Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/A guide to cheating during tests and examinations (2)

A guide to cheating during tests and examinations
A one-page "book". If it needs that great big warning at the start, then in my opinion, it shouldn't be on wikibooks. Additionally, it doesn't sit well with our aim to be a useful, practical learning resource to have books like this, Jguk 06:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is just my opinion on the matter, and not necessarily a policy statement here. Still, I think if you feel the need to put a disclaimer on a page suggesting that you "shouldn't try this at home" or any other thing like "this is for research purposes", that is in effect also putting on a    tag on the page as well, and clearly a sign that there are some problems with the book.  Some users here may disagree with this sentiment, but this is clearly expressing the opinion and point of view that you should be unethical in your behavior.  In addition, the really silly comments about Colin Powell is clearly grinding a political axe and turning this into a soapbox and political forum.  For that reason as well, this deserves to be deleted as well.  You may agree or disagree with the sentiment, but that is not the point.  It is not a NPOV.  --Rob Horning 13:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If you want to encourage people to cheat, post your text somewhere else. (Start a blog?) Also, there is a lost poll at Requests for deletion/A guide to cheating during tests and examinations. --Kernigh 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete :Wikipedia is about learning and knowledge, so why do we have an article that contradicts that philosophy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.53.66.21 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete. Is it possible to verify the information here by citing sources?  If not, then it is primary research.  Besides, the thing is silly.  Rip a karaoke cd has more useful information for the miscreant than this book does.  In the original VfD, someone suggested that we should keep subversive stuff.  But Steal This Book it is not.  --JMRyan 09:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, what ever happened to freedom of information? What's next? Removing articles on the correct way to use a hammer because someone may use the information to attack someone with a hammer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBaz (talk • contribs).
 * Undelete Still, someone took the effort to create that piece of work. While you may disagree with the information it conveys and consequential use of it, you have to ask yourself if you have the right to force a form of 'censorship' onto people who may find the article informing or interesting.  In addition, have you considered that college professors and other parties may use this page as a resource to keep up to date with cheating methods?
 * Undelete? This material has not been deleted so far.
 * And speaking about your opinion: yes, we have right to delete it because we are community of Wikibooks and we manage this project, we can censor what we want. Wikibooks is not a place for everything that is just "not confirmed to be illegal". This material is an instruction how to fraud and as a serious website we should not host such materials. Delete. --Derbeth talk 19:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I know you certainly haven't regarding your justification for deletion. You have a right to delete it just because you can? Great answer my friend. Like I said, you are jumping to conclusions. The fact that it can be used for someone to cheat in an exam does not necessarily mean it has to be censored. Refer to my hammer analogy. The author of the article makes several attempts to outline the consequences of cheating, therefore, potential followers of the 'instructions' may do so at their own risk. For every instruction suggested, if the author had instead entitled the article "how to catch students cheating" and placed the words "Be suspicious of the student if..." would the article be getting so much attention? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBaz (talk • contribs).
 * I don't agree with you. As far as I can see, the author identifies himself with a cheating student and addresses real or potential cheating students: "Prior to an examination, you can establish a code with a smarter classmate." and so on. The book is clearly written not as a study of cheating but a cheating how-to. I don't accept smart disclaimers you can find on many websites with potentially illegal materials, the purpose of text is clear, regardless how you write it.
 * Your analogy with hammer is a bit odd, because a hammer has normal application when exam cheats do not. It would be more appropriate to compare this book to guide "how to assemble a bomb at home". You can say that one does not need to use such bomb, but it's silly explanation and anyone knows what such guides are made for. Political correctness does not free us from independent thinking. Anyway, even if a book "how to use a hammer properly" occurred, I would probably nominate it for deletion, I think we should host serious books. --Derbeth talk 21:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. I was wondering if anyone was going to get to the bomb making principles. While I would advocate freedom of information as much as possible, making of a bomb is clearly crossing the line (not to mention the law) and potentially extremely destructive. As you said, hammers have normal applications, but I'll bet more people were killed with household tools than civilian bombs, yet the purchase of a hammer (or other blunt tools) wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Either way, clearly there can be no parallel with cheating in exams and assigments than with making bombs.


 * Comment. I am uncomfortable with calling a decision to delete here censorship.  (The same applies to Manual of Crime, Ripping a CD+G below, and other books, some of which have survived VfD's and some of which have not.)  I see it as a matter of editorial control.  Admittedly, there is a fine line between censorship and editorial control.  Admittedly the fact that "editorial control" sounds nicer than "censorship" can lead folks on both sides of the issue to blur the line even further, either intentionally or otherwise.  But I see it as editorial control, not censorship, anyway.  For me, it's not that recipes for bad behavior are, horrors, recipes for bad behavior.  Rather it's that that that recipes for bad behavior, especially when written from a point of view supporting that bad behavior, detract from the seriousness and reputation of Wikibooks.  It is, for me, really the same issue that I'd vote for deleting Making an Island.  I could see myself voting to keep a book on explosives (including "improvised" explosives) that contains information useful to a terrorist but voting to delete a "How to Assemble a Bomb at Home" book.  It is okay in a Wikibook to say that terrorists sometimes add nails to their bombs to create deadly shrapnel, but it is not (in my view) okay to say in a Wikibook that you might want to put nails in your homemade bomb.  I might someday see a book I just want to censor.  But every example of "no social redeeming value" books I have seen so far are deletable for other reasons.  All have detracted from the seriousness of Wikibooks.  At least most, like the current one, are just plain silly.  Be sure to do your cheating when the proctor is not looking?  &lt;sarcasm_mode&gt;Gee, I would never have thought of that one in a million years!&lt;/sarcasm_mode&gt;  --JMRyan 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename "A guide to preventing students from cheating during tests and examinations" and present all the information from the perspective of catching people engaged in these nefarious activities. BD2412 T 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I've already expressed my opinion on this, this is more to point out that some substantial additional material can be found on an earlier VfD discussion at Requests for deletion/A guide to cheating during tests and examinations. I have no idea why the link on the VfD page was removed, but the issue really wasn't completely resolved a year ago, and seems to have the same number of for and against votes, although by different groups of individuals this time.  --Rob Horning 15:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It violates NPOV as it only shows what is 'good' about cheating. It also gives wikipedia a bad name and could cause schools to block it. 131.111.135.9 10:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete


 * Rename If it could be renamed and have its content tweaked, could be a very useful source of guidance for teachers.Dolive35 12:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The current consensus is to delete this book. I will delete and archive this discussion in a week if nothing new is brought up. If you disagree with this, speak up now, or take it to VfU. -- LV (Dark Mark) 02:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOVify and Keep In accordance with the policy of NPOV (also see Wikipedia's policy on NPOV), I believe that this wikibook should present both sides of the issue (pro and anti cheating), and thus should be both a how-to for committing cheating and on preventing it. However, simply removing it would be POV, because it would be saying that the anti-cheating view is right. (And yes, there ARE arguments for cheating. For example, undue pressure of society, or defense against abusive parents. Besides, cheating is hardly a violent crime. Not that I personally think those arguments justify cheating (except perhaps the abusive parents, which is probably rare), but NPOV means respecting all major opinions, even if we do not agree with them.) The wikibook is POV now, but wikiprojects generally become NPOV after people from different sides of the issue come to a consensus. Armedblowfish 1 May 2006


 * Deleted - note taken of the edit histories of the contributors to this debate, Jguk 12:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)