Wikibooks talk:How-to textbook guidelines

Textbooks that never say how to do anything
I have never quite understood the movement on this wiki to delete all how-tos or move them to another wiki. Does it mean that how-tos and textbooks are always distinct, and no textbook can describe how to do anything? I started thinking about calculus books that do not say how to differentiate, programming-languages books that do not say how to program loops, introductory chemistry books that do not explain how to cancel units in calculations, and exam preparation books that do not suggest how to pass the exam. So I thought that my guess was unlikely to be the correct interpretation.

Now I understand that not everyone here dislikes how-to books. Some only want to target the worst books (how to cheat, misbehave, act criminally, be unproductive...). However, some want users seem to be against all how-to books, and this proposed policy was apparently intended to mitigate their concerns.

Perhaps what I should ask first: what distinguishes a how-to textbook from other textbooks? --Kernigh 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Due to the simply overwhelming activity on this policy guideline and huge number of comments on this talk page, as well as comments about it on the Staff Lounge, I can tell there is a huge movement to really address the concerns of how-to books in general :)


 * I agree that the "How to become a klan member" and "How to rape" are things that we perhaps want to avoid here on Wikibooks, but that doesn't seem to be the case with those that want to delete this kind of content. I would also agree here that there really isn't that huge of a distinction about how-to books and textbooks, and you can find commonly accepted defintions of a textbook that would cover how-to books as well.  Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that Wikibooks should be about only textbooks.  This goes back to the "Wikibooks is about any non-fiction book you can find in a bookstore".  I have yet to see a clear type of book that can be found in the non-fiction section of a bookstore that would not be on Wikibooks, other than for copyright reasons alone.  I would challenge that game walk-throughs in the incarnation that were the worst offenders would not have been in the non-fiction section of a bookstore either.   --Rob Horning 14:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah this page is really bumpin'. -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Worksheet
Is anyone watching here? I've been working on a rewrite, if anyone would like to comment (here). -- SB_Johnny | talk 11:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't see any real effort or even concern that How-to book have been doing lately, and I created this page mainly as a political statement to prove that it wasn't really a problem. I asssert that there are a couple of individuals who are trying to force a content move of how-to books to Wikia and other non-Wikimedia websites under the guise of it being a requirement by Jimbo.  He (Jimbo) has not required this to happen, nor are How-to guides really a violation of the Wikibooks charter or even against any enumerated policies on this project.
 * This is more a move on the part of textbook purists, who I have openly defied and fought claiming that Wikibooks is more than just textbooks. While textbooks certainly are an important part of the Wikibooks mission, How-to books clearly can and should be a part of this project as well unless they become so numerous and productive that they deserve to be on their own independent project.  And that is indeed a major policy change, and not something to be done on the whim of a few admins gone wild.  --Rob Horning 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, which individuals are you referring to? I can't think of anyone who's done what you have described. The Wikibooks community is only about 10 people, so it would help to know who you are referring to. Thanks, hagindaz 16:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is mainly the group that is strongly pushing the Wikia How-to project. It started out originally as a project suggestion on Meta and grew into an alternative Wikicity (now Wikia) project.  I have long asserted that the participants there were delibertately trying to move all of the How-to content from Wikibooks to their project, indeed in a fashion very similar to how the Strategy Wiki has captured Wikibooks content.  Mind you, I'm not opposed to moving content to alternative sites when it is being deleted here with a rational discussion, but I object to people trying to take Wikibooks content as a seed to a new project, leaving behind big links as advertising to that project behind.  I also suspect, particularly with the How-to project, of there being project participants there that are trying to specifically make policies on Wikibooks to promote their project, and delete the content here on Wikibooks specifically to make their project look like a Wikibooks sister project.
 * I will say, however, that the distinction between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation is blurred and often many participants don't understand that this is two very different and distinct organizations. --Rob Horning 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh, hadn't thought of that, though conspiracies do happen. There is also a com-wiki called wikihow, which I have seen linking on wikipedia where links to how-to class wikibooks are found. For details, see discussion on Wikipedia (spam project) . I'll start watching (on WP) for this sort of thing with wikia as well if you think this is really what's going on. SB_Johnny  | talk 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I completely agree with you, Robert. Howto books are perfectly fine under existing policy and are acceptable by Jimbo, as you have stated. But I can't recall anyone advocating what you have described here on Wikibooks. Has it only occured on the Wikia? Could you please link to a discussion on this (here or on the Wikia)?
 * Secondly, you have already stated this but I think it bears repeating to make sure we're on the same page. There are a few pages here that do not comply with our existing community agreed-upon policies. If possible, that content should be adapted in order to be acceptable. Sometimes these pages cannot be changed to become acceptable. If something falls into this category, it must be deleted from Wikibooks if we are to enforce policies that have the word "enforced" in bold type at the top and have been accepted by the community. (Again, nearly everything including howto books does not fall into this category.) The existance of any other projects is irrelevant. In order for the content itself to still be usable, we should add it to an alternate location where it is acceptable. Some pages (How To Build A Pykrete Bong for example) had some good material but were simply deleted without any attempts to find a suitable alternate location for the content. Why just delete valuable content? --hagindaz 19:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)