Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2015/February

Discouraging class projects
I'm pretty sure this is a controversial proposal and very unlikely to get much agreement but I'd like to discourage / restrict or prevent class projects. I'm unsure about when they started becoming popular but they seem to have proliferated in the past two years. What do they bring to the project? (me: nothing) How many of their contributors contribute elsewhere in Wikibooks or stay behind after their class project is over? (me: unsure, I imagine very, very few) Does anybody ever edit or read their books once they're gone? (me: read - unsure, edit - few) Do they bring down the tone and quality of the project? (me: I believe the quality of the work is often very poor and riddled with grammatical and spelling mistakes) Unless some effective way of managing them is brought in then I'd say they shouldn't be allowed on Wikibooks. Constantly patrolling their pages, fixing some atrocious grammar and encouraging people to read up about the project, policies, etc. is tiring. I'd support either a mandatory registration for the project where they are required to register user names and a person responsible for the project and a declaration that they are familiar with how things work - or - not allowing class projects. This may seem like snobbery or some anti-newbie feeling but I don't see what they contribute. Somebody who drops by just by chance and reads the content of many of those books is unlikely to stick around or form a positive opinion of Wikibooks or Wikimedia. --ЗAНИA talk 20:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you suggest some examples to look at? And, have you discussed this with instructors involved in such things?


 * Use of en.wn as part of class work has been a good thing for en.wn, and for the students, I think, but of course en.wn has a vigorous review system that has to be passed and that's part of what the students are sent to us for. I've heard (I thought) good things about students being sent to contribute to en.wp, too.  It seems quite important to understand why it wouldn't work as well for en.wb, and what can be done to make it work better here.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "a mandatory registration for the project where they are required to register user names and a person responsible for the project and a declaration that they are familiar with how things work" - I strongly support his option rather than a ban on class projects. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. At the EduWiki Conference recently we were discussing how Wikibooks is a welcoming project for student assignments; more welcoming than Wikiversity or Wikipedia. Better preparation by the course leaders, a focus on genuinely useful content, and more feedback from the existing editors: all these would help the educational goals of the projects as well as create fewer headaches for us on Wikibooks. Having to tidy up the formatting is not a problem, so long as the content is valuable. I'd rather create a set of good Wikibooks by tweaking the formatting on lots of other people's work than trying to write them all myself. MartinPoulter (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * When I was less busy in real life I spent more time on cleaning up the mess, adding templates, advising contributors, etc. - but it takes a huge effort. The students are in general massively unresponsive to simple instructions or feedback. More editors willing to help guide the participants would help. The current mess being created with the big active class project is horrible. It is too active for me to bother getting involved - once they are gone I will clean it up. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 21:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most of us think that a ban is too much. I think the same I guess and I threw the idea about to encourage some discussion.  I think the way to go is a policy whereby on seeing what looks like a class project, all editors concerned are directed to a page requiring them to register, nominate a person in charge and confirm that they have read up on policies, rules, etc.  This could be a firm requirement.  In my view Wikibooks is more helpful than Wikipedia but I don't know if we're more welcoming (nor do I want to be).  We spend a lot of time guiding and coaching new users.  Additionally I think the class projects do create endless headaches regarding formatting (page titles, templates, endless typos, appalling grammar) and there are too few active people here to sort it all out.  We have a huge amount of books and so many of them are abandoned, rarely read and some of them are, quite frankly, shit.  That's my rant over.  I think the next step would be some kind of class project policy incorporating some of these ideas.  I quite like the idea of a different namespace (is that the right word?) for such projects like Wikijunior and Cookbook have so they would be easier to manage - we could set the namespace to only show approved edits, for example.  Any comments about this?--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]]talk 23:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Perhaps it might be useful to make it a requirement that class projects (and their books) are 'flagged' as such after going through the registration process you've mentioned - maybe a registration process could even be advertised to some extent. Anything created that's associated with the project could then be hidden from search results and/or hidden from changelogs. Additionally, the accounts associated could have their edits on other pages/books restricted some way (either by making their edits require explicit approval from someone outside the project or by blocking edits completely). After they're done doing their thing, after a specified period of inactivity (90 days or when the elected coordinator declares the project inactive, whichever is sooner) the entire thing gets deleted (accounts also? Maybe they could just be 'released' as a regular account). Personally, I think class projects should just be banned altogether, but this is probably a more 'humane' way of dealing with them ;) --SporkSauce (discuss •

contribs) 10:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, keeping strict registration requirements for class projects is not a good idea. First , the books themselves could turn to be useful. Requiring explict approval on other books is unfair , because some of the editors may have an interest to edit other books and take a liking to Wikibooks. We're just killing them out when we impose these restrictions(like we're sayiing "You have an Wikibooks account only to edit this book which will be soon deleted.") We could instead keep a watch on the books and maybe nominate a responsibe person , but anything more is not good. Anynomous edits should be allowed(unless it is used for bad things) , even for class projects , because they may also want to improve the project.

Or, we could create a separate controlled registration-only category for class projects and then either archive the book or integrate the book into the mainspace when it's finished depending on the work and quality of the book. Accounts won't have any registration and can even get reviewer status etc.?

--Leaderboard 12:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I honestly wouldn't have any problem correcting/cleaning up after the students on Wikibooks. But I prefer they take there classes at Wikiversity since that's the only WMF Wiki that is acceptable learning environment, there are classes there all the time. --atcovi (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikinews has, and values having, classes of university journalism students sent to us for experience writing hard news for a live news site. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ban user page editing for IP users
I think it is a good idea to disallow user page(not talk) editing to IP users(or anyone except the user himself) because --Leaderboard 13:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) User pages are frequently vandalised easily by anynomous users(this's happened to me).
 * 2) The user himself should edit his page, why should someone else do it?


 * Would that apply to an IP editing their own user page? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe not then. As I said, my idea is to prevent anymomous users from editing other user pages. Anynomous users can edit their own pages , but not anyone else's.--Leaderboard 17:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sick and tired of IP spam. Can't see any problem with this idea so long as an IP would still be able to edit their own page.  It might encourage more people to remember to log in and it's better for everybody because there are so many privacy issues associated with IP editing.  I presume that the original poster meant IP users when he said anonymous users???  In my opinion an IP user is anything BUT anonymous.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]]talk 23:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant IP users. I meant anonymous users as users who are not logged in.--Leaderboard 11:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, IP editors don't in my opinion have their own user page anyway - so blocking that as well would be fine. Remember most IPs are dynamic, so the IP user page doesn't "belong" to anyone. It is super easy to do with an edit filter. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any progress on this proposal?--Leaderboard 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've waited for quite some time, is there any progress on this?--Leaderboard 14:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Xania. Shouldn't this be closed already? Seems like there is consensus to approve this proposal. --atcovi (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Three editors isn't really a consensus, no. However, I've deployed an abuse filter to prevent these edits. If we get lots of complaints we may need to reconsider. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How Wikidata will handle Wikibooks interwikis
The page where they mean to work out how to do this is, I believe, d:Wikidata:Wikibooks/Development. The talk page is apparently where the discussion takes place (that's how it's been with the corresponding page for Wikinews).

A word on the Wikidatan community. I have found that there are a lot of very friendly folks there. However, occasionally some Wikidatans can be a little insular, inclined not to consult a sister project about decisions affecting the sister project. It's not a big problem, mostly, just something to be gently aware of. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, in my experience most Wikidatians are experienced Wikipedians and therefore somewhat unaware of the structure of sister projects and inclined to assume we work the same way as Wikipedia. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Each Proposal's discussion should last 7 days
^This. Unless there is a need of more votes. We should keep a proposal's discussion's duration for 7 days. Thanks. --atcovi (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Discussions here almost always last longer than 7 days. Even the ones that are something like "votes".  They could go on for months, and there's nothing wrong with that.  Also keep in mind that this is quite a small wiki.  In fact, as I've said before (though not recently), Wikibooks is in a sense a confederation of even smaller projects.  Each book (more or less) is a separate micro-project, often orders of magnitude smaller even than a small project like en.wn, with its own peculiar character; all these micro-projects do have some things in common, and they all band together under a common project infrastructure.  Then there's a cell, rather like a small project in itself, of folks who maintain the project as a whole; contributors to indivudal books may contribute some to this overall-maintenance cell, and socialize with it, but the number who get seriously involved with the overall-maintenance cell is really pretty small.  With a really small group like that, it's a mistake to demand discussions get lots of attention quickly.  (At en.wn, we have Featured Article Candidate nominations that may be open for months before they gather the four or five votes we typically want before promoting an article to FA status; and the en.wn community who vote on such things isn't that much smaller than the en.wb overall-maintenance cell.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)c
 * Even a very active project like Meta requires a minimum of 14 days for discussions. Given the level of traffic on Wikibooks it will usually take a month (at least) to get even close to a consensus. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * aiight, withdrawing. --atcovi (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no minimum of 14 days here, we all assume the 7 day limit from the last post on it. The proposal is redundant to common practice, unless you are requiring setting it on text.
 * While discussions here do indeed last longer than 7 days, for that to occur it requires participation, something that can't be demanded, expected or forced (with one exception, externally imposed, in the election of a bureaucrat IIRC that requires 25 support votes). Unless specifically stated on the proceeding any non-opposed decision process is considered closed and valid after 7 days of active life (of course that nothing prevents the proponent from extending it). Any challenger after the time is elapsed should be considered a new proposal and have the burden of gathering consensus for the reversal of the primary.
 * This also comes with the need of formal proper announcement of any important process as required by policy any failing to make the process visible to the community is a valid ground for challenging and reset the process time for conclusion.
 * Premature conclusion is also possible by the withdraw of proponent(s), their failing to participate on the process (a discussion requires 2 parties) or violation of policy. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It generally depends. What I do not like is that some discussions take 2-3(or more) months with no edits(no discussions).

That is, the discussion is open but in reality , it is redundant.
 * However, if there is some real discussion , then it is fine to let the discussion continue. Otherwise , there is no point.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Addition:- On many proposals(and even discussions), I've been left waiting for months for implemention/effective discussion of certain discussions. This is also unacceptable.--Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't unacceptable at all tbh. I don't get how an open discussion for months is unacceptable, what discussions that you have created lasted months that are currently open? Maybe the discussion hasn't reached a good consensus yet? Maybe it needs more votes? --atcovi (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said above a discussion is considered ended after 7 days without a post, a proposal can be considered as passed if there is no opposition, there is no requirement for participation (except for the proponent if he is not the last post and the previous one blocks the process in any way). Any wikibookian can put a formal close to these processes (but the norm is that it would be done by the proponent or an acting administrator, since most proposals require administrative action). Note that this forum at Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals is for low level/impact decision processes (those that the proposals' text would not be require a fixed written record of what was agreed to) and formal announcements of new policies and guidelines. That a bot archives all discussions (even those that are not formally closed), is something that I have grumbled about for a long time now... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikibooks a good place for this book?
I wrote a book "A few impertinent questions --- About Autism, Freudianism and Materialism". I self published under authorhouse and I own the copyright. It currently resides on http://30145.myauthorsite.com/, but I believe I still hold the copyright.

My son, user:Guy vandegrift, is a big fan of wikis and suggested that I publish it on a wiki. The book is a mix of autobiography and philosophy. I think it would be fun to have others edit my work and discuss it with me. And if a consensus is made to change something I would go along. I would like to put it on WikiBooks.

If that is not allowed, could you recommend another wiki that might allow this? Bertvan13 (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It depends on how the content is formated, autobiography and personal philosophy is not textbook material (oriented for education) in itself. Those formats can serve as a springboard but since Wikibooks can't preserve a single person's viewpoint it would be hard to make that approach work (for educational purposes).
 * Try checking out Wikisource. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have an idea on how to make this educational. The book consists of a series of questions.  Each question would be a chapter, with a one sentence introduction that links to relevant pages on Wikipedia, etc.  (Examples include Sigmund_Freud, Freud and religion, and MaterialismThere might be a section for external links, but the following section would be user:Bertvan13's chapter, under collapsible text if possible, or as a subpage if that doesn't work. Another section would be created for readers to add insights.  Long insights would also be collapsed and/or placed into subpages.


 * Since much of the book is about the philosophy of science, I think this has pedagogical potential. What I don't like is that much of the science is so-called new age.  But this could be a forum for openly discussing/debating the topic.  In keeping with  w:Wikipedia:Be_bold, I will start the first chapter and we can discuss the book's deletion if it seems inappropriate. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)




 * The first chapter is complete, except for the commentary, which others would be invited to provide. On Wikiversity I would simply move it to namespace, but on Wikipedia my understanding is that articles must be submitted for review.  What is the policy for moving this draft from my sandbox into namespace? I already know how to move pages and subpages if you would prefer that I do it myself. --guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks completely unsuitable to me - if it was in the mainspace I'd be inclined to speedy delete it as original research. The tone and style is wholly out of line with the textbook style here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. When I posted this on Wikibooks I was almost completely unaware of Wikisource, and did not realize that Wikibooks was for textbooks only.   Looking over the main pages of Wikisource and WikiBooks, it is clear that this book belongs on Wikisource.  I will move it out of my userspace withing a week or so (too busy right now)--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI - After looking at Wikisource, I have the impression that they will only host an original version of book that was copyrighted a few years ago. It doesn't seem to be a place where people can just write.  But as far as I can tell [ http://tiddlyspace.com/ ] is free (more precisely, paid for by by a company called BT).--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)