Wikibooks talk:Game manual guidelines/Archive 1

Should Wikibooks include game guides?
After recent activity at Staff lounge, I think that we need a discussion page for whether to incluude game manuals/guides at Wikibooks. I have posted links to this page from Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks, Community Portal, the staff lounge, and the obscure Wikibooks talk:Policy/Vote.

I encourage discussion about game guide inclusion/exclusion to appear on this one page. --Kernigh 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally am split on the issue. On one hand, game manuals can be instructional, intersting to read, and at the same time not violate any other wikibooks policy, besides the "not a textbook" clause. On the other hand, these are definately not textbooks, and there are a million and one other sites on the internet with information about videogames. Many VG websites even allow users to post new information (although none of the other ones benefit from wikimedia software). I am inclined to say that game manuals should probably be moved to wikicities, although i am very indecisive on this point. At greater stake here is whether wikibooks should include any manuals for any software, game or otherwise. I definately say that wikibooks should allow for usage manuals for software ("how to use X", for example) in general. --Whiteknight T C E 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Before we start this discussion fully, shouldn't we establish if Wikibooks is just for textbooks? We need to hear back from Jimmy Wales or some other Wikimedia founders about What the purpose of Wikibooks is. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the current incarnation of WB:WIW seems to show that it is only for textbooks. This then limits things for which there is an "existing class" for the texbook to be used in. There are classes on videogame design, but no classes on videogame strategy. --Whiteknight T C E 16:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't need Jimbo to explain every detail in this decision. What has happened is that Jimbo has declared a few Wikibooks as having gone too far, and we can take one of two approaches to this decision:


 * Protest Jimbo publicly and denouce his decision as very arbitrary. It is very arbitrary even if he thinks that from his understanding of why Wikibooks was created that these books should not belong here.
 * Accept this decision by Jimbo and try to make new policies that would exclude not only these books that he specifically named, but similar books like them in the future.


 * I am strongly suggesting we as a Wikibooks community try to take this second approach instead of the first. That is why I feel we need to make some significant policy changes on Wikibooks.


 * I personnally like the game guides on Wikibooks, and it is very clearly in their own little space on Wikibooks anyway as a seperate bookshelf. The only real justification to removing gaming guides is that it takes up server space and bandwidth for Wikimedia projects that could somehow otherwise be used for more "legitimate" Wikibooks.  A very substantially lesser argument would be that it somehow "cheapens" Wikibooks to become a vanity press.  I think that is a problem elsewhere for Wikibooks anyway on other issues, but could be used.  The one final reason (and very cynical in this matter) is that Jimbo wants to move large amounts of content to Wikicities so he can get wealthy off of the ad links that Wikicities has but Wikimedia projects don't have.


 * I want to be on record as saying I don't think that is Jimbo's motivation to increase content on Wikicities, but it still is going to be a side effect and regardless is a conflict of interest here.


 * As far as "raising the bar" and more strongly encouraging that game guides be more academically focused, that is something that could happen as well. I just don't want to see something like a Wikibooks equivalent of "The Gods must be Crazy".  In South Africa, it was illegal for some bizzare reason to make documentaries about native African peoples during the Aparteid era.  That movie instead included this very thin story about a Coke bottle having to be returned to "the Gods", even though it wasn't really needed.  I'm hoping that thinly disguised Wikibooks don't happen in order to circumvent arbitrary policies like trying to get rid of game guides here.  --Rob Horning 17:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's also approach number 3- ask Jimbo to explain exactly what he wants and why he thinks the way he does.  Thats what I think we ought to do-  I think if Jimbo wants these gone, he needs to explain why and how it will help wikibooks to limit its direction like that.  Its not disk space and bandwidth-  these are really minor compared to the total space/bandwidth of the project.  I don't think its him wanting to become rich either-  its him thinking wikibooks should be something other than it has become, and I think that difference needs to be discussed, not pushed from above.  Pushing major changes like that is something that can kill a project from lost contributors.  Besides, you never know-  we may have the right of it and convince him


 * Beyond that, I think deleting/moving these would have serious negative side effects. These guides bring in readers.  Readers become contributors.  Remove them, and we'll have less incoming traffic resulting in slower wikibooks growth.  Even worse, we would probably lose many of the people who wrote the guides.  Noone likes to see their work going unappreciated.  I see nothing but harm in deleting them.--Gabe Sechan 17:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If i recall correctly, I dont think jimbo specificaly mentioned the game guides as potential targets of the "clean house". Maybe he did, but if he didnt, we should definately ask. --Whiteknight T C E 17:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again let me say, I have asked Jimbo on his en: page and am waiting to hear back. And guess what, if we lose contributors, it will be a sad thing, but if they can't seem to work within the purpose and structure of Wikibooks, that is not our problem. Not everyone will always be happy. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that they have been working within the purpose and structure of Wikibooks so far. With a few exceptions where we already have removed content from Wikibooks and enforced policies, these other Wikibooks have been allowed to remain.  Especially Jokebook, which Jimbo doesn't want to allow anymore.  We are talking about the removal of a huge portion of Wikibooks and hundreds of modules, together with the contributors who added that content, especially if we can come up with a consistant policy besides "Jimbo doesn't want this here anymore".  Where it becomes our problem is that Wikibooks becomes a much smaller place, and we will have a huge group of disaffected users who complain about the arbitrary manner in how this action has taken place.  Jimbo's comment about blocking User:Zondor from Wikibooks is especially disturbing, as this user seems to otherwise be a productive contributor to Wikibooks.  I don't want to see this user leave because of a personal beef that Jimbo seems to have against him.  Zondor, BTW, was the one contributor to White Heritage Security that was a registered user, and to whom Jimbo comment about automatically blocking due to his adding this Wikibook would have applied.  In this case I think it was a very poor comment and that this user has proven himself as a worthy contributor here.  --Rob Horning 18:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please let me quote sometihng that Zondor wrote: "Whites may need to create a separate nation to defend themselves from racial destruction by racial mixing." I'm sorry but in my book that isn't a slightly debatable remark that might lead me to have a "personal beef" against him -- it's vandalism, trolling.  If he also did some good work, in addition to posting a racist tract, fine, but that doesn't mean we need him around.  Period.


 * We have the opportunity to get major funding and support for Wikibooks. This could easily mean paid fulltime jobs for some existing Wikibooks contributors to help nurture and grow the project at a much faster pace than we've been able to manage to date.  We will not get that funding if we have embarassing silly stuff on the site.--Jimbo Wales 09:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But they really weren't working within the purpose ans structure of Wikibooks. From the beginning, Jokebook and the like (read: not a textbook) should have been deleted. Just because in the beginning some Admins didn't enforce policy is not a good reason to not enforce it now. If we had had a section where people could come in and write whatever they wanted, "Jimbo sux", "I hate Wikibooks", or "Robert Horning is a retard", and no one deleted it or said anything, and say it grew to be 200 modules. Should we just allow it because no one ever said anything? That is basically what happened. WB was set up for textbooks. Not "non-fiction books". Letting things like Jokebook slide should never have happened. And since I am not aware of the full Zondor episode, I won't comment on that. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As a registered, well-known, respected user, Zondor should have known that something blantantly racist, POV, and soap-boxish should never have been on wikibooks in the first place, much less being actively contributed to and defended. If you go into a community like this, and contribute to something so out-of-the-ballpark, and so hateful, you can be sure you are going to catch some shit. Zondor should have known better, and while i don't completely think he should be banned over the ordeal, if jimbo decides to kick him out, I won't fight that decision at all. --Whiteknight T C E 23:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Rob's choices are between two wild extremes and are not exhaustive in the way that he portrays. Another choice, for example, is to wait for Jimbo to delete the three specific books that he said he was going to delete, to take Jimbo's very clear statement that existing policy precludes them at its face value, and everyone to stop running around like headless chickens saying that we suddenly need to make up new policies. Uncle G 04:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is, I think, that Jimbo's suddenly come in with all these "must be a textbook"-esque reaffirmations, and they are sweeping. He said something like "there may be others", but I doubt he's going to stop at the handful he came across. He's trying to reaffirm Wikibooks' original vision, and we need to either follow along with that and transwiki a crapload of stuff, or else take the just as difficult route of opposing him and arguing the case for why non-classroom books should be allowed. GarrettTalk 06:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jimbo named three specific books, no more. The wildly extreme ideas that there is a sweeping change afoot, that "the removal of a huge portion of Wikibooks and hundreds of modules" is required, and that we "need to transwiki a crapload of stuff" have no actual foundation in anything Jimbo has just written or done.  The only moderate idea from recent discussion that has any foundation is the idea that this page is here to discuss, namely that game manuals might not fit within an "instructional and educational texts" remit.  But it was another editor (Whiteknight) who brought that up, not Jimbo.  Similarly, prior to Jimbo writing anything it was other editors who questioned the inclusion of coffee table books such as 366 Photographs on the Beach, and books that are solely soapboxes for promoting novel and original ideas such as Triangular Earth Calendar and Qrai. Uncle G 20:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition of textbook and class

 * textbook (yet to exist)
 * class

LV asked, is Wikibooks only for textbooks? I thought that "textbook" only means book of text. I usually understood it to mean "instructional text", then Wikibooks would include guides that instruct in video game strategy. Wikibooks could still ban such guides; it already bans textbooks such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, and works of fiction. See WB:WIW.

Also, if "class" is in the K-12 and university context, then WB:WIW ("usable in an existing class") must be edited to indicate this context. --Kernigh 04:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

At Wiktionary, I added "textbook" to the requested entries. Meanwhile, one can use textbook at dict.org. Webster 1913: "any manual of instruction". WordNet is more strict; it requires that the book be prepared for schools and colleges, but that is not the only target audience of this wiki. --Kernigh 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think one of Jimbo's comments is in order here. As he puts it, "In legitimate, accredited cooking schools, cookbooks are textbooks.  I see no reason why a cookbook should not be considered a textbook in this context."


 * Another comment from another contributor on Foundation-l "I tend to interpret the role of Wikibooks very broadly, certainly to go beyond the idea of the classical textbook. In some ways the classical textbook is antithetical to good education because it tends to mould its users into the same series of learning experiences.  A single Wikibook should begin with a subject that can be included in Wikipedia but which requires expansion into a book that in theory could be published as a stand alone entity.  The Cookbook was a good example of this.  There was a great debate at one time about the inclusion of recipes in Wikipedia.  Some were accepted as proper to Wikipedia, but the bulk ended up in Wikibooks where NPOV could also be approached with a more relaxed interpretation."


 * And another on the same mailing list about game guides "Since I'm peripherally involved with a Game Studies PhD program (not my field, but I work with people who are in it), I thought I would point out that what constitutes a "textbook" is not very narrowly defined. Who decided Wikibooks was for textbooks anyway?  This was never the intent."


 * Certainly using this distinction is not going to help us out much except to cull some minor cruft. Just about any book-length content could be loosely defined as textbook material, even content that is purely fictional in nature  If, on the other hand, we adopt a strict definition of a textbook here, it has the potential of culling a major portion of this project, including items that would be benificial from an educational viewpoint.


 * I want to point out that the reason we ban encyclopedias and dictionaries is because there are other Wikimedia projects that deal with this type of content and it is better to have the content there than here. As for fiction, I think that should be another Wikimedia project, instead of Wikicities, but that is another discussion elsewhere, not here, and the Fiction Wikicity is a very healthy and active project.  Let's not get confused with removing content that is better hosted elsewhere due to specalists working with that content better and removing content due to its offensive nature like White Heriatage Society and Naturism.


 * If we define Wikibooks as just for textbooks, I hope that definition can include educational teaching materials like Jokebook and Cookbook that can indeed be used for learning but don't necessarily fit the standard view of what you would buy in a college bookstore for a specific course. Then again, I've seen examples of both of these as required reading for some classes, and other materials that would be culled from Wikibooks.  --Rob Horning 16:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Should Wikibooks include game guides? Yes, I see no problem with this kind of content, just as most games have their own Wikipedia entry. Gerard Foley 17:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo says, "This is for textbooks, not joke books, not random books on any subject you like. A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." (emphasis added) These are not within the scope of Wikibooks. Perhaps try another wiki. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's sentence quoted by LV does not ban game guides. Game guides are textbooks which existing classes can use. --Kernigh 21:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, sign me up for the class where I need the cheat codes and walkthroughs for Doom. Any idea where that "class" might be? -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Game design classes. You need to study existing games to learn what to and not to do in new ones.  Which is actually a major being picked up by a lot of legitamite universities.  I can provide links to such universities, if you wish.


 * Also note that the term "class" does not necessitate a university/high school/grade school class. Or are you redefining that as well?  Not that it really matters- the whole must be a textbook thing is wrong anyway.--Gabe Sechan 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We've already proven you'll never get it and we'll probably never agree. Let's just drop it until we figure out what the hell Wikibooks if for like I mentioned about 1000 lines up. (Third comment from the top and again later). -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we've proved that you'll never get it, but thats besides the point. I'm more than happy to drop it once you stop trying to push it by side channels and snide sarcastic comments like the above "Wow sign me up...".  If you want to keep WB to academic textbooks only, write a policy proposal, post it, and advertise it on the staff lounge and wherever else is needed.  Bring it to a legitamate vote/consensus.  Stop with the snide comments (amusingly ironic from someone who is pushing a "no personal attacks" policy).  If you want to push that to become policy, do so legitamately instead of using the big lie approach (repeat something enough and people will believe its true).  Until then I will continue to write the opposing view as long as you post insults and misinformation.  --Gabe Sechan 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not the one who started the snide comments, and to be truthful, I have not personally attacked anybody. And it would actually be hypocritical, not ironic (but that's beside the point). And the "big lie approach" and people like you are how we got into this mess to begin with. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Game guides are just another kind of Computer Guide, you could even say Game guides arer a subset of computer guides :) Technically, they aren't textbooks but computer guides, and usually there aren't classes for them (There is no class to learn how to Installing Linux). Admittingly, I'm biased (look at my contributions :-/ ) but that is how I view things. --Dragontamer


 * I should add that if video games are banned, we will then have to consider Chess and Go and those other board games. Having chess but no Video games seems extreemly inconsistant to me. --Dragontamer 11:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What game guides have to offer to Wikibooks
Consistant with my reccomendation at What is Wikibooks, I might as well state what I consider the important parts of this debate: What Game guides have to offer to wikibooks.


 * Publicity/Gateway -- Yes, I came here for textbooks, but I became an active editor because of video game guides (check my contributions)
 * Sub-Sandbox material-- In all honesty, I would have never touched a textbook outside of a video game guide. Creation of a video game guide would teach wikibookians how to create a guide with a very low "risk". Giving wrong info in a video game guide is not that big of a problem. Giving wrong info in a full blown college textbook... is something to fear for newbie editors.
 * Fun for the kids-- Wikijunior books would be great if they got more kids involved. What could be better than a kid telling his friends about a video game guide, and then them comming in and finding the wikijunior section?
 * Attracting the people with time on their hands-- People who read and create game guides have more time on their hands than others... Those are the kinds of people who potentially can do the most good.

To be fair, I'll list what I know as what removing the game bookshelf and video games bookshelf has to offer


 * Higher prestige -- It looks more educational to have no games all serious talk. However, i feel like this would isolate more common contributors.
 * Bandwith -- Save some money, space, server time?
 * Distraction to wikijunior section -- Kids would rather spend their time on "fun stuff" than on the books? IMO, any webpage would be a distraction... but whatever

Well, I'm for video games here so what do you expect :-p Maybe an official pro/con section should be placed up. --Dragontamer 11:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I tried to create pro and con sections at Game manual guidelines. Everyone go edit and contribute! --Kernigh 05:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's be honest here: we could save all the bandwidth if we just shut wikibooks down completely. If money and bandwidth concerns are being raised, then people aren't understanding the whole wikimedia project in general. and the "Distraction to wikijunior section"? I would love to see a number on how many children are actually reading wikijunior books. Especially since policy states that even wikijunior isn't explicitly censored for minors. -- 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My point exactly :) I don't realy see a problem with it, but I attempted to show the other side :-/ I'm sure there is an argument, but I'm just not seeing it. --Dragontamer 16:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If game guides are moved to Gameinfo
I started the Wikicities:c:Gameinfo:Guide:Battle for Wesnoth, which I originally intended to start at this wiki. This is the first time that I started a game guide at any wiki. Though I support the retention of game guides at this wiki, using Gameinfo allows me to create a guide without worrying about "neutral point of view" and "no original work" (at least not yet) and also allows me to post a review of the game (which I will do later).

Thus, I have enough familiarity with Gameinfo to provide these comments about a scenario where most game guides from Wikibooks move to Gameinfo.
 * Gameinfo currently has subpages disabled in the "Guide:" namespace. Some books (NetHack) use this feature, which allows /links/, ../links/, and automatic links upward. This would be a matter finding someone to enable the subpages feature.
 * Gameinfo cannot use images on Wikimedia Commons with [[Image:...]] . So when someone moves a guide, all images must be uploaded again, even if those images are on Commons.
 * Gameinfo currently has only a handful of administrators, plus the central Wikicities administrators (who are responsible to every wiki hosted at Wikicities). It is much smaller than our computer and video games bookshelf, so the wiki could easily be overwhelmed if it took most of the guides from here. Wikibooks users might not know that guides go in "Guide:" namespace or that they should create data pages in main namespace (example Wikicities:c:Gameinfo:NetHack) for each game.
 * Gameinfo runs an old version of MediaWiki which does not support the Special:Import feature (see Wikicities:c:Gameinfo:Special:Import), so guides cannot yet be moved by the easy way.

So, hosting these games at Gameinfo is probably possible, if risky and difficult. I currently prefer that Wikibooks continue to allow game guides. --Kernigh 03:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)