Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2011/January

Incubator Proposal
Apparently there has been some discussion on foundation-l about using Wikibooks as an incubator for new projects (or sub-projects, I wasn't part of the original conversation so I don't know all the details). The example given was that a "spin off" could be created, say "Wikibooks How To Guide", that could be developed and then launched when ready with some fanfare and publicity. This feels a little like how Wikijunior was developed. We could build it here, maybe in its own namespace, and then if it doesn't take off or develop the way we think it will then it could be left in WB or moved into the mainspace. This would also link into my views on the discussion on the deletion process (above) where I had suggested a way of hiding developing material away would help improve the WB experience for a casual reader... so, thoughts? Anybody up for creating a Wikibooks Incubator here? QU TalkQu 21:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the discussion on foundation-l. My understanding is WMF decided Wikibooks couldn't do it and the Wikibooks community supported this by including WB:INCUBATOR. If we ignore that though, I think would be the best place for new projects to be developed. If that project were closed by next suggestion would be  before wikibooks because its scope is broader and I think Wikibooks has become more focused sense incubation was last allowed here and as it is incubation of Wikijunior and the Cookbook is messy at times. --dark  lama  00:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was writing this as Darklama replied. I read through the thread on the list over this including the two replies from Robert Horning .  Definitely, WB:INCUBATOR would need to go for this to happen.  Despite being very active here, I am not what I'd consider an old-timer, so I do not know its origins, though I see a reference to it being there back in December 2005.  Rob Horning wrote on the list "How-to books are on Wikibooks mainly due to the long-ago viewpoint that Wikibooks ought to be an incubator project for all kinds of ideas that didn't quite fit on Wikipedia... and the Wikibooks community was generally willing to try them out for a time."  So maybe the community was no longer willing at some point and put that entry in WB:WIW.  I'm vaguely familiar with the video game strategy guide purge; what if they were in a separate namespace as an incubator project&mdash;would the outcome still have been the same?  However, things have changed.  Many of the "old-timers" are gone, Jimbo Wales and Wikibooks co-founder Karl Wick are no longer involved, and today WMF functionaries don't seem to pay us much heed.  So I don't think anyone would swoop in from high to call for the removal of incubated content.


 * Bringing up Wikijunior above is an interesting example. From what I've heard from others and read at m:Wikijunior ("Wikijunior aims to produce a separate website"&mdash;http://wikijunior.org), Wikijunior was supposed to be split out at some point.  Certainly that has not happened.  It's quite likely that anything we would incubate would never leave the nest.  The Cookbook is theoretically supposed to be a book, and Wikijunior is like a mini-me version of Wikibooks for children.  They, at least, aren't concerns with regard to diluting the Wikibooks "brand".  I'd be concerned with compatibility with the main project for any incubation.  I've not seen any new policies or guidelines ratified during my time here, and someone's statement on Meta that my talk page is often more active than the reading rooms is apt, so I lack confidence that something this groundbreaking would have the administrative support or community involvement to work.  I would have to see specific incubation proposals before I could be sure.  – Adrignola talk 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the inclusion of How-to books use to be controversial in Wikibooks' past, but I think that has long been resolved. I think there isn't a need to incubate How-tos and there is no longer any need in general to find them a new home at some other/new project. I think part of resolving that problem came when a way was found to reclassify individual how to books into specific subject areas. If proposed works are compatible with our main project there isn't likely to be any need to incubate because they would likely already be within Wikibooks' scope, and if they are not compatible with our main project, they are more likely to be compatible with Wikiversity and it would be better to host the works there. --dark lama  01:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the WMF hasn't at all decided against Wikibooks doing incubation, and I know at least a couple of WMF board members who would actively look forward to such action. Frankly, community initiative is what is needed here, and the strongest community for this is the Wikibooks community.  The new languages incubator is too tied up in bureaucracy, and Wikiversity isn't really a strong enough and mature enough community for this.  So I would say, step up Wikibooks, and give us the community leadership we need :)--Pharos (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the incubator says clearly on its main page that it is only for new languages of existing projects. I recall some people saying that Wikibooks lost contributors when the video game strategy guides were forced out.  Part of me wonders if we could gain additional participation with fresh ideas.  Robert Horning's post states "Previously, nearly all "project incubator" efforts were done strictly on Meta, Wikibooks, or as sub-pages in the "User:" space on Wikipedia", so there's support for it at Wikibooks.  On the list, Samuel Klein mentioned a proposal for a new project, WikiScholar.  That would work great at Wikiversity since it's a complement and deals with original research; people were discussing creating a Cite namespace there already and that proposal is for a universal bibliography.  There may be a few easily-integrated proposals that Wikibooks can take in quickly without clashing with its scope, if they have enough support. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A decision to not allow Wikibooks to incubate by the WMF is at least part of Wikibooks lore and dates back to at least 2004 when New project policy was policy. Maybe the decision was simply lost with time, but that isn't to say that today WMF couldn't reverse a decision or choose to ignore a previous one.
 * I don't know of any such decision; all projects are welcome to create new namespaces or incubate new wikiprojects or larger Projects as they see fit. This isn't the sort of decision in which the WMF has ever involved itself to my knowledge, though individual people may have shared their opinions from time to time -- as I am now.  Sj (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyways I still think the incubator or Wikiversity would be the better places. Yes Incubator says its only for new languages of existing projects, but there is no reason its scope couldn't be expanded. I've read what I could find about the current discussion of incubation of new projects in the archives for foundation-l now and I see that people have also said that Incubator and its scope was never officially approved and agreed to by the whole Wikimedia communities, which seems like a good reason to reexamine what its purpose really should be. How is Wikiversity not strong and mature enough for incubation? I think incubation helped Wikibooks in the past to a degree reach any strength and maturity you see in us, but Wikibooks also with time outgrew it as part of continuing to grow, strengthen, mature and having gained a decent focus. I think now Wikiversity and new projects would benefit more from being hosted there. New projects would benefit from the fact one of Wikiversity's goals is to experiment with new ways wiki technology can be used as a tool to educate people, and Wikiversity would benefit because new projects would help it to grow, strength the community, help it reach maturity, and help bring focus to its goals. I haven't looked at the list of proposed new projects lately, but a lot of them when I last looked were things which were already within Wikibooks' or Wikiversity's scope. I think that is the real reason why there hasn't been any new projects approved since Wikiversity. --dark lama  07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking over some of the more popular proposals for new projects at Meta, Wikinac is an almanac and might be possible here, WikiEarth is an atlas covered by Commons' Atlas, Wikikids is a children's encyclopedia that could have been lumped into Wikijunior if its scope hadn't gotten limited, Medical dictionary wiki could be put in Wiktionary, WikiMusic seems to be getting infringed on by Songbook and Tablature, Wikiscope could be put in Meta or Strategy, Wikithink is a duplicate of Wikiversity, not sure about Wikihistory, Essentialpedia is a fork of Wikipedia, and Wikitainment Guides is not in scope for the WMF. There are others. But that page in general is ignored and the sortable list is only there because I refactored the page about a year ago. – Adrignola talk 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you see what I mean than? Wikikids could be Wikijunior at Wikipedia btw. Books in Subject:History probably covers or should cover everything that WikiHistory would likely cover. Entertainment Wikia is probably where people should contribute for something like Wikitainment Guides because as you said not in scope for WMF. --dark lama  14:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand our current bias against game guides, as opposed to guides for other software. (I would understand it better were it framed in terms of making both equally educational, rather than an opposition to a certain subject area.)  I don't think we suffer from a 'dilution of brand' by letting people develop educational materials about what interests them, including gaming, entertainment, and other popular culture.  I do think it is appropriate to hold all works to a standard of educational value and excellence, but when that translates into a restriction by subject matter it crosses the line into topic censorship, which we elsewhere discourage.  Sj (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Magazines like Nintendo Power isn't likely to be considered educational by current standards in most contexts. Wikibooks doesn't restrict works by subject matter, but by the purpose. Annotated texts of electronic games, the cultural significants of electronic games, the literary significants of electronic games, and the educational use of electronic games in classrooms to teach subjects are all examples in which electronic game coverage is considered educational and within scope. I'm not happy with the exact method of exclusion and I think we can do better, but I do think its fair and reasonable to exclude certain aspects of gaming based on whether its educational or not. --dark lama  17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am very skeptical that wikibooks is the place to incubate new projects. I think that I agree with Darklama that incubator or WV are better suited, particularly since any particular project looking for a place to incubate could start a WV learning project to experimentally find out if a that project idea could work on a wiki. A second thought that occurs to me reading through Adrignola's commment is that it might be sensible for projects that are looking a place to incubate to turn to the most similar existing project.  For example, the wiktionary people would have a much better idea about how to help organize a medical terms dictionary then we would here.  Somehow if we tried to incubate the medical dictionary wiki here we would be failing to utilize the wiktionary communities hard earned expertise about creating dictionary's on a wiki.  And worse we would be trying to re-solve the problems they've encountered for ourselves. Thenub314 (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think turning to similar projects for incubation is the way to go. If you start putting all incubations on just one project you start to blur the lines between the projects and confuse people where exactly people should be concentrating their efforts. I'm not concerned with diluting projects, but with further blurring the lines between what Wikibooks and Wikiversity are for example. If a dictionary of medical terms were to be start being hosted at Wikibooks than you would blur the lines between what Wikibooks and Wiktionary are too. Existing projects are better prepared to contribute to new projects which are similar to their goals and interests as well. If we begin saying dictionary of medical terms can be hosted at Wikibooks than other dictionaries would want to be hosted at Wikibooks as well, and than you might as well turn Wiktionary into a book and merge Wiktionary with Wikibooks. I personally wouldn't object to Wiktionary and Wikipedia both becoming books at Wikibooks, but I seriously doubt most people would be happy with that idea, and so we should try to find the most appropriate place for new projects instead of trying to make Wikibooks into the place for everything. Wikiversity is more appropriate for everything else that is educational and doesn't fit into another project already. --dark lama  17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Darklama's assessment. It makes no sense to incubate unbooklike projects here (such as dictionaries or research projects).  I don't think we need to change anything for us to be an incubator of books.  That's pretty much what we do already. --Jomegat (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no so much incubating books, but book-like projects, or at least that's what I thought was being proposed. So, WikiHowTo, the guide to do-it-yourself, could start here in its own namespace or incubator namespace because that would make it easier to structure it for future spin-off. In doing so it could have a different manual-of-style, and would have different standards around inclusion criteria, etc. QU TalkQu 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is anyone is free to make a do-it-yourself book right now and it doesn't require a new namespace to do it. Every book has its own manual-of-style to begin with and standards around which material is included, etc. Books don't need to be spun-off in the future because they are in scope right now. To say that such work will have their own project in the future would be to limit the type of books Wikibooks are allowed in to have in the future in some arbitrary way that isn't likely to make any sense. BTW we already have do-it-yourself/howto books like How To Assemble A Desktop PC. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess I didn't explain myself very well, probably by choosing a bad example (and yes I know we have how to guides)... Perhaps I should use different terminology. If today somebody started writing recipes (i.e., if we didn't have the Cookbook) they would probably get deleted for not fitting the inclusion criteria. If, instead, someone started an "incubator" discussion saying a cookbook should be developed starting by importing recipes from other projects and then overlaying them with technique, ingredient and equipment guides a debate would follow. At some point we'd arrive at agreement on the scope of this idea and a change to the inclusion criteria to allow it to develop. People would "sign up" to support it and help get it started. Over time it would develop and then, maybe, someone would then propose spinning it off to create Wikicook. All I'm suggesting is that this debate, creation of a "sub project" that extends the inclusion criteria, etc., is carried out here where it is a small change to our scope rather than at Meta as a "proposal for a new project". <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally am open to hearing out new ideas. As I said before, it would depend on the proposal.  We certainly could benefit from greater appeal and participation. – Adrignola talk 22:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean now. That is a great idea. Remember that the incubated project has to fit into the scope of the wiki (as your cookbook example did) that is incubating it. That is what DarkLama was talking about concerning Wiktionary vs Wikibooks vs Wikiversity for incubating projects. Wow, we have it all planned out already. -Arlen22 (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wading into here after a long, long absence from the Reading Room. Contrary to the statements made by SJ, there was a decision made by the WMF board of trustees about the status of Wikibooks as a project incubator, but it was done very informally and made through private e-mails (some of which I no longer have, unfortunately) talk pages, Founation-l, Meta, and other places. The universal decision that was supported by all of the then members of the board of trustees universally said that Wikibooks was not to be the incubator for new projects. I really nailed them down on that and then made numerous changes to policy statements both here and on Meta to send that point home. Previously, the almost universal statement on Meta about how people should work with new project ideas was "try it on Wikibooks first".

I was an admin here on Wikibooks and tired of constantly deleting content that clearly didn't fit on Wikibooks, some of which were huge projects. One in particular that I got into a full blown wheel war over (not just a mere edit war) was the archiving of Wikimania content on Wikibooks. I got bold and moved most of it to Meta, only to have Jimbo come back and get the developers to reinstate all of the content, which promptly got a VfD discussion and had it deleted by "community consensus" a couple of weeks later. It is now on a completely separate wiki, which IMHO is how it should have been dealt with in the first place. My #1 objection to the Wikimania content is that none of it was even remotely linked from the front page and was mostly added in stealth. It wasn't until there were hundreds of pages on Wikibooks that I even noticed that the content was even on this wiki. In other words, Wikibooks was being used merely as a web hosting service and nothing more. Wikibooks policies were being clearly ignored and it was a project entirely unto itself.

I could name some other similar kinds of projects that came up from time to time, many of which I was able to successfully relocate onto other projects, including Wikiversity (I pretty much got the ball started to create that as a sister project), Wikisource (multiple projects including one complete language project there I helped to create), and Wiktionary. I simply got tired of having to contradict people who were told by admins on other projects (notably editors and admins on Wikipedia and Meta) that Wikibooks was the place for their concepts.

To support the notion that there needed to be a project incubator, I even went so far as to create another sister project proposal to create a project incubator. Well, we got the Wikimedia incubator, but the new project incubator concept itself got thrown out of the window somewhere along the line after co-opting the name and even many of those who wanted to help manage the project.

To top this off, Wikicities (now Wikia) was conceived and for quite some time strongly encouraged to be the incubator for new projects. Certainly it is by far and away much easier to create a new Wikia project than it is to create a Wikimedia sister project. I needn't go into how much easier.

Most of the effort and the reasons for coming up with many of the policies now being dealt with here came from those working here on Wikibooks trying to find an identity for this project. Keep in mind that Wikibooks itself was from a spin-off from Wikipedia, in part because Karl Wick started to write the Organic Chemistry Wikibook (currently that effort is still on Wikipedia as Outline of organic chemistry in a slightly different form, but the early edits for Karl Wick are still there) and that for a couple of years there wasn't even a requirement that the content written here on en.Wikibooks was even in English. It was during my tenure as admin that the final non-English content was finally transwikied or deleted, with the final deletions far more recent than you would imagine. Wikibooks was perceived as a dumping ground for nearly everything that didn't fit elsewhere, and keep in mind that places like Wikia didn't exist for people who wanted to create another wiki. Their option was to either do without, or host the software on their own computer equipment.

Enough of the history of Wikibooks lesson. The question here is on how to move forward. I suppose that I burned most of the bridges that brought project incubation to Wikibooks, so I guess I'm to be blamed for the current status in that regard. Wikiversity also has been much more open to trying new things out and has been going through a similar kind of self-identification that Wikibooks went through earlier. How-to books came to Wikibooks before that process of rejecting the project incubation happened, which is why for good or ill it is here to stay. Besides, How-to manuals are much more book-like than much of the other content that was removed some time ago and has pretty much stood the test of time as being compatible with the rest of the Wikibooks community. I won't even get started on Wikijunior as that is a huge can of worms by itself. --Rob Horning (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Many things to digest, and thanks - it is really useful to know the history <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Rob et al. Since there seemed to be consensus for "book-like" subprojects, how about starting a draft at Incubators/Seedbed/Subprojects?--Pharos (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there isn't a need for such a page. If they are books-like they are already within scope and go in the main space following our naming policy --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, I've started a very brief draft here: Incubator.--Pharos (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had a good back-and-forth in developing this page, and I've now also added a section on approving "major projects": Incubator.--Pharos (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikibooks concept Proposal
Since I am a kind of outsider, excuse me if I do not follow the status quo. As I recently became a student, my greatest concern is "what to read now?". My proposal is simple. I would like to see a wikipage that answers the question "What books/articles should one read and in what order shoud one read them in order to become familiar with a subject?" I guess this can be a kind of the wikilibrary for wikiversity or the way to study your subject for the wikischolar journal. (so to speak in wiki-terms)

It’s simple as it gets:
 * 1) People share impressions of books
 * 2) and their contents in a subject
 * 3) organize these books together,
 * 4) not only to cover the subject, but
 * 5) to create a kind of hierarchy
 * 6) of the very way you have to go through
 * 7) if you really want to get to know the subject.

For instance, lets say one would like to understand the concept of Modernism. In order to do so, one goes to the wikibooks page of Modernism. One finds there relevant reference books concerning epochs, which precede the epoch of Modernism (eg. Craske, M. (1997) Art in Europe 1700-1830: A History of the Visual Arts in an Era of Unprecedented Urban Economic Growth, Oxford Paperbacks.) This might serve as a recommended preliminary reading, that prepares one to grasp the concept of Modernism in a particular context, which, in this case, is Modernism of art. That book is followed by another one (eg. Brettel, R. (1999) Modern Art 1851-1929: Capitalism and Representation, Oxford Paperbacks ). Note that these are only examples! The whole referencing system should not be that linear. These books cover Modernism only in terms of visual arts, which is essential, but still not that comprehensive.

Moreover, this page should provide one with the best resources. For instance, given that Craske’s book is thorough enough so that one could get the necessary preparation for their study on Modernism of Visual Arts, there should be no need to flood the page with hunderts of other references. If that is not the case, then other more exhaustive books should be recommended.( Of course, such referencing hierarchy should be organized according to different levels of interest. In this way separate sub-hierachies are formed, which might be labelled “easy, medium and hard”. That is how the referencing system would be appropriate for deeply interested as well as for people who need just a quick dive in the subject. Note that it is important where these books are available! Everyone knows that a good study will often send you miles away from home just to get to read some 20 pages from a book only available in some National Library for instance.)

To get back on the track: My idea is to have books and articles classified according to their main subject and a recommended order to read them.

In other words, my idea is to link the knowledge of world with the right approach to it. (offer an inovative strategy for efficient and independent acquirement of knowledge) Since this literary means to create an information stream, which does not exist in the digital world yet, it still remains to be discussed, which is the best possible way to sort out that information.

A comment next to books "what is this book to cover from the subject", “this book will give you a view of...” should make it easy to exclude the less needed books for understanding Modernism.

It is important, that the project covers subjects in as many as possible different languages, so that as many as possible users can take advantage of it. That is how the multilingual way of studying a subject is presented.Note that studies are made in different languages, so this project might also need a way to present the "multi-lungial" way of studying a subject, because not all studies can be made only in english or in german or in french, most of the good studies include multi-lingual sources. That is not to say that it is needed to sepparate these wikipage's like in wikipedias way in different languages, but to create as I said the multy-lingual/babylonian page which contents all the suggested works in original(german, russian, ect)and then to separate page’s so that for instance the "german way" of studying the subject(for people who speak only german) is shown, which way suggests not the originals of the books(lets say originals that are in Russian), but the translations of these originals(if they exist) concerning the subject. So to speak there is no german equivalent of Modern Art 1851-1929 Capitalism and Representation, so you should either read it in english or suggest a german book that covers some or most of the content.

To generalize: The multy-lingual/babylonian page shows you all the books in different languages. The german page shows you the books in german and the translations in german from the other languages. There also may be a german/russian/hindu page, that is to say an option to exclude all books which are in languages you can not read. Next, one must be provided with information where to find the needed book. For that purpose, a link to a online resourse/a bookshop/ a library must be presented. One more thing: This linkage system can be a good adviser for fiction. For instance: If you want to actualy read Modernism try Thomas Mann, if you liked him than read Hermann Hesse as well. If you want to get serious about them you can try reading C.G. Jung or a lecture about Hermann Hesse and Religion, ect ect.

I am posting my proposal here, since I contacted Wiki and they re-directed me.As far as the name of the concept is concerned, Wikibooks sounds like a realy nice name for this concept, although not the only one appropriate. WikiStudy or WikiBookLink would work as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Gospodinov (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think most books already describe what is or will be covered. Every book should already have a table of contents with chapters and pages listed in the order to be read. I think any books with prerequisites already mention them. I think most of our books don't have any specific prerequisites though, because they try to cover the entire subject starting from the beginning for beginners. If there was a book about Modernism in Art for example, it would likely discuss art and art techniques from 1800 through 2011 that is of significants to Artists. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  13:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not speaking about the wikibooks, but for the real paper books(I assume there has been a misunderstanding?) I was talking about how books should be listed in the order to be read. Like a huge prerequisite page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Gospodinov (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case I think Wikiversity could be used for that purpose. I recently learned there is a Open Library project though, which might also be worth a look for this. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Open Library seems like a pretty good data base for books, but again its not quite what I have in mind. One can easily find books there, or get lost in books, but again one may never know if the book he chose to read was the most appropriate. I don't know if its just me, but I think there are millions of books who are not worth reading. Mainly because there are thousends of books who cover more or explain better and hundreds of books who will always be read, no matter how old are they. No one can find the time to read all desirable books, but if you have the right adviser, you can concentrate your reading "time" in just the right amount of books, which will provide you the knowledge you were seeking(and spare you all the needless information)Yes, maybe the Wikiversity is the place for this concept, but the don't have a proposal page, how should I contact them? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Gospodinov (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Visit the Colloquium. Kayau 15:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)