be Gameinfo. GarrettTalk 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo doesn't want this content, let's take it elsewhere! Gerard Foley 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But if we can, why not try and keep this under the Wikimedia umbrella? I know forming a new domain under WM can be tough, but I think if enough users still want to work on them, we should at least try to find a WM place for them. If the proposal is rejected, then go to outside sources. My opinion. -- LV (Dark Mark) 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. As interesting as the idea of a separate project is it would have some growing problems. Most importantly Wikibooks has been the videogaming recipient for several years now; no matter how loudly any policy changes are stated on Wikipedia there will still be content dumped here due to habit. And so a good portion of transwikiing work will be spent moving such stuff off Wikibooks and into "Wikiguides", and then the userbase there will in turn have to move it around within their own system or else just plain delete it. If the Foundation are going to keep videogame guides in the family why not just leave them here? And as for the likelihood of the Foundation accepting the proposal, I really can't say how videogame content on its own, even if bolstered by non-gaming howtos, can fit the Foundation's "educational mission". GarrettTalk 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is Jimbo was very clear about this, normally he just likes to wonder], but on this issue he was black and white. Video game guides do not belong here. Period. Gerard Foley 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as wikitruth has some valid points... I wouldn't go as far as to say I believe it 100%. Opinions on people are wide spread, and I'd rather not judge Jimbo on something other sites say about him. But anyway; please, explain why Video game guides don't belong here, and second, why we can't change policy to include them. --Dragontamer 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Rob, FYI, the game Final Fantasy X was the subject of a quite thorough post-grad Phylosophy thesis recently. You should read the Abstract and Introduction, the thesis author mentions a lot of reasons why games can be considered the Shakespeare of our times. It is a pity games are being evicted from here. Thank heavens we found a home for the Final Fantasy stuff! Renmiri 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Meaning and Emotion in Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy X — Graduation thesis by Glen R. Spoors, Edith Cowan University - Australia


 * Dragontamer, if you want to know why Video game guides don't belong here? Because Jimbo says so! Why can't we change policy to include them? Because Jimbo wants them gone. I have a list of books I was going to keep an eye on my user page, a quick look and you can see I was a supporter of video game books. I started some of them myself. IMO it just isn't worth fighting for them here when other wiki's will welcome them with open arms! Gerard Foley 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You could also read this post I made Gerard Foley 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page break for editing purposes

 * So then we convince Jimbo/Wikimedia board to say it is better for guides to stay here. Lord Voldemort wants to create a new wiki for it. You want to create a new wiki for it. I want them to stay; or to move them to a new wiki for it. Renmiri thinks they deserve to stay. All in all; I see so much support for this stuff, not only from typical editors, but from at least 2 Wikibooks admins. If Jimbo really doesn't want them here, well then, he'll have to live with his decision of (IMO) killing off the wikibooks project. Too many contributors are leaving because of this decision (video game contributors or not), and maybe we all can reverse this decision. And the advantage is now on our side to say why things belong. Damage is already being done to the Wikibooks reputation because of this decision, and instead of me hypothesising about it, I can actually point it out. Your fork is a near perfect example. The activity levels of admins is another one; it may be too soon for me to point this out, but coincidence or not; Special:Contributions/Robert_Horning and Special:Contributions/Kernigh activity level dropped a *lot* right after his little announcement (from 10+ contributions a day to 2+ days a contribution). I'm sure they're still here, reading, waiting to see what will happen soon on wikibooks before offering their time and energy on this project again. I know other people have gone "missing", but I can't name them off the top of my head.


 * It is much easier to keep things here than to make a new wiki; on wikimedia or not. Though, if Jimbo says goodbye one more time, I guess we'll have no choice but to leave. But we aren't losing any "time" here on this issue, and I argue that there is no "wasted effort". Making a wiki is too large an undertaking for me to just say "Alright, I'm leaving". We got policy to make, and early policy to make as well. We'll have to come up and lay down the lines precisely, with no "gray" areas. The community will have to grow, we'll have to fight vandals, set up a hierarchy, etc. etc.


 * Thats all done here in Wikibooks now. The only thing to do is convince people (more or less, Jimbo) that we want this kind of content somewhere, and that Wikibooks is better off overall if we stay.


 * I suggest to Lord Voldemort: instead of that proposal for a new wiki; why not propose we change policy to stay here? I'm willing to support that 100%.


 * Crazy Idea, i know, but thats why I'm here :-p To offer crazy ideas.--Dragontamer 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say, "Hey let's create a whole new wiki" if that wasn't where Jimbo/Board were leading us (and always have been, for that matter). The Wikimedia Foundation has in its bylaws, that WB is "a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks". So somehow I don't think changing our Wikibooks policy is good enough. I simply see everything (Jimbo's statements, the bylaws, the educational goal, etc.) and think it's obvious that game-guides are not to be included. That's why I suggested an alternate domain. I just don't know anymore. Instead of asking, "What's so wrong about having video game guides here", ask yourself "How great would it be if there was a website dedicated to the distribution of free textbooks to every person in the world?" -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see where video game guides conflicts with that at all. Maybe I'm oblivious, but from what I'm seeing (that is, major users who have stopped contributing, people moving out of Wikibooks and into forks, other pissed off users who probably aren't going to come back), removal of these guides has essentially killed that goal, or at least caused a major setback to Wikibooks in general. --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to try to fight for them to stay at Wikibooks, then go ahead and good luck with it! Just don't expect me to help, I'm too busy writing these guides, and my CSS guide also is coming on nicely also IMO :)! I 100% won’t be coming back to Wikibooks either way. I have invested too much time & money into by wiki to abandon it now. I mean the $10 offer for 200 words will cost me $200 alone, which comes out of my own pocket! Plus there’s hosting costs, back-ups, getting advertising, trying to get a new host so I can fix the ugly url's etc.. No, I'm gone for good. The only thing I'll be doing is helping to move anything which is free of copyright over to my wiki (such as the 24 hours I spent copying the Pokédex). Yes, this decision will probably only help kill Wikibooks, but perhaps the damage has already been done? Gerard Foley 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand 100%. Good luck on your wiki project! No hard feelings from me (you deserve none at all) --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If wikibooks were my project, I would have set it up differently, but at the same time there is a certain amount of value in having an open-textbook resource aimed directly at students. I don't think that this will kill wikibooks, but it will slow us down a little bit. Good luck on your projects, and I know that we here at wikibooks are going to need alot of luck as well. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Renmiri - me - is just a n00b at Wikibooks and pretty new at Wikipedia too, so my lamenting that game guides are being evicted doesn't have the benefit of all the knowledge of WikiMedia history, bylaws, etc... But precisely because I am a newbie is that I wanted to give you my perspective: Game guides are, IMHO, where the Wikibook administrators of 2015 will cut their teeth in. From what I have seen in game sites and in Wikipedia / Wikibooks, this is where 13-16 year old - or even younger - will start thinking about cooperation and content management. I'm willing to bet that the first textbook a high school kid reads voluntarily will be a game walktrough. Even for the older newbies like me and others, the game guides provide a less stresful way to get into Wikimedia editing. A Wikipedia page about heart surgery, ancient history or all the others I have browsed those past few years looked pretty intimidating. Yet a page about a game made me confortable enough to click on that scary edit tab and I fixed a couple of things. Three months later me and other n00bs had injected so much life into that particular game series of pages that 10 pages were cited as Good Article and one got confirmed as Featured Article. And our newly found boldness for editing started spreading around to other topics and to Wikibooks. In my view, it may be necessary to evict game guides for the many reasons cited above, but Wikibooks is losing an excellent opportunty for training and nurturing new book editors and book readers. Get them while they are young, and on a hobby like games and those readers and editors might be yours forever ;-) Renmiri 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I come exactly from your background Renmiri. My first major edits were on Maple Story, a video game. --Dragontamer 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My first wiki-edits were on the Chrono-Trigger artical at wikipedia. I strongly believe that there should be a place for game manuals for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned. I even voted back in the day to keep the game manuals here. However, it seems that the focus of wikibooks has changed (or at least re-focused on it's original goals), and I don't think that there is a big reason to fight that. Wikibooks will be hurt the most by a lack of focus. If we want to put everything and anything here, we should just rename it "wikieverything". Unfortunately, the line has been drawn at game guides. But look at what we have now: dedicated editors who are going to take their game guides to a new, more appropriate venue, and a highly-focused instructional resource in wikibooks. Our situation is certainly bittersweet, but if it has to happen, we might as well see the silver lining. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks has always accepted manuals, howtos, gameguides, and so forth. We knew where the line was drawn, and we know exactly why Wikibooks isn't a "Wikieverything". Even before the Jokebook incident, we were already pushing Wikiversity to leave, deleting other non"wikibook" material, and everyone knew exactly why it didn't fit policy. The line was already drawn, and now it is redrawn again. Now, even very instructional material like Votes_for_undeletion and arguably textbooks like that *very* informative MJ book are at risk.


 * And with a line drawn somewhere inbetween Chess and Video Games... I see nothing but confusion ahead for wikibooks if it continues down this path. No metric, aside from "Jimbo Says" decides the line between Chess and Video Games. And I doubt there would be any defined line between them.


 * And without defined lines; there will be no justification for really any action at wikibooks. Policy right now is shot; the "Accredited institution" metric is probably the only one that is being used at any rate, and even then, that metric is shot. The only thing left here is for us to argue opinion vs opinion; with no solid policy to say why something could survive a VfD now.


 * That is what is causing the fustration right now. And with the line now drawn at such a blurry place (Chess/Go vs other games), I dunno what to say. What about Omok/Gomoku? 6 in a row? Connect 4? There is no policy to say what lies exactly inbetween the lines here.


 * The problem is far deeper than just Video Games on wikibooks. But I feel allowing Video Games on Wikibooks will cure nearly all of this policy debate up. Unless you have a policy that cleanly cuts Video Games away from Puzzles and Chess, or include them all (or none), Wikibooks will stagnate. --Dragontamer 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Game guides on Wikibooks
Given the harmless nature of such guides are you sure that they should be banned from Wikibooks? They are contained in their own section, the distinction between games such as Doom and Chess is debatable and, in the last couple of years it has become possible to actually trade inside games see Business week story. The users at Wikibooks are definitely uneasy about the ban. My userid is RobinH at Wikibooks.


 * Drawing the line seems very easy to me. There is a simple question: can you point to a course at an accredited institution which uses this sort of thing as a textbook? I think there are college courses on chess. I think there are not college courses on Doom. Simple. Some people may not like that Wikibookians do not want Wikibooks to be a dumping ground for whatever doesn't fit in Wikipedia. But we have a charitable mission, and we need to respect that. --Jimbo Wales 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"


 * The issue I see is then Wiki Science as far as I know, isn't taught at universities. --Dragontamer 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea for policy
Biographies have been a major isue over at Wikipedia, especially biographies of current people. The idea of a biography on a wiki is usually appauling to most people. And while wikitruth may not be true on this issue, it does list some pretty poor possibilities when it comes to biographies. Essentially; if someone disagree's with their biography, they simply can't just edit it; else the vandal patrol will catch the major revision they probably made and revert it. And then it becomes pretty difficult for someone to prove that they are that person, and etc. etc.

My idea for a solution is simple. No biographies on Wikibooks. To my knowledge, there are no biographies on wikibooks right now, so we aren't cutting anything, and more importantly, anyone out. By initiating this policy now, we can catch the problem early, before it becomes a problem here on Wikibooks, as it is in Wikipedia. (indeed, all the major press problems on Wikipedia deals with Biographies). --Dragontamer 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As we host textbooks, not biographical books, the issue is not a great one on Wikibooks. We do, though, have some (very brief) biographies of key figures that feature in the development of the science or humanity in question. For instance, General Biology has General Biology/Gallery of Biologists, which mostly links to wikipedia, although General Biology/Gallery of Biologists/Charles Darwin is hosted on Wikibooks. I don't see any problem at all in this, as I expect the number of biographies we host to stay low. One thing we could do to head any potential problems off at the pass is to have a separate category into which to place the few biographies we have so that they can be closely monitored, Jguk 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats the issue. Closely monitored means that the person who the biography is about may have a very difficult time editing his own page, especially if he is a newbie to wikibooks (as is the issue in Wikipedia. How the heck is a newbie supposed to know any policy?). Loosely monitored == vandals on all biographies. It is a lose-lose situation I see here. Finally; a biography on a key figure in history would technically fall under textbook. Martin Luther King for example is a unit alone in some history books. I don't see how an indepth biography on say, Saddam wouldn't be a textbook at all. Useable in a (modern) history class so on, so forth. --Dragontamer 07:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that. Wikibooks doesn't have the bloat and the red-tape that wikipedia has. We don't have many people here who are prepared to revert a gigantic revision like the kind that you are talking about. General policy here is an "ask first shoot later" kind of mentality. We are more likely to post a cleanup notice or a warning note on questionable content, and wait for a reply. I think that Biographies could be considerably useful, although we would probably do well to stay away from current-event people, and stick instead to historical figures who are already dead, and whose lives are set in stone. I would probably vote to allow biographies here, given the opportunity. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess as long as current-event people are stayed away from, we should be good. --Dragontamer 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

abilties of "mediawiki"
hello, im from the hebrew wikibooks.

i would like to know if you know any way to show all pages under specific page.

for ex. if there are the pages: is there a way to show on the page: "abc" list that will include: "abc/1" and "abc/2"?
 * abc
 * abc/1
 * abc/2

thanks


 * Click on "Special pages" on the toolbox, and then "Prefix index". Type in "abc". The English wikibooks version is here. The Hebrew wikibooks version is here, Jguk 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * you misunderstood me, i want to put in every book the same template that automaticly will show all the pages under the page she is included in, is there any way to do it?


 * There is not a way to do this, to my knowledge. Kellen T 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow! I have been looking for a page like that for ages but it didn't come in my standard 1.5 MediaWiki installation package. Is that an extention available as open source code ? I'd like to get it for my Fan Fiction Wiki Renmiri 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is not a way to do this so far as I know. You should write the extension maybe =) Kellen T 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did write one extension already :) But in this case I was just referring to the one Jguk mentioned above: Special:Prefixindex. It is not on the MediaWiki 1.5 or 1.6 distribution, so I wonder if it is something you guys did or something I could get at Wikimedia. BTW, I have installed the Spell Checking extension on my Wiki and it works great! Wouldn't that be neat to have it here too ? Renmiri 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I thought it was a part of the core MW distribution. Have you tried the latest beta versions? We usually get things as they happen. Alternatively, you could ask about it in #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net Kellen T 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked at your site, and it looks like you have the prefixindex available to you: here. Kellen T 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh that is the site for the Spell Checking extension, not my site. But thanks for the tips, I will look into it. I'm positive it didn't came with 1.5 but I have not installed 1.6 so it may be there. Thanks !!! Renmiri 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to transclude the Specialprefix page: We use this trick in the Spanish Wikibooks, so it should work here. --ManuelGR 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Woah, that's pretty good. Nice hack! Kellen T 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating Text book Modules for Wikibooks with Google Notebook
Creating Text book Modules for Wikibooks with Google Notebook I've put together some short instructions for banging together module content with references on the web by using Google Noteboook... I think it could be leveraged into quite a publishing tool if used correctly.


 * install notebook
 * right click add note
 * print document
 * copy and paste into page
 * text clean up (time consuming as Garrett Points out)

benefits

 * easy to use
 * includes URL for references
 * wikipedia and Creative Commons materials available

Video of the process coming soon.

Anyone tried same/similar? You can see some rough content here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FHSST_Computer_Literacy/Contents/Computers_in_all_walks_of_life and here http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:DennisDaniels&action=submit

best --dgd 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's definitely a useful tool. Unfortunately for ideal results you need to format everything twice (e.g.  bold ) in readiness for importing. GarrettTalk 11:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a plugin specifically for Wikimedia? I know that Google is very much pro Wikipedia and etc? --213.42.2.23 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix
Might want to change this page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity

Thanks

published books
why not put books in that dont have copyright shakespeare authors that have been dead 100 yrs are copyright free put some on!!!!!!!!!!


 * Wikibooks is for books being made/corrected, etc. etc.


 * Already finished books go on Wikisource --Dragontamer 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User?
One of my contributors has told me that he can no longer edit pages on wikibooks. He says none of the edit links show up. He's on the opposite coast as I am, so I can't exactly go over and see what he's doing. He had been making a lot of great contributions until this happened, and I'm trying to figure out what may have gone wrong.

Is this what it looks like when someone gets blocked? I know that sometimes he logs in with his username, and other times he contributes from 71.103.178.xx. Can anyone shed some light on this? Jim Thomas 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any IP addresses in the block log, although I only looked as far back as mid-april. There aren't many usernames in that list, although if you tell me your friend's user name, i can look it up for you. I've never been blocked, so unfortunately i dont know what it looks like. If there is some kind of an error though, I might be able to help. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * His username is Westsarchery. Jim Thomas 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That username doesnt appear anywhere in the block logs either. See if your friend can send you a screenshot or something of what he is seeing when he tries to edit. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked and you try to edit, then you will see the MediaWiki:Blockedtext page. This should allow your friend to see if it is an inadvertent blocking problem, or something else, Jguk 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like he must be having some other problem then. I'll try to work with him to see if I can get to the bottom of it.  Thanks for the help.  Jim Thomas 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that I was having a specific problem with my ISP, that my edits would never get saved, and when i clicked "Save Page", the page would never load. When I moved home, I was using Comcast instead of Verison, and now I can edit freely again. Maybe your friend is having a similar problem. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be a problem with monobook.js/css. I edited mine to add something; it got messed up and eliminated all tabs at the top of a wikipedia page. It didn't fix itself even when I commented out both files, only when I moved them. Also, appending ?action=edit or &action=edit to a wiki url opens edit. PCU123456789 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game guides issue
Unfortunately, I think it's time that we put the issue of videogames to rest. Game manual guidelines needs to be altered (removed or rejected), and WB:WIW needs to be altered to demonstrate that game manuals do not belong here. I would be highly in favor of writing an expiry time into this policy, so that we can review it at a later date, once we know what the long-term effect of losing these manuals actually costs us. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not looking good foe the people who want to keep the guides. The Pokédex was just deleted today. Even though some users want to keep the guides, actions show that they are leaving. Gerard Foley 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inevitably those who were here just to write the guides will leave, and those here to write a mixture of textbooks and video game guides will reduce their time here. Hopefully they will go to the sites where the guides are being moved to and those books will continue to grow. Meanwhile, with a true focus on textbooks, Wikibooks should be in a fine position to expand and attract in those who wish to boost up our textbooks.

Ideally I'd like to be able to go to Wikipedia and invite in, say, those who would be willing to write a complete study guide for Maths GCSE - and then expand that for all GCSE syllabuses and then similar courses in other countries. Similarly for A-level maths - and for other subjects. The cost of published copyrighted texts is enormous - Wikibooks should set itself the aim of providing free texts, thereby benefiting the cause of education greatly, Jguk 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back to Whiteknight's suggestion, I think that he is right. As a temporary measure, let's reinstitute Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW, which was to add under a heading of "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals" the following text:


 * Some content about video games could be appropriate, such as a textbook for an existing course on the impact of video games in our culture. But in general, game guides are not appropriate for Wikibooks.


 * Jguk 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain to me what I'm missing here? I know I'm obvlivious at times... so maybe it is just something obvious ... but. How are video game guides contradicting that goal? How would video game guides slow down progress at Wikibooks at all? --Dragontamer 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By removing books that are not textbooks from Wikibooks, Wikibooks will be in a position to become truly focused. Focus is important - it tells people clearly what we are about. It should enable us to attract more writers and readers in so that we can become a leading resource for free textbooks, which is, after all, Wikibooks' aim, Jguk 07:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What we need is for the likes of you and I to get back to book writing - your Kings and Queens book is great! That said, this is a "Larry" moment for Wikibooks, do we allow the future to evolve within us or do we regulate it? The risk taken by Jimmy Wales when he deregulated Wikipedia was enormous but our risk is tiny - we just partition the dubious books onto bookshelves at the back of the library. We can maintain the focus by presenting our high school books at the front. Which reminds me, I should really be lending a hand on these so we actually have some high school books. RobinH 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An electronic encyclopedia of life?
Edward O. Wilson was quoted as saying the following in The Discover Interview in the June 2006 issue of Discover:

"What we need is an electronic encyclopedia of life, with one page for each species." (To allow scientists, and others, build a world-wide resource.)

Is this a Wiki possibility? David Hockey 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought they had such a project at Wikispecies. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I love video game books
I am afraid that I have not been so clear in my past statements in this area and this is causing people consternation where I think there should be friendly dialogue.

I am an advocate of free culture. I love video game books. I think that people should be passionately writing books about video games in a collaborative manner. These can be walkthroughs, these can be textbooks about the sociological phenomena of games, these can be textbooks for game programming, these can be user manuals, these can be joke books, these can be fan fiction, these can be all kinds of cool and interesting things that I have not imagined, and that none of us have yet imagined, because we are at the beginning of the grand experiment of internet collaboration using free licenses.

The issue here is not about me not liking them, the issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization which was approved as such by application to the US Government based on a particular charter of operations, and we have NO CHOICE but to follow that charter. If we expanded the mission of Wikibooks to include things which are outside the scope of our charter, we would lose our tax exempt status and place the entire project in peril, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and everything else.

There is a simple dividing line to use. Is there a course taught at an accredited institution of learning, which requires as a textbook, the sort of book in question? That's the rule. It is easy to apply, it keeps us from having to fight about whether various things are 'important enough' or 'serious enough' for Wikibooks. (A silly question, I think, because all kinds of things are important, and demeaning someones work as not being serious enough is not kind.)

I think of game walkthroughs and manuals in the same way that I think about Hamlet. Hamlet is a great book, but it is not a textbook. It belongs in Wikisource. Game walkthroughs and manuals may be great books, but they are not textbooks either. They belong at Wikia, or a generic wiki host.

We do not allow original fiction here. We do not allow things that go in wikisource. I have too much love and pride about the important mission of Wikibooks to let it become a dumping ground for things that the Wikipedians are kicking out.

The mission of Wikibooks is to provide a complete curriculum that will allow every single person on the planet, in their own language, to get the education that they need to survive and prosper in the world. This is a noble mission, it is an important mission, but it is not a mission that can be achieved without serious focus on what we are doing here and why. We are a charity. We have a mission. Let's stick to it.--Jimbo Wales 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Another point that has been brought up concerns topics that are worthy topics of instruction, but that may not be taught in a standard classroom setting. For instance, Chess is certainly not taught in many schools, except there are chess clubs that teach it. And if we allow Chess, then the slippery slope has us including all sorts of games. How do we answer this issue? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think chess should probably leave, as Jimbo said "Is there a course taught at an accredited institution of learning, which requires as a textbook, the sort of book in question?". I don't think you can take a collage course in chess, therefore it has to go. Gerard Foley 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But there are people who do seriously study chess, and there are chess schools where it is professionally taught to students. Perhaps these chess schools aren't accredited (i don't know one way or the other), but it is a serious topic of study with several instructional and theoretical books being published on the topic. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if these classes are in an accredited institution of learning, then it can stay, if not, it leaves. Gerard Foley 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This shouldn't be such a difficult issue. Google should give us some indication of what is and isn't being taught. For Chess, we have
 * GCol 1905 Chess and Critical Thinking at University of Minnesota
 * MATH 177 Logic of Chess at University of Wisconsin Whitewater
 * ED 4358 Chess I: Using Chess in Elementary Schools at University of Texas
 * Fundamentals of Chess (no apparent catalog number) at University of Maryland-Baltimore County
 * Although I still haven't demonstrated that the Chess Wikibook is useful in any of these courses, we're a lot closer than we were. This only took me a few minutes. I think this is the right way to apply the "accredited institution" metric &mdash; let's talk specifics rather than going on preconceptions about what classes are and aren't taught. --Brian Brondel 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like I was wrong; you can learn chess in collage! I guess the book is safe then :) Gerard Foley 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On another note, given this information and this mandate, I think it is very important that we update WB:WIW. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, WB:WIW should be updated with this new information. Gerard Foley 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Please can anyone point to where these exclude documents such as game guides, or have I missed a crucial document? A charitable educational institution is permitted to start courses as and how they think fit but it seems that Wikibooks is excluded from this - anyone know where? RobinH 09:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This answers my questions completely. --Dragontamer 11:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Robin, the bylaws state (on page 1):


 * "The general purpose and objectives of the Foundation shall be the following: Wikimedia

Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases..."

and they go on to describe Wikibooks as:


 * "a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books)"

These seem quite clear, Jguk 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They seem crystal clear but they do not exclude game manuals. In fact it would be appropriate for an on-line source such as Wikibooks to mount the first ever set of books that constitute a complete course in computer gaming. Computer game guides, if offered for free, do not violate either of the two documents mentioned, so the legal and constitutional arguments are red herrings.


 * We are left with a debate about whether we want to have game guides and whether these are appropriate to Wikibooks.


 * My own view is that Doom is questionable but guides that cover "Second Life" and other online games that involve real financial transactions must be valid books. However, the whole debate is strange because these game books are harmless and can be partitioned onto the computer games bookshelf. RobinH 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I do think you are somewhat misunderstanding Jimbo if you conclude that a game guide like Second Life may be permissible on Wikibooks because Second Life has some features that may make playing it valuable in real-life. The question to be asked is - is this book a textbook? Jguk 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is "what is a textbook?". A textbook is a manual for a course of study but what is a course of study? We are trying, artificially, to limit the idea of courses of study to those courses that are already available somewhere in the world. In other words to courses that are economically viable. I think some aspects of video game play wll be economically viable in the near future - the fact that Wikibooks might already have a manual for the course will expedite course creation.


 * It is amusing that our roles in the debate on regulations have reversed as we examine different areas. RobinH 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

consolidation of bookshelves
I've been looking at the following bookshelves in the Social Science department: Economics bookshelf, Business bookshelf, and Law bookshelf. I cannot speak for the business and law bookshelves as strongly as the economics bookshelf, but I don't believe there is enough material right now to constitute an entire bookshelf. I suggest that these be consolidated into one bookshelf for the time being, maybe the Social science bookshelf. I'm sure eventually there will be enough content to constitute three seperate bookshelves, but I think that won't happen for some time. On my user talk page I have listed the inactive, low content books on the economics bookshelf that I believe should be deleted, or merged. I would appreciate it if an admin would take a look at this list, and either delete these books or let me know if they are subject to speedy delete or not. Also, just out of curiosity, if anyone is currently working on a book on any of these book shelves, could you leave me a message on my user talk page? Thanks, DettoAltrimenti 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at the books you mentioned, and do what I think is necessary to them. Also, the idea of bookshelf consolidation, considering the fact that we have so few books on those shelves is a good idea, I think. I am not to involved with the structure of bookshelves myself, other users and administrators are far more involved with that subject then I am, and I would hate to monkey around in a system that I know nothing about. However, if you feel that things would be better with a merged bookshelf, and if you have the time and energy to attempt the merger, by all means do what you think is best. Be bold. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicode
I am transwikiing a unicode table from pages in http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unicode_9000-9FFF to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_Programming/Unicode/Character_reference/9000-9FFF. The pages on Wikisource are headed for deleetion, but are useful as a unicode char. code reference in the Windows Programming/Unicode/Character reference wikibook. Does anyone wish to help move this?PCU123456789 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Uncle G has a transwiki bot. He may be willing to help. Kellen T 02:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

&amp; in links
hi, a technical question. I'm asking here because there seems to be no consensus on what is or is not permitted/working/expteced/...

There were some links that have been removed from a number of modules in the Ada Programming book, but not by the authors, as far as I can tell. The change comments are consistently empty, so I don't know for sure what the reason was, though I suspect the intent has been technical: mostly &amp;-links have been removed.

The help pages on links and URLs I could find were not exactly unambigous about the issue: &amp; is a valid plain URL character. You can escape it. &amp; works just fine where we need it, see below. &amp; becomes %26 when the link is activated.

The Ada programming book talks, naturally, about the "&amp;" delimiter. (Each delimiter has its own module.) The &amp; character works just fine in links, it is URL-escaped (%26) and leads to the expected module:

I can use an internal link, Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&amp;, i.e. Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&amp;amp; or an Ada/template,, i.e..

I can even omit writing a proper character entity reference and still I get Ada_Programming/Delimiters/& i.e. Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&amp; and , i.e..


 * Is this a technical issue?
 * Is it a misunderstanding?
 * Should the URL/link help pages be improved, or should I improve my understanding?

As I am maintaining two programs for turning Ada into wikibook markup, I'd really like to know whether there is a precise specification of what exactly composes an internal wikibook link. The editting help is a bit vague and ambigous as regards the full character set, or am I missing something?

The issue is of general interest, I think, as linguists, typographers, prep school teachers, and authors of books on other programming languages might run into the same issue. (If there is one.)

regards, gb 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's no problem with the links working, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use them in the Ada book. The person removing them probably didn't understand that they were valid. Kellen T 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After looking into this some more, I conclude this was instead part of the recent redirection cleanup. Follow-up question below. gb 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

About categories
In wikibooks we have a problem in the other wikis they don't sense: in the category page, where appears a book's subpage like xxxxx/yyyy/zzz we see all the address. Will be usefull a new function like writing, will print zzz on the category page. If you agree with me I will post this purpose on bugzilla. bye The Doc 12:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've done it, bug 6111 The Doc 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy on deleting inactive modules
Is there a policy on deleting inactive modules? I have a great example here, Supervisor_Nuts_and_Bolts: There is basically one real contributor, with no user page, who wrote all of the content in one day, 2 February, 2006. I think this should be deleted, but is 3 months a long enough time to wait? I think it is. DettoAltrimenti 02:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any content; it's just an outline, a stub. Perhaps the stub macro should be added to it to alert people that there is work to do.  I'd like to know why there is so much interest in deletion these days, perhaps I'm just hypersensitive but it seems as if that's all people talk about here lately.  I think we should ask why anything should be deleted, is disk space that expensive?  It can't be bandwidth because pages that are not accessed don't cost any bandwidth so why the interest in deletion?  This particular module is an outline for a book on a very important subject so surely it should remain.  Anyway what does 'inactive module' mean?  I have written a number of modules (with content not just an outline) that have been inactive for longer than Supervisor_Nuts_and_Bolts if by inactive you mean that there have been no edits in that period.  I'm sure I'm not alone in that.  --kwhitefoot 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The interest in deletion is for two reasons:
 * Jimbo has clarified some policies which mean that large chunks of content on wikibooks should not be here. Some of it is from transwikis, some of it home grown.
 * We have not (for the past 3 years) been very good about pruning inactive or abandoned books, so we have a build up of cruft, which certain users have taken the initiative in cleaning out.
 * Kellen T 14:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is a mistaken notion. Huge chunks of Wikibooks have been deleted or pruned recently, and the move to do so has been accelerating for some time.  Indeed, if you look at the total module count on Wikibooks you would have noticed that the total number of Wikibooks modules over the past several months has been going down, even with many new Wikibooks being started and significant expansions of several books occuring.  Debate over what should and should not be on Wikibooks has been ongoing, and quite a bit of progress was being made well before the fiat decisions by Jimbo as well.  Indeed, I believe that most of the results of Jimbo's pronouncements would likely have happened anyway, just on a slower timescale before it came to a head.  Indeed the problem I have come across is when I try to delete something like the Wikimania proceedings (clearly not a textbook or even a book) where after I deleted the content it was restored due to political pressures to keep the content.


 * This is an old debate, although due vigalance should happen to try and review content regularly on Wikibooks to make sure that the content that is here relates to the general guidelines of this website. Far too often there have been people treating Wikibooks as a free public website where anything and everything can be published.


 * BTW, if you see a book like the one listed above, you can either add the   mark-up tag or add it to the Votes for deletion page for review by the community.  In some cases, simply by adding the book to the VfD page will get the attention of somebody and cause some meaningful content to be added that helps out all of Wikibooks as well.  If you want to really help out here, do your part and try to dig out these lost or forgotten modules.  --Rob Horning 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Books
Can Wikibooks be used to make fictional books, imaginary ideas? And if yes, where, in the All Bookshelves shall I put it? — Master  mind   007  09:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Please see WB:WIW, which explains this. You can put these on wikia, I believe. Kellen T 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Novelas which is likely what you're wanting. There are also wikias for Alternative History and various other fiction idea-sharing environments. GarrettTalk 04:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirects Having Semantic Significance
Noticing a major cleanup effort in the deletion logs, I can see a lot of sense in most of these deletions, as many appear to have been technical (e.g., ":" &rarr; "/").

Some redirects, however, can carry meaning and their deletion removes more than a technical flaw (now). Consider Color/Orange versus Fruit/Orange, and the deletion of Fruit/Orange. If Orange deserves two separate modules because it is both a fruit and in a different context, a color, then we might just have two modules. A redirect from one to the other is unlikely, and it is unlikely deleted. OTOH, what if subject X has aspects pertaining to both A/X and B/X? Chances are then that the X description includes all aspects of X, and that one of A/X or B/X is deliberately redirected to the other.

I see two solutions in the latter case: create a dummy module for all but the complete X module, and then either transclude or redirect. Right?

Follow this from the perspective of a textbook user skimming the index. The index may offer a redirect, so that the reader is enabled to find a reference to the (differently named) item.

What's the best way to deal with this situation such that


 * Modules can refer to one aspect of X specifically using links
 * The X module is comprehensive as regards X (all aspects)

Is redirecting a no-no in wikibooks?

gb 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirecting is fine. We do (or did), however, have lots' of redirects left from book moves and removed books. Some useful redirects have likely been deleted in the process. Kellen T 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

CC and GFDL compatibility
I was looking at this free microeconomics text http://www.introecon.com/ released under the Creative Commons license. I was wondering, is this license compatible with the license used here at wikibooks? Can I use any of the information? DettoAltrimenti 21:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not. :( The licenses have some key differences that make them incompatible. And even if they were the author has chosen a nc (non-commercial) restriction which the GFDL doesn't have. GarrettTalk 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a Wikinovel on wikibooks?
You know the drill. Lots of people want to use wiki software to write collaborative works - and wikibooks is a great place to do it. Free, high quality novels? It's not "free knowledge" in the Wikimedia sense, but it's "free books" in the Wikibooks sense, and hell I think it would contribute to the world. Obviously there would be rubbish books and good ones, but like all of these wikiprojects, it's the good stuff that you work by.

So how about a bookshelf for Wikifiction? --w:User:Alfakim. --131.111.8.97 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Wikibooks is for textbooks. A novel does not fit that description. I do believe, however, that there are other wikis for the writing of novels, Jguk 17:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See Staff lounge, where we gave fuller answers. Kellen T 20:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a very old argument that came up some time ago. There was a very interesting Wikibook called Aarvard the Arrdvark that was very well written and intented to be a beginning reader for children.  After some considerable debate over the whole idea, and some serious discussion within the Wikibooks community, it was decided to remove this book and make a formal policy statement that Wikibooks is only for Non-fiction works.


 * This has much more to do with something you need to know about the Wikibooks community. Besides the whole textbook/non-textbook argument, you need to keep in mind the kind of people who are working here on Wikibooks.  This whole website is setup and organized to help you to write non-fiction books, with policies being set up to fact check the material and to do critical review of the content.  Writing fiction requires a very different environment, and it also opens up the potential to edit wars over content, where one person's opinion over what should be there is just as valid as anybody else's.


 * The other problem is that allowing fiction, even in a limited form, opens up far too many other problems with content as administrators as well. Just as you can't resolve fights over content, it can also be used as a loophole to add content that otherwise would be removed from even straight textbooks.


 * I have worked on Wikis for collaborative fiction writing, and it is a really neat idea, both in theory and in practice. Wikibooks is not the place for this sort of content, however.   For futher details, please see What is Wikibooks.  This is something that has been brought up many times in the past.  --Rob Horning 10:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Research related to Wikibooks
Has anyone else got an email asking them to do a survey about Wikibooks? Gerard Foley 00:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not I. Should we have? Is someone trying to gain information? -- LV (Dark Mark) 04:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. Actually, we are already done with the previous study. We would like to thank you all participants who participated in our previous Wikibook survey. In addition, I am happy to inform you that this research is being published by the Journal of Interactive Online Learning in March 2008 (http://www.ncolr.org/default.htm). Since the 2006 survey, we have been involved in creating three different wikibooks ourselves, including one on “The Web 2.0 and Emerging Learning Technologies” (i.e., The WELT) which has had contributions from graduate students and professors in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the United States (see: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Web_2.0_and_Emerging_Learning_Technologies.

Dr. Curt Bonk and I are in the midst of a follow-up study of Wikibookians—researching issues of Wikibookian identity, communities of practice, and overall apprenticeship and support (see http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=64648). As the note below indicates, Erik Moller, the Deputy Director of Wikimedia Foundation, is aware of our research and has endorsed it. Here is his message to you.

Dear Wikibookian,

Dr. Curt Bonk and Suthiporn Sajjapanroj from Indiana University and their colleagues from the University of Houston are in the midst of an important study of Wikibookians. They conducted a previous study of 80 Wikibookians in 2006 which will be published next month in the spring 2008 issue of the Journal of Interactive Online Learning (see http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/). In their follow-up study, they are researching issues of Wikibookian identity, communities of practice in Wikibooks, and the overall apprenticeship and support structures that exist in the Wikibooks Website. Their current survey can be found at:

http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=64648

The Wikimedia Foundation supports efforts like this to understand and study our communities, and we invite you to participate in this survey. We appreciate any help you can lend to Dr. Bonk and his research team. Please note that this effort is separate from the Wikimedia Foundation cross-project survey that we will conduct in collaboration with UNU-Merit later this year.

Sincerely, Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

We hope that this research will help those developing wikibooks and related e-book communities around the world. We promise to once again share the results. Any questions or problems can be sent to me at ssajjapa@indiana.edu. Ssajjapa 15:26, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

My name is Suthiporn Sajjapanroj. I am a second-year doctoral student at the Department of Education in Indiana University, Bloomington. My professor, Dr. Curtis J. Bonk, and I are conducting a research related to a Wikibook. The purpose of this study is to find the potential of an instructional strategy, the creation of a Wikibook, to support learning collaboration and social interactions across classrooms in different educational institutions. You are invited to participate in this research study. Your responses will help us understand online collaboration in the creation of a Wikibook. This survey consists of 35 questions and will take you about 15 minutes to complete. Please answer these questions to the best of your knowledge. Thank you very much. Your participation is greatly appreciated. The survey can be found at:

http://www.surveyshare.com/survey/take/?sid=36753

(If you are unable to click on the link, copy and paste it into your Web browser.)

This survey will be collected anonymously on a secure server provided by SurveyShare. Your survey responses will be kept confidential. Any questions or problems can be sent to ssajjapa@indiana.edu.

Suthiporn Sajjapanroj Ph.D. Student in Curriculum and Instruction Indiana University 800 N.Union Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47408 812-857-0009

Curtis J. Bonk, Professor Indiana University Instructional Systems Technology Department School of Education: Room 2220 Bloomington, IN 47405-1006 (812) 856-8353 (work); 322-curt (cell) E-mail: CJBonk@indiana.edu 812-856-8353

http://mypage.iu.edu/~cjbonk/ Gerard Foley 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Real concerns about Wikibooks environment
I could go on endlessly debating if we should or should not have stars on our bellies. That is not the point here, and if this was meaningless debate over nothing here on these pages, I would care less.

Here to try and sum up what my major gripes are right now over what is going on with Wikibooks can be expressed with just a few short statements:


 * 1) I have no idea any more what is or is not acceptable on Wikibooks. So much is being deleted at the drop of a hat, and repeated deletions even if undeleted, that I am tired of trying to fight individual battles.
 * 2) If I or anybody else tries to write content here, I have no idea if it will be here in six months, much less for any other substantial length of time. This is significant as content for Wikibooks sometimes takes six or more months to even put together.  Going back to point #1, the policy landscape is shifting so much right now that anything I write may be gone simply because one very active admin doesn't like it.  This even seems to include pages that are beneficial to the whole project, like WB:CCO, that clearly don't violate any existing policy standard.
 * 3) Wheel warring is going on too much. That is deletions and undeletions or sysops fighting each other with admin-only functions rather than trying to resolve things in a civil manner and trying to come to a concensus first.  This is something that really shouldn't be happening at all.

A very hostile environment has taken hold of Wikibooks recently. I don't mind if I am overrulled or told I'm wrong occasionally, but some rather significant policy changes have happened where all I can do is complain well after the fact that the policy has become enforced and acted upon. This is flat out wrong under any circumstance, especially when up until now there was a general community concensus procedure for trying to change policies on this large of a scale. Such concensus was never achieved, particularly with the video game guides, even though the bookshelf is now gone for all practical purposes. "Jimbo says...." is not enough to simply make a policy change, even if you want to give his words significant weight. And Jimbo can be wrong on occasion.

Generally speaking, I have tried to work on educating new users to Wikibooks, operating on the philosophy that if they understand what this website is all about, that they will be making generally acceptable contributions. I've also tried to step in before significant contributions have been made, so they aren't wasting their time here on projects that may be deleted in the future. After huge efforts have been put into things like the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, only to be put up for a VfD for the second time, it seems like a total waste of effort. And this isn't even the first book to have been put up for VfDs multiple times.

This is an awsome website and has the potential to do some incredible things that can be good to everybody. I hope that inexpensive books can be produced from the effort here, including textbooks. This is going to take time and effort to happen. I just wish there were more patience with those of us who actually like to write books than those who want to get rid of them. --Rob Horning 15:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what you are talking about, but there are factors here that we need to consider. "Jimbo Says..." is good enough to make policy, so far as I am concerned. Wikibooks was set up with a specific charter in mind, and putting all manner of nonsense on here can invalidate the wikimedia charter. Last thing I want is to open my browser one day and see a message like "The wikibooks project was abandoned, because the database was filled with all sorts of crap, there was no focus on education as was intended, and the admins weren't doint their jobs." I doubt that it will ever come to that, but we need to draw some lines in the sand to prevent things from ever getting that bad. Wikibooks needs to have a clear focus, or else it will never be able to acheive anything good. That focus is on textbooks. This is not to say that we can't take a liberal interpretation of the word "textbook", but that does mean that things like the videogame guides don't belong here. And I wish they did belong. I wish that I could click a link, and edit a videogame guide without having to leave the project. However, it isn't to be. I wish that I could read news stories on on collegehumor, or download linux distros from gamefaqs, or even browse pornography on on hotmail, but these things won't happen because those websites have a focus and are sticking to them. Nobody wants all this chaos, but wikibooks is changing: We have been given a focus, and now we need to conform to it. I think we as a community want the Harry Potter book to stay, but maybe we need to test the boundaries of what does and does not belong here before we just keep or just delete anything. It has nothing to do with the fact that it survived a previous VfD or not, it has to do with determining what materials belong and what materials need to go, as per the new focus that we have as a community. If you want to give up on this place, and declare these changes to be too much, or too sweeping, then I understand. It would be a shame to see such a prolific contributor and administrator go, but I know what you are feeling. However, if you want to stay, and help lead us through this dark and uncertain time, then more power to you. I know that I choose to stay. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Whiteknight that there has been a refocusing towards textbooks. When Wikibooks was set up, and throughout its life, it has always set itself up as a home for textbooks. It is true that for a prolonged period, it has also accepted books that are not textbooks, although these were never officially within its scope. It is only now, after Jimbo has given clear instructions, that we are now moving all books that are not textbooks off Wikibooks.


 * "we are now moving all books that are not textbooks off Wikibooks" - books take a long time to write. You should only move substantially complete books off Wikibooks after a proper discussion in the staff lounge. Jimbo has not given clear instructions. Mr Wales is the head of this charitable trust and a reasonable man, if he were to look at the debate on this issue he would probably agree that it is not absolutely clear cut and needs debate, probably on each substantial book in turn. RobinH 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe this will have long term benefits - in particular it should help us attract more writers, and then more readers, in. In particular, one area where Wikibooks really could make a difference is by having complete textbooks for the most popular school syllabuses (which is easier for some countries and states of the US than for others). Costs in purchasing copyrighted textbooks are a large part of students/schools budgets. By reducing those to the cost of printing out a free book, or by having textbooks free for commercial exploitation without the costs of copyright, we can make a real difference. Of course, we have many great textbooks on Wikibooks that are not geared towards specific exams, but it is the ones that are so geared that can be the most valuable in financial savings.

I have been bold and started something which I suggested some time ago. Wikistudy, for school textbooks geared to specific examinations, Wikiprofessional for textbooks geared towards professional and vocational examinations. It is only when doing this that I have appreciated what the FHSST and COTSP projects are about (search for them on google or wikipedia and you'll see what I mean). There is a lot of goodwill for these books - we need to make the most of it. I'd love to get things organised on here soon so that we can go to the WikiProjects on Wikipedia, or approach teachers in schools, and make this happen. I believe we'll soon be ready to do this, and this will help maximise the value of Wikibooks, Jguk 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Useful, even only financially useful textbooks notwithstanding, wikibook is given the exceptional opportunity to do more than compete with dedicated and existing textbook publishers. We can add to the set of standard textbooks wikibooks on subjects that had spurred our particular interests, that would never make it into the plain old school curriculum, but that nevertheless keep learners in supense. A most desirable goal for a textbook. Those subjects for which no examination comes to mind immediately can nevertheless be most valuable. Learning is not by itself bounded by utility in examination, in school, or in the shop, and I strongly believe that this broadness and openness is what sets wikibooks apart.


 * Please, keep an open mind about the possibilities of a world wide wikibook cooperation, one that may or may not go beyond the necessary viewpoints, ways, costs, regulations, topics, restrictions, etc. of a conventional perception of a high school textbook project. Kids, e.g. are not made just for those textbooks! Adding strict school rules is certainly limiting, and it does by definition exclude subjects and styles of presentation. Why should we want but this?


 * In sum, please don't stifle the good work by getting mechanically formal, or by following someones personal views too closely. I for one wouldn't want my personal views be followed too closely. Could be dull! gb 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by "valuable", I really did mean in the financial sense, and nothing more. Of course we should encourage textbooks on all subjects in wikibooks (although we do have a problem that very few of our books get completed). We very much should be looking beyond the school curriculum. We should also make sure we do cover the core school curriculum well, though. This is important - it also provides good background knowledge for further learning in other areas. I certainly do not seek to inhibit the breadth of textbooks that wikibooks has - however, I also wish to see us excel in the core basic subjects that most schoolchildren learn, Jguk 20:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot understand why people are getting so rule oriented on the subject of what should go in Wikibooks. This is a library of textbooks. Textbooks are manuals for courses of instruction. If we have textbooks that seem to have no courses then we should stick them at the back of the library. How much does disk space cost? Almost nothing. So why not just tuck away the books that have no courses in a separate bookshelf ("Guides and manuals that have no current course of instruction") and forget this issue of "What is a Wikibook?".

I would suggest the following compromise. If a book is a bona fide guide or manual of instruction then it belongs here (yes, even if it is a game guide). If there is no course anywhere in the world for the guide then it goes at the back of the library. If there is at least one course then it goes in the front along with everything else. RobinH 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am old enough to remember when moves were made to ban Media Studies from academic institutions (in both the US and UK). Media is now a major part of both countries' economies. Please don't put Wikibooks in a straight-jacket, all that will happen is that we will become a backwater prowled by pedantic librarians. Please let us breathe. If you don't some other, more liberal site can just copy all the "straight" textbooks from here to complement its avant garde approach and kill us stone dead. RobinH 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't get hung up on my semantics. I believe any textbook can have a place on Wikibooks - and I would use a wide definition of textbook (although I would not stretch it beyond its usual English meaning). I do agree that it is important we have textbooks that do not relate directly to any existing (or even putative) exam, and I haven't seen anyone dissent from that view. What I also believe, however, is that we should make sure that core school syllabuses are covered and covered well. However, I most certainly would not limit our content just to books addressing those syllabuses, Jguk 10:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: General voting rules
It is amazing that we have no policy for dealing with contentious decisions. The game guide issue could be decided by a vote if this policy were available as an enforced policy. RobinH 12:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: proposal to move Editing disputes policy to enforced status
This policy proposal has, so far, met with unanimous support. It is innocuous, simply proposing that serious disputes are dealt with to one side of the book authoring process. It makes compromise the only worthwhile solution to a dispute. RobinH 14:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to convey tone with text, so let me say this explicitly - I really do wish to be helpful here and operate in a collaborative manner to help resolve issues and to extend my good faith. I have an honest disagreement with you here and hopefully we can discuss this as friendly Wikibookians, who nevertheless do disagree on how to make Wikibooks better.


 * Robin, this proposal only has four people other than yourself commenting on it, and three people other than yourself voting on it. It really needs wider discussion and more support before we can think about making it a policy. I must say my first question was "Why do we need this?" It is also very prescriptive - it also has a horrible sting in the tail. We have previously discussed, and a number of others have commented, that we only really need one behaviour policy. This would make a second one. Why can't we move towards the goal of having such a single "be nice" policy (rename it by all means) and lose the prescription? I do find it ironic that you suggest I am being too rule oriented by saying "Wikibooks is for textbooks", but you are the one coming up with lots of precise rules and methods. Take care, Jguk 15:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is why I have tried to publicise it here. It is prescriptive, saying that if there is a major dispute it should be taken to one side to make the disputants realise that the only way forward is compromise. No one gains from an edit war and this policy ensures that this is the case.


 * The "precise" rules are really about tidying up the policies at Wikibooks. It will make your job easier with your re-write, knowing which policies have strong support and which have none. At the moment I do not feel that Wikibooks is a safe place for books. I could put a lot of effort into writing a section on evolution in a biology book and some people with strong opinions could simply wreck it forever. The Editing disputes and No personal attacks policies will provide some of the security that anyone who is prepared to spend hours writing a book requires.RobinH 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy review: proposal to move No personal attacks to enforced
This policy has been around for a very long time and discussed at length on the policy's talk page. Jguk amended the text of the policy during the vote, all the voters were informed of this amendment and there now seems to be general agreement. Jguk has asked that notice of the move to enforced be posted here. RobinH 15:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)