Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2017/June

How to attract new authors ? Do we need a new rule ?
Let them know that they can sign their books, that they can refuse unwanted changes and that wikibooks can be cited in the appropriate Wikipedia articles.

For this I want to place links from Wikipedia to wikibooks, but I would prefer that the books are signed. Also, if some authors of Wikibooks wanted to make a come out, identifying themselves as authors or coauthors, this would help us to make Wikibooks known and to attract new authors. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * See WB:OWN. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a rule contradicts the usual practice on Wikibooks. Completed books usually have one or a few more or less identified authors. It is natural. There has to be a strong will for a book to be completed. That Wikibooks have authors does not prevent them from working cooperatively, between authors, and between authors and readers. See (in french). This is why I think the rule you mentioned is obsolete and should be removed. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WB:RFA is another proposal. See Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors for a vote on this proposal : An author can refuse unwanted modifications. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, what you are proposing is not "usual practice" on Wikibooks, but instead a radical contradiction the nature of Wikibooks. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is usual practice in the french-speaking Wikibooks community, may be not in the english-speaking one. If you're right I will never be again a nuisance on the english-speaking Wikibooks, I will remain in the french-speaking Wikibooks community, which is, according to you, in radical contradiction against the nature of Wikibooks. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading parts of this discussion on several different pages I still fail to clearly understand what the idea of what Thierry Dugnolle is proposing. I understand that he is asking for a clearer directive on the process of editorial control, but haven't seen any write up of the process or clarification to the roles on those involved. Under American law (the one the wikimedia projects are under) authorship can be hard to define and has less rights over their creations than for instance, as I understand, under French law that more than protecting the authors rights protects his reputation (in regards to rights over use and alteration/re-composition of his work that would impact is good name or be contrary to his will).
 * I would support and have previously attempted to make things clearer. I think that local project/book communities should be clearly empowered over the global community of the aggregation in regards to their works. This is something that more important in the projects like ours, where individual works try to be self consistent and are often independently curated and can and should provide active individual creators a reputation and recognition for the hard work done as well a level of protection (but not create dictators) as to enable them to freely express their creativity over the long process that is creating a book. To abstract and simplify we must find a middle ground between having the capability of attracting highly regarded and recognized experts as authors or ultimately devolve in outsourcing the creative work to zoos and have a large enough troop of monkeys type random content into the project and hope that the general community bothers to filter it and refine it over time. Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The same for me : I fail to clearly understand what you are proposing.
 * I want to say to future authors : if you declare yourself as responsible for the wikibook you write, you have the right to refuse unwanted modifications - except modifications required by the common rules and enforced by administrators. Is it unclear ? And do you disagree ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Authorship in Wikibooks is a subtle matter, as indicated by the very name of the project. "Wiki" implies aggregation, while "book" implies organic unity. There should be both openness to outside input and space for authors to develop their visions. Shifting the balance decisively towards one side or the other would change the character of the project. My stance on your proposal, or on what kind of middle ground there might be between it and WB:OWN, isn't fully settled yet. For the moment, I will only suggest the possibility that, if there is a certain ambivalence in our policy and practices about authorship, that might be for the best.
 * (If you would like a better idea of where I'm coming from, you might want to have a look at this long, rambling essay in my userspace. While it is not strictly about authorship, it touches on a number of issues relevant for this discusstion.)
 * Duplode (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think the new rule is bad and should be rejected ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * So I made an argument largely about the importance of shades of grey for this discussion, and noted that my stance about your proposal isn't fully settled yet, and the first thing you ask for in reply is a yes-no answer... In any case, the comment above was of a more general nature. I will add more specific views about your proposal to its talk page, to make the discussions a little easier to follow. (In fact, I have just added an extra bullet point there.) --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me If i was too sanguine on the subject. I'm waiting for your contributions to this debate and won't request your answer any more. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. I just think it is a good thing to take my time and debate an important change before crystallising my views in a vote. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be clearer process overall. Even when I go to the first book on the front page I cannot convert to pdf a familiar appearing format. It does not look like a book. I would gladly write a book if it appeared like a book on WikiBooks.
 * There are presses which make more pleasant PDFs and there are CSS alternatives as well. What would you like to write for us? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)