Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Quis Custodiet Custodes

Quis Custodiet Custodes ?!
I find a need for precision and clarity on the WIkiBooks (un)deletion process. I experience that this process is (in part) determined by ignorance and bias.

"Open Books for an Open World" fails, if Closed Minds close opening books...

This website has lofty aims; but i find some flaws for its possible realisation. I find that some 'critical' critics lack self-critical discernment.

I find no direct web-link to a person who can/will take response-ability for this. I therefore seek a solution to resolve this; i will later do this as a new title.

In the past i started two titles; both of which i wish to be restored. The titles are: "Rewriting the Bible", and "Rewriting the Myth of King Arthur".

Both are invitations for fundamental rethinking of thinking. Both address the issues of belief - and an exploration of bias.

Both titles were voted for deletion - by the same 'persons'. Is this the way views are, and consensus is, here being conditioned?

WikiBooks was presumably set up to enable the sharing of new insight. One of the most basic forms of new insight, is the quest into finding new insight.

For this reason the two "Rewriting.." titles were presented. One to explore the nature of unquestioned belief; the other, of cultural bias.

"Rewriting the Bible" addresses issues beyond current belief. The reason for this is evident: the western culture is largelely based on imposing the bible. "Rewriting the Myth of King Arthur" addresses conditioning of cultural functioning. Again the eason is evident: by the mythology, people are (again) conditioned into collective behaviour.

Both books were chosen for their impact on our contemporary culture. Both discussions are relevant, because they address the consitioning of mind and body.

Few people are aware of the hypnotic implication of anything that is written. The bible and the myth, especially, operate as 'post hypnotic suggestions'.

Both books are typical examples of, and for, the western cultural mind set. That mind set, at present, has the most devastating effect on our planet.

It is only by taking response-ability for our way of thinking, and acceptance of tradition, that we can re-evaluate that mind set, and heal, or cure, the effect of western culture on nature.

The ability to rethink, requires the skill to unthink. That however is a skill i find lacking in the WikiBookian 'critics'.

For example: in one of the book projects i refer to the origin of the term god. Rather than looking up that information for himself, some Mike ascribes it to me, and uses that to denounce the project.

This suggests 'critics' can 'refuse to do their homework' yet 'vote to delete projects. As said the Romans: "quis custodiet custodes". (Mike, please look that one up also...)

Looking into the Nay votes, it is simple to see that - elsewhere - they nayvoters know each other. Likewise it is simple to find - in the list of 'forbidden books', that many of the projects that are thus vetoed, pertain to new understanding.

As part of my other research into the conditioning of Consensus, i initiated these two "Rewriting" title projects. At this moment i seek to know who, in this WikiBook project assumes responsibility of the safeguarding of the intent and purpose of this WikiBook project: the collaboration of book writing.

Also i am interested in knowing what software checks can be used to analyse this 'ganging up' on the prevention of eploration of new knowledge.

Evidently science was create to help us know te unknown. This becomes impossible when the presentation of new ideas is vetoed.

What i am addressing here is the basis of free speach and freedom of expression. Deleting projects seem to be - in this site - too closely linked to denial of this...

I do not expect the critics to understand what they are reading. I expect them to be critical in believing they can judge others.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorotto (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 2009 June 26


 * There is no one person reasonable for safeguarding the intent and purpose of Wikibooks. The reason you may have seen works that explore new ideas, new ways of thinking, new understandings, or the unknown "vetoed" or deleted is because people feel they aren't part of the intent or purpose of Wikibooks (see WB:NOR). If you want to explore those things Wikiversity would be the place to do so. Wikibooks is for what is already known and would be taught in school setting. Like that 1+1 is 2 or that "B" comes after "A" in the English alphabet. What you want to do would likely be considered a research project if you were enrolled at a university, which is what Wikiversity is for. --dark lama  00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Darklama,
 * The top of this page says "If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it.".
 * Which form did you choose?


 * I don't think copies are usually provided unless asked for specifically, because people may already have backup copies. Do you see an expressed wish or request to have a copy of the works provided? If you do, can you point it out to me? What I see is criticism of the project for deleting works that explore new things. "X should be restored because it shouldn't of been deleted" is different from "Can someone restore X so I can have a copy of it?" Doctorotto seems to be arguing against deletions of works that explore new things in general, rather then specific arguments for why the two mentioned book should be restored. Unless Doctorotto created a new account instead of using an old account, Doctorotto didn't contribute to the two works mentions. That could be perhaps why the arguments seem so general in nature to me, and not specific to the two books mentioned. Admittedly I have no idea what to make of Doctorotto's comments. I don't really know if its even a request and appropriately placed. From your comments below you seem to think Doctorotto's comments are directed at denouncing the project. --dark lama  12:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Darklama,
 * The top of this page says "If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it.".
 * Perhaps I am reading this too literally, but that seems to be saying that if some user does 2 things, then some administrator will provide it in some form.
 * And what are those two things? "list it here" OK, the OP did that. "and explain why." OK, the OP wrote a bunch of text that seems to be an attempt to explain something. Perhaps that didn't meet your standards of a *good* explanation -- but our policy doesn't require a *good* explanation.
 * "Do you see an expressed wish or request to have a copy of the works provided?" Yes: "two titles; both of which i wish to be restored." That is a wish for a copy of the works in the form of "undeleting it". You are free to provide the deleted module in that or some other form. After you have done that, please indulge my curiosity:
 * Which form did you choose? --DavidCary (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Doctorotto,
 * "I find a need for precision and clarity on the WIkiBooks (un)deletion process." That process *should* be clearly spelled out in the Deletion policy. If any part of that process is not clear, *please* point out what part is not clear, on the talk page for that policy.


 * "to denounce the project."
 * Wikilandia -- all the public wiki in the world -- is like a library with over 6,800 shelves.
 * Occasionally someone drops a book on the "wrong" shelf, and a grumpy, overworked librarian blurts out "That book doesn't belong on this shelf".
 * Is that censorship? Is that librarian denouncing that book?
 * No. Somewhere in the 6,799 remaining shelves is a much better place for that book, a place that will be easier for people interested in that kind of book to find it.
 * It would have been nice if the librarian had pointed out the proper place for that book, but you can't really expect someone who is an expert on *this* shelf to also be an expert on the other 6,799 shelves -- and grumpy, overworked librarians occasionally make mistakes.


 * "WikiBooks was presumably set up to enable the sharing of new insight." That's a good guess. However, the true goals of Wikibooks *should* be clearly spelled out in the What is Wikibooks? policy. If any part of that page is no clear, *please* point out what part is not clear, on the talk page for that policy.
 * The WB:NOR section of that policy points out that "original works" or "proposing theories" should go to some other wiki such as the Academic Publishing Wiki, Wikiversity, etc.
 * I am guessing from the above description that the two books mentioned have something to do with psychology. There are currently at least 8 psychology wiki -- perhaps one of them would be a better place for those two books than Wikibooks. --DavidCary (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)