Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Future

Future
{| cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5" style="border: 1px red solid; background: #ffffcc; width: 95%; margin: auto; color: #000000;" | style="width: 40px; text-align: center;" | | Closed is we we can say I think - with no VfD survived but possibly not for the same reasons all around -- Herby talk thyme 08:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |- | colspan="2" style="border-top: 1px red dashed;" |

SBJohnny has added a vfd tag on the Future book. It's very new--started just yesterday--and already has lots of entries. These articles are all lengthy, but not overly long; they have links and references where appropriate; they don't have much bias (except for the Matriarchy page); they discuss an important topic that is growing in importance; some of the pages are conceptual about futurology, others about various common predictions, and others are archetypal scenarios. I would like to know the reason for the proposed deletion, and whether everyone else agrees on its being deleted. Thank you. --Yunzhong Hou 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See below :). The sheer volume of contributions over the past couple days (even with references) makes it prety clear that this wasn't written on wikibooks, but is either a database dump from the author's own material (thus original research), or copied without attribution from another wiki or website. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Future
While there is indeed a science and field of futurology, this book is not a textbook about the subject, but rather a group of hypotheses and results, with little or no material that addresses the mechanics of futurology. Most chapters should simply be deleted, some of the material about method could be cleaned up and kept.

I'm also concerned about the copyright status. The main author is apparently a practicing futurologist, so it may just be his/her own material, but at least some was apparently copied from wikipedia (unattributed), and possibly from future.wikia and futureswiki (also without attribution). -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Too soon I remember the Author just 12 hours ago asking whether or not this book would be allowed here. VFDs require at least a week before they are even requested. I would suggest talking it over with the author and working with him so that the book falls into policy in the mean time. I think as per deletion policy, this VfD should be closed. --Dragontamer 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in this case, I think. There's no way he had time to write all this in 12 hours, so it's gotta be copied from somewhere. Copyvio is a criteria for speedy deletion. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, well then I'll just go ahead and add the attributions. That'll be easy... wikipedia and future wikia are both free-content (and I think the futureswiki is also free content, since it's a wiki, if I did have a page based on that place, which I don't think I did). Therefore, it's not anyone's own material. Some of it is mine, which I release to the public domain. --Yunzhong Hou 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yo, Yunzhong Hou, please sign your comments when you leave them :-p. It is quite easy, just do --~ and it will sign automatically. Anyway, future wiki is GFDL. So it should be fine on wikibooks as well. --Dragontamer 17:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also put in that I agree I need to rewrite Future/Human Mind Project and Future/Matriarchy. Any other suggestions? --Yunzhong Hou 17:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) If it's your own stuff, then no problem copyright-wise. If it's from another GFDL source, it needs to be attributed (GFDL is not the same thing as public domain)... I'll leave you instructions on your talk page.
 * Keep in mind that posting your own work here doesn't make it public domain either: if it's used somewhere else, the enduser is likewise required to attribute the work to you... what you're releasing is control over the end user's choices. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

*Keep - It's too soon unless we have an obvious copyright violation. I thought we should wait about 7 days before nominating for deletion votes? It's also possible that he has all of the content on his computer and is copying it over to Wiki - that's what I usually do. Xania 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments I would like the page I drew the editors attention to on their talk page look at by them - the links are excessive. I would also like to know why Wikibooks is the recipient of this body of work?  I'll consider my vote. -- Herby  talk thyme 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in that case you can always delete the extra links. I'm planning to compile a book about the future, and wikibooks is suited to that goal as no other wikia is. Also note that if you don't like certain parts of the whole, you can just delete them, rather than the entire book. --Yunzhong Hou 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though, it really is your job to keep the book in policy. I should add though, this is looking more like a macropedia instead of a book on the subject. One goal of wikibooks is to eventually make a printed book on the subject, so keep that in mind as you make the book. It is still early, so I'm sure you can make it so. --Dragontamer 18:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This book while new and needing time to made suitable for Wikibooks, probably needs someone who knows something about Futurlogy to keep an eye on it, to make sure it doesn't drift astray. In addition to original research, I'm wondering if there might be a possible associated issue with it discussing what may happen in way that might not be suitable for Wikibooks. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He-he... edit conflicts have funny results sometimes. I actually know a great deal about the subject :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)


 * I guess my point is that wikibooks really isn't appropriate for this book as it stands now. Continuing to add similar materials isn't going to be a productive use of your time, and will in the end only end up requiring administrative time spent deleting later. Ask yourself of each chapter:
 * Is it fiction? (I.e., discussing an event that never happened, and might never happen)? If so, fiction is not permitted.
 * Is it verifiable? If not, it's not permitted.
 * Again, there's nothing wrong with having a book about futurology. A discussion of how it employs Psychohistory, addresses Teleology or Free will, and other information about how to practice futurology (either professionally or otherwise) would be totally appropriate, and an interesting read. But that's not what you're doing: most of what you're contributing here are scenarios, without any discussion of the forces bringing about the scenarios... in essence, these are "stubs" for science fiction stories.
 * I brought this to vfd rather than tagging them with copyvio (thank you for adding the citations, by the way!) and delete because it was quite clear that the tags would be contested, since you clearly feel that they are appropriate. But these chapters really aren't appropriate, and I rather suspect our hands will be tied on this issue. Before adding more material of this nature, I strongly urge you to bring it up on textbook-l, which is where we discuss things with the wikimedia foundation. Fiction is simply not permitted on wikibooks, and the wikibooks community has absolutely no say on that matter.
 * I don't mean to be harsh, and this has nothing to do with the level of respect/esteem/etc. I hold for your work or the field of fututology in general (actually, I spent a few years studying the possibility of teleology in transcendental phenomenology in grad school), it's just that there's no way this material can be kept here, and it's best to nip in the bud. -- SB_Johnny  | talk 18:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Further comment I do consider this can be voted on as, though it has only been here 24 hours, the body of work must have been under construction much longer than this. What we are getting is a cut and paste (and hoping to avoid edit conflicts ) -- Herby  talk thyme 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify for darklama: Predicting the future can be done in one of 4 ways (or a combination thereof):
 * Through statistical analysis of empirical trends (Moore's law is a famous example)
 * Using techniques developed through Psychohistory (not well known to most people, though similar techniques are applied in interrogation, sales, reverse psychology, etc.... this field essentially just analyzes how humans react to certain stimuli).
 * Through conjecture and narrative (this is science fiction, which is often quite instructive, but not appropriate on wikibooks)
 * Through revelation (when God/etc. tells someone what will happen: annotations of revelation (or science fiction, for that matter) would be OK on wikibooks, but if someone wrote a wikibooks on what God revealed to him, we'd probably not want to keep that here.)
 * This book is an example of #3: conjecture. Nothing wrong with it per se, but a wikibook about this method would need to describe how conjectures are made, rather than just offering conjectures. -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just offers conjectures was basically what I was thinking about. Was thinking about how in certain forms as you described, it may not be appropriate for Wikibooks and in other forms may be fine. I suspected if Futurlogy were to be acceptable here that it would require careful scrutiny to ensure it remains firmly inside the policies of Wikibooks, which would require both the willingness and patience of the community and those providing contents for the book. I suspected also it might be walking a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable for inclusion here. I kind of wonder what the motivation is behind having it here anyways if it already has a home on http://future.wikia.com as Yunzhong Hou said. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 21:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

* Further Comment - I've just been reading part of this book, particularly the parts about the EU, and I'm quite fascinated. Great work. It's not fiction but speculation and speculation is the only possible way to talk about the future. Xania 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree... some of it's very interesting, but that's not the issue. Wikibooks is not for sci-fi. -- SB_Johnny | talk 22:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Future Wikia isn't getting much attention, and it's best for a small community rather than a book, and there aren't enough people to make it into a thriving community. As for the conjecture part, sure, I'll be adding justifications for how individual conjectures are made, and there already is a page for how they are made in general: Future/Prediction Methods. I'm going to trim down on the scenarios some time. --Yunzhong Hou 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's sci-fic. It's speculating about the future and it's based on truth. However, I've now taken back my 'keep' vote as I don't see any need in duplicating information on two sites. Xania 22:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral towards forks, if a person fels like he wants to spend lots of time making a fork, there is probably a reason. As long as they keep up with the project and it doesn't turn into a stub, then I'm fine. --Dragontamer 03:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments I gave it a quick look over. The scenarios are definitely sci-fi. They're written as if they have happened or are happening and they are clearly fictional in nature. That said, there seems to be significant content regarding the science side. I really wanted to say science-ish side because I'm just kind of skeptical about calling much of it science, but I'm more of a hard nosed evidence based science person and predictions of the future, to me, are generally a bit of a joke. As an example, I can pull out old 50's Popular Mechanics with the stories about how by the 70s there would be a helicopter in every garage (you don't have to be a genius to see how disasterous that would have been had it come true).
 * But honestly, the book, except for the scenarios aspect, appears to be largely grounded in science and predictions based on trends and educated and informed opinions. As for the scenarios, I'm not even thinking there's anything wrong with them, in the context that they're in. They're one section of a book that has a number of other sections, among them, Biology, Politics, Engineering, Informatics, Social, Prediction Methods, Concepts, Uncertainty. I don't think there's anything wrong with a book that says, "okay, here are all these ideas, and here's an example of how it can all be put together." Even if it's fiction, it's an example of putting the science of futurology into a context to communicate it.
 * Is this a book I would want to read or that I would put any faith into its predictive power? Me personally? No. But do I think it should be deleted? No, not really. Since it was all moved over in a big chunk and we haven't seen how it has developped, it's far too soon to say how the author(s) intend to extend it. It definitely appears to have possibilities as a textbook on futurology (and believe me, I even went to the dictionary because I didn't believe it was a real word, and it is and this book seems to fall right in line with the the definition of the word). So based on that, I'm leaning pretty heavily towards keep unless I see it go completely the way of sci-fi. -- Pete 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete My understanding is that the inventive speculation contained in this book is not allowed by Wikibooks guidelines. It is fictional in nature, and even if it wasn't it would be own research and it lacks NPOV. I have not seen the author acknowledge that the content as it stands is in violation of policy, so it seems unlikely that it will be fixed. --xixtas 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * More Comments Xixtas, I have to disagree. Look at the Prediction Methods page, and in particular Delphi Survey Methods which specifies that a panel of "experts" are queried. Now, I'd want to know more specifically what "experts" means, but I suspect the intention is that experts in a particular field are surveyed about their beliefs on trends in their particular area of expertise. The NPOV policy specifically states, "Consequently, modules should be written from a neutral point of view, which means that modules should represent differing views on a subject fairly..."
 * I'm kind of surprised I'm here defending this book, but the fact is, I think it's no less scientific than stock market predictions and they sell that as a science too. It's predicting trends based on present data and past behavior and that's pretty much what this book is trying to do, except in a larger scope. At least that's my take on it from what I've read of it. I admit the scenario stuff is a bit out there, but as I said before, in the context of being examples of putting together the different components of the subject, I consider it legitimate. Perhaps if they were written in a less story-telling way and more as a practical: "If X and Y happened, then it's conceivable that Z could happen. And if Z happens, blah, blah blah..."
 * I don't buy into any of it. But at the same time, I feel that technically, it falls within the scope of the wikibook guidelines. It might skirt the edges a bit, but I don't think there's anything about it that's a clear violation in intention or in fact. -- Pete 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So we would consider a book that discussed how to pick stocks and then went on to extensively predict specific stock futures to be a book we'd keep? While such a book has academic value, the actual act of picking the stocks makes it unsuitable for Wikibooks in my view. The content being discussed here goes way beyond an illustration of a methodology. --xixtas 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no. But in this case, the author is still here, and we can ask him to take those parts out and/or modify those parts. It is still only day 2 anyway, and I'm sure he wants to just copy/paste everything over before he starts working on some parts. If this becomes an eternal stub as is, we can delete it. But it is still WAY too early to think about that kind of thing. It isn't even old enough to have a real VfD according to policy. Aka, it shouldn't even be here. (though admittingly, the original guy put it up because of a possible copyvio, in which case it would bypass the 7 day waiting period)--Dragontamer 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Propose close -- Yunzhong Hou has both added attributions and tagged some of the more "fictiony" parts for speedy delete (now deleted)... let's see where it goes. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment --- "The public school systems around the world propagate their rather liberal agenda to people ages 4-22. They attempt to teach their children that their parents are "wrong" and that the government is questionable. Spiritualism is stripped from the young open-minded students and is treated like an "extracirrcular hobby." The propaganda is subtle in Kindergarden and becomes increasingly overt until the students reach the twelfth grade. Teachers of the public school system constantly push their oppressed students into college or university, although some students rather live on welfare or have a blue collar job than graduate from a post-secondary institution." This book is filled with this kind of stuff. This sample and the book as a whole lacks NPOV, is fiction, and includes original research. --xixtas 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Close -- I agree the discussion should be closed for now because of the seven day waiting period. --xixtas 03:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Votes for Close with exceptions -- The exception is that this book doesn't get a "VfD survived" tag, as the whole VfD is null and void anyway as it is against policy. --Dragontamer 05:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I support close with the stipulated exception. --xixtas 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * }
 * }

Future's third section
The predictions may violate WB:OR and WB:NPOV. I think it belongs to Wikiversity. Kayau 14:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Greater clarity will be required beyond a generic statement with weasel words. Please elaborate. – Adrignola discuss 22:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * An example is Future/War. It first introduces the current political and military situation, but is perfectly fine; however, it then proceeds to the deduction of the miliary future, which is OR. Kayau 08:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have only seen the page you indicated and another one focused on China, regarding factual data I don't see any major errors and speculation or inference is a bit different from OR (or what we normally define as OR), that is the declaration of personal or fringe ideas as scientific facts. In fields like politics, economics and sociology we should permit editors to add and build (without anyone exercising editorial control) some inferences and speculations if clearly indicated as such, much like we support when dealing with book annotations that have the same value...
 * So far I don't see any problem that needs to be addressed outside of that specific book community. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)