Wikibooks talk:Respect for authors

Thanks to all who contributed or will contribute to this page.

Remember that this discussion began with a previous version of the controversial page.

For

 * 1) Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't see any sufficient reason to forbid this second kind of books. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) This would be a disaster for Wikibooks.  The things the proposer wants to do already happen in the existing collaborative framework, and this would encourage people to set up tin-pot dictatorships that would degrade the quality and atmosphere of the project as a whole.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the opposite of how all other WMF projects work. If an original or primary author has some reason to undo an edit, then it needs to be justified more than "I don't like it." —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) The proposed distinction would weaken the commitment to collaborative writing, which is one of the core values of the project. Safeguarding the integrity of books doesn't require turning back to conventional authorship. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Every significant contributor becomes an author, deserves recognition, and consequently should have direction over the development of a book.  A centralized control system would unevenly distribute the freedom to author.  --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for
The following reasons are copied or adapted from Wikibooks talk:Ownership and User talk:Pi zero.
 * This rule seems to me the best for the future of Wikibooks. Without it, most authors in the world are dissuaded from writing on Wikibooks. Why dissuade them ? If we want future authors to trust us, we have to say that their work will be respected, that they will be protected against anyone if they want it. Thierry Dugnolle (discuss) (TD)
 * Imagine that a contributor does not like my books, that he wants to put them in accordance with his own ideas, and that I hate what he writes. If he says "I feel free to make of this book what I want and you have not any priority over me", I shall let him destroy my book, if I follow the obsolete rule, because he says precisely what the obsolete rule says. Should all authors be afraid that their work could be destroyed the next morning ? If they do, they never work again on Wikibooks. Noone never tried to destroy my books, neither to modify them, except minor corrections. And I know that administrators would never let a clearly malicious contributor do any damage. Otherwise they would not be administrators. I trust them. There is not any problem on this side. I know that because I am an old wikibookian. But many authors do not know that. They do not want to write on Wikibooks because they do not trust it. I would like the rules to state explicitly that authors can trust Wikibooks, because I want many new authors to join us. TD
 * My proposal is not really a change of policy, but only a way to put theory into line with practice. Both kinds of cooperative work are already made on Wikibooks. When there is clearly an author of the book, noone enforces modifications against the author's will. It would be nonsense. So why not say it as a rule? It would not change anything to practice but it would be a great change in the way people think of Wikibooks and it could convince many writers to work with us. TD


 * Regardless of other considerations, I can't agree on this point. The proposal is a change of policy, and a major one at that. It introduces a sharp distinction between two kinds of books that doesn't currently exist. If it is adopted, some authors will gain extra authority, and some contributors will have to adjust their expectations, all depending on whether a book is signed or not. That is a big deal, no matter how you look at it. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that there are already, at least in the french-speaking community, responsible authors, who behave like responsible authors and who are respected for their work and their responsibility. I didn't know there would not be any responsible author in the english-speaking community. If this community does not want the new rule, I will not insist, but they have to say it clearly. Not many wikibookians expressed themselves on this subject. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I answered this at the "Are there responsible authors" discussion over at the Reading Room. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many completed books have one or a few more or less identified authors. It is natural. There has to be a strong will for a book to be completed. TD
 * Like all well-intentioned contributors I want Wikibooks to be a wonderful library and I work hard for that. Why exclude authors like me who want to work cooperatively with readers and other authors and still be responsible for their books? TD
 * In the french-speaking Wikibooks community, the rule is already accepted. There are many ways to work cooperatively. Why prohibit the french way ? TD
 * If I can not refuse unwanted modifications on my books - I wrote them, I signed them, and I still work on them, or think about it - it is nonsense. If a book is my work, I have the right to refuse any change I do not like, as long as I feel responsible for what it becomes. TD
 * When I wrote my two books, I knew that there would be no authorship right, and I did not want any. I hoped a little that other authors would help me but I knew from experience that it would probably not happen. Now that my books are completed, I still hope a little that other authors would bring complementary chapters, or useful criticism. But I do not want anyone to be allowed to disrupt my work, or to feel free to do with it what he or she wants. I want to be responsible for my book. It seems to me that my reaction is natural, and that most Wikibooks authors feel the same. TD

Reasons against

 * This appears to be opposed to the fundamental principle on which Wikibooks works. Wikinews archives its articles twenty four hours after publication, and doesn't allow substantive changes to them after that &mdash; because that is in the nature of the project, that a news article is a "snapshot in time", showing what something looked like at a particular moment.  Wikisource also presents static material.  But Wikibooks and Wikipedia present collaborative documents that evolve.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule does not say that wikibooks shall be static. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it says somebody gets to own a book. Institutionalizing wikibook ownership is a bad idea.  If a book has an active community, and someone comes along and screws things up contrary to the consensus of the actives, they fix it; but what that means about a particular book must be worked out by common sense on a case-by-case basis, and trying to legislate it in policy would create problems by getting in the way of dealing with the complexities of particular situations.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What complexities if the author says right from the beginning that he or she is responsible for the book ? Where is the problem ? I don't understand. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to me an author is never an owner, only a chief writer. He or she has no other right than this one, to work in good conditions. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This would create more doubles, some almost identical books which only differ by their authors. So probably less completion. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This could be a problem. If it becomes real, I suppose solutions won't be too difficult to find. There is the same problem for any library, when there are too many books. Solutions exist. Today there are not too many completed wikibooks. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What about the translations? Personally I've translated a few English books in French, so it would be dishonest to claim them as my owns and it could block some other translators. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The translator is responsible for the translation, if he or she wants to be. But a translation can also be a wikibook of the first kind. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This would be a self-promotion, and using Wikibooks to become famous could easily finish by "if you want more, buy the entire book" (even implicitly in reference). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Explicit commercial promotion or links to commercial sites can be prohibited. But that authors work for themselves is not incompatible with the common good, if they respect the common rules. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * An author could refuse to apply the general writing syntax (eg: BookCat. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The general principle is that authors shall obey the common rules. What are the rules ? I don't know precisely. My experience is too reduced. But this difficulty is a separate issue. My innovation is just to introduce explicitly the category of responsible authors, a category which already exists implicitly, at least in our french-speaking community. The difference with the old rule is that a responsible author has the right to refuse a modification from an ordinary user. But if an administrator enforces a common rule, the authorship right is null. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Quoting Pi Zero's vote: "[This] would encourage people to set up tin-pot dictatorships that would degrade the quality and atmosphere of the project as a whole." (I copied it here for the sake of clarity. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Answer to Pi zero about dictatorship: from my point of view, this is a separate issue. If a contributor does not respect the common rules, he shall be sanctioned. At worst, the new rule would enable a contributor to behave like a dictator on his or her own book. Where is the problem ? If the book is bad, it will nevertheless be referenced somewhere in the Wikibooks catalog. Is it really a problem ? If you want many authors, don't be too selective. We can always promote at a right place the good wikibooks through consensus. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We can distinguish the modifications required by administrators, because the content is inappropriate, from modifications from ordinary contributors. If the rules about appropriate content are selective, an author cannot be a dictator even with his book. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Under the sun there is a place for everyone. The new rule does not not prohibit wikibooks of the original kind, where the spirit of Wikipedia is fully in force. But why prohibit the other kind ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is directly contradictory to the open, friendly, inviting cooperative spirit that we nurture on the project. It's all about telling people that they can't do things.  It's, potentially, offensive and insulting. It isn't intended that way.  I realize that.  But, Thierry Dugnolle, you have a blind spot about this.  You have &mdash; I know you realize this, because you've said so in the discussions of this, and I do have respect for someone who is aware of their own weaknesses &mdash; you have a pushy nature, and that sort of attitude can sour the collaborative atmosphere of the project if it's not carefully tamed.  It really is possible for people of many different natures (including ones who sometimes push a bit :-) to all work harmoniously together, and the things you're trying to advocate are already, within reason, part of the natural ebb and flow of things here.  Within reason is a crucial point.  There is not a stark contrast between just two kinds of books; there are as many different kinds of books as their are books, with an infinitely variable range of dynamics for consensus on different books. I have some interest in trying to write up a bit of an explanation or mini-essay on how all this works, and perhaps you would find, once you saw this write-up, that it answers your concerns after all.  Or, perhaps, you would find that it doesn't completely answer your concerns, but is something you can live with.  I don't know how soon I could work that in with all the other things I have on my plate at the moment.  I also wouldn't care to put a lot of effort into it only to have all my work undone because you have this reflex to push.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will never undo your work, but I will feel free to criticize it. To modify a page is not to undo another's work, because it can always be reverted. If you want my criticism to remain on the discussion pages, it will. Noone can undo another's work on Wikibooks, thanks to administrators. There can only be disagreements about what should be published, how and where. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The quality of the atmosphere does not depend on the rule by itself. As far as I know, it is not bad in the french-speaking community. And there is no disaster. How can you be sure that it will be a disaster if the english-speaking community chooses the same rule ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How can anyone be sure of anything? I am of the opinion that the consequences would be bad.  The dynamics of a wiki are not like those of classical physics, where individual particles follow a set of rules; a wiki is a self-organizing system, and the "rules" nudge people toward various behaviors &mdash; often not the behaviors explicitly specified by the rules &mdash; so that anticipating the consequences of a "rule" becomes very much an art rather than a science.  A "disaster" may play out very slowly over years, creeping in without people noticing until an enormous amount of damage has been slowly done.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not untrue, but if we reason in this way, how can we do something new ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 16:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Artfully. Of course. :-) I suspect, by the way, that part of what is happening here has to do with cultural differences between the French-speaking and English-speaking communities.  Those differences can be very subtle.  Something that works for French Wikibooks might not work in quite the same form for English Wikibooks.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I don't know. This is not a french invasion. All I wanted to say on the subject is already written. But may be you could answer to my reasons. I didn't copy on this page your answers in the past discussions, because they are yours. You know that I was not always satisfied with them. If you are, I will copy them on this page, but I need your authorization. I think it is important that a Wikibookian can know what an administrator answers to the problems I want to solve. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this situation is usefully understood as problems you want to solve. It's things you want to do, and you perceive not getting your way as a problem to be solved.  You want to insist on framing the situation in terms of questions that imply your worldview, and thus put everyone else at a disadvantage independent of the merits of anyone's position (theirs or yours).  I won't play that game.  I'll consider writing up (as I mentioned earlier) an explanation of how things actually work here.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not expose any worldview. I didn't make any personal judgment. This discussion is not about anyone's merits or demerits, it would be off topic. Please focus of the subject : the new rule. The problem I want to solve is to convince scientists to write their textbooks as wikibooks. Is it not an important issue for the future of Wikibooks ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Any administrator can answer to my question, which is : what do administrators answer to the problems I want to solve ? --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a personal request but a general problem, about the founding principles of Wikibooks. When there are conflicts between editors, administrators are arbitrators. What should I say to a potential author who is afraid that his or her textbook could be destroyed by another editor ? That administrators will let it happen ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a general problem. It is you claiming, loudly, that there is a big problem that needs to be addressed by doing specifically the thing you want done.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That I want it done is true. Wikibooks interests me much more with WB:RFA than without it. It seems you don't realize that I'm seeking consensus : I try to give you good reasons to change your mind on this subject. Can you give me a good reason to change my mind ? Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WB:RFA is an abbreviation for Requests for Adminship. And I do realize you're seeking consensus.  You are giving what you think are good reasons.  I have been giving you reasons what you want to do is not needed for what you want to accomplish, and would have bad consequences; but I do not think the things I have said to you have gotten through to you.  I do think there are things about our best practices on English Wikibooks that could do with more lucid explanations, and I plan to do that at some point in my copious free time; but I am not in a terrific hurry about it, both because I have an insane number of other things all of which I should be doing right away, and because I am not sanguine that what I write will resolve things with you anyway.  Sooner or later I mean to do it, though, because I think it will be useful for the project.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If one day, I think I'm able to this work,I will request for adminship. At present, my opinion is that my experience is not sufficent.
 * I try to be not too sanguine on this subject, which is dear to my heart. There is no hurry. Take your time. Let's try to remain civil in this discussion. I was on the french Wikibooks 13 years ago, but this does not mean that I'm an experimented user, because I never made much cooperative work. I mostly worked lonely on my books. Especially in the english-speaking community, I feel like a newcomer, may be a stranger. If I don't respect the common rules, do your duty as administrator and tell me what I should and should't do. --Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind. To do what I want to do, it's better that I remain an ordinary user. Hence, I don't want to become one of the administrators of Wikibooks, except if they ask for help because their burden is too heavy, and if there are not enough capable candidates.--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If we want to add stronger safeguards to the organic integrity of books, we might do that through policies and guidelines that focus on the books themselves rather than on their authors. Such an approach seems far less likely to bring undesirable consequences of the sort being discussed here. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the opposite of how all other WMF projects work. If an original or primary author has some reason to undo an edit, then it needs to be justified more than "I don't like it." —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC) (from his vote)
 * Your rule is good for Wikipedia, not for Wikibooks, because we need many authors who feel sufficiently responsible for their books to complete them.--Thierry Dugnolle (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think such artificial designation of being 'responsible' would make someone actually feel so. And since Wikibooks disallows legal ownership, this kind of motivation or sense of duty is nearly absent.  --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not absent. At least not for me. I feel responsible for all what I wrote on Wikibooks. And I will feel that way till my death. --TD (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your claim above - one may feel responsible for their reasons, but not because they are gatekeeping book edits (which would work only with onwership, clarifying my sentence). Purely cosmetic or aesthetic conflicts are easily resolved, because such edits are not adequately justified in the first place anyway.  I don't see any other issue with the current system.  --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You might be right. I claim the right, as an author, to refuse any unwanted modification, but I never had to make use of such a right. Noone never modified my books against my will. I'm not afraid that my books will be modified against my will. I claim such an authorship right because I want new authors to feel confident. If they want to write on Wikibooks, they should know that it is a safe place. Their books and their will are respected, and will always be. At least I hope so. (I shall be more explicit, otherwise you could think I don't answer to you : if my will is against reason, it's not my true will, but only a mistake. When I say or write "my will", I always mean my reasonable will.)--TD (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In what ways can a book be disrespected? I can't quite think of such situation. Since Wikibooks doesn't allows original literature or fiction, there are relatively little creative processes involved (the way knowledge is expressed), so there are limited book configurations/arrangements.  Even small edits can clearly indicate an inprovement or degradation.  Given how easily authorship can be abused, I don't think it is worth it for exceptional cases or author's psychology.  --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if we always try to be reasonable, we don't always agree. If a reader disagrees with what I wrote, he or she could try to modify it against my will. This would be disrespect. It never happened, and I hope it won't, but a new author may imagine that it could happen, and it could dissuade him or her from joining us at Wikibooks.--TD (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems more likely that giving dictatorial powers to the first author of a book would discourage others; most users are not the creator of any book. Anyone trying to degrade a book would be in the wrong, and would not find support from the Wikibooks community; you're implicitly supposing that the person doing that is an intruder, whom the first author wishes to resist, but if that's so then there's no need for special provision &mdash; and, with thousands of books in our collection, from time to time there'd be a case where the user who's in the wrong is the first author. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't suppose a reader wanted to degrade my book, only that he or she disagreed. If the Wikibooks community thinks I'm in the wrong, and I think I'm not, haven't I the right to refuse any unwanted modification of my books ? This case is not purely hypothetical because I often defend a minority view, and I could go as far as maintaining my position even if I am alone against all. I consider myself as the single author of my books because I wrote 100% of them, except for minor corrections. --TD (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)