Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2016/January

The scope of Wikibooks &mdash; Wikilore
There is a proposal at Meta to form a new sister, "Wikilore", for the purpose of capturing vanishing regional folklore. The question has arisen as to whether it would be more appropriate to host it on an existing sister project; the two mentioned have been Wikisource and Wikibooks. (One always wants to ask, when someone proposes a new sister, whether it would be more appropriately hosted by an existing sister.) I have pointed out that we do host books about works of fiction, such as Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. However, this leaves a question about another part of Wikibooks scope policy, on which I'd really like to hear from other members of the Wikibooks community. This would be, as I understand it, a way of capturing oral folklore before it disappears. That means there would have to be some sort of means used to authenticate the material. It seems to me that whether or not this is within scope for us would depend on what we collectivley think of the means of authentication: it would not automatically fall under "original research", because the prohibition on original research is primary focused on preventing people from writing books about their own theories, and this isn't about people's own theories, rather it seems meant to record material that is independent of the person documenting it. Thoughts, anyone? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't they do "Wikilore" at Wikia? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they could, although the same is true of every project. The question is really does this proposal fit in the scope of an existing Wikimedia project or should a new one be created? The proposers may end up going to Wikia if they get turned down by the community. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A textbook on regional folklore is acceptable and is in scope of Wikibooks. It doesn't seem that dissimilar to, for example, Indian Mythology (see this page). I note your point about authentication and believe you are correct that the original research restriction is intended to stop people writing about their theory on UFOs rather than forcing everything to be cited. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Restore Points (Editions)
Ability to see a Wikibook as it was at a given point in time and various implementations of this scheme. A retrospective, user-generated 'edition' for all Wikibooks. This could aid in citations of Wikibooks' content Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend posting your points here: Reading_room/General. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought this was the place for improvement proposals ;). Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WSBN
Wikibook Standard Book Number

A unique book identifier similar to the International Standard Book Number (ISBN).Appears to have multiple benefits including creation of 'Restore points' below and machine readability Balaji.md au (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I point out there's a pre-existing thread about this in the general reading room, WB:Reading room/General. That discussion has branched out to other things, yes, but also contains some thoughts re WSBN.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)