Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks/Archive 1

Adding clauses
I'd like to add a few clauses Perhaps some are cruel, but we need to control our content. Gentgeen 00:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) A place to dump stuff from Wikipedia. Just because an article written at Wikipedia, or any other Wikimedia project, is not consistent with that project's goals does not mean it is accecptable content for Wikibooks. Before moving the content here, please check to see if it falls under any of the other clauses in this document first.
 * 2) A free wikiwiki host. If your group would like to have a wiki, there are many free wiki hosts, or feel free to download MediaWiki and set up your own.  If you need help, please read our wikibook on Wiki Science.
 * 3) A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. We don't need books or modules on items just because a contributor is associated with them. Please note Wikibooks does not endorse any business and it does not set up affiliate programs.

I'd like to suggest "A place for primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web." (as from What Wikipedia is not) Dysprosia 01:58, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with all four suggestions. TUF-KAT 05:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sound good to me. You could add some text to the "no dumps from Wikipedia" along the lines that some material at Wikipedia (such as cookbook recipes) were dumped here for a reason: The Wikibooks Cookbook made more sense as a place to organize them than did Wikipedia. - Marsh 01:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The first three look fine. The proposal about original research on Wikibooks might need to involve others from the following pages. It doesn't matter to me, but it looks like some in the Wikimedia community want a place to do collaborative research. See: Wikiresearch ; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiresearch ; is Wiki Science considered original research ; an Oct 7 edit added text at Wikiversity that said it was for research also. liblamb 14:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research and neither should Wikibooks be a place for original research also. A seperate project will need to be created for that if the demand is high enough. Perhaps Wiki Science needs to go also, if it is indeed original research. Dysprosia 01:29, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, original research should not go here. If it's sound research, it should be published/peer reviewed etc, and if the author(s) want it to be freely available, then WikiSource is the appropriate location, not here. TUF-KAT 20:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Proposed addition to first point:
 * (Attempt one) A place to dump stuff from Wikipedia without consideration of the content, structure, and accessibility of pages within Wikibooks.
 * (Attempt two) A place to dump stuff from Wikipedia without consideration of the context into which it will be dumped.
 * liblamb (signed for liblam by Gentgeen after investigating page history)


 * I like liblam's attempt one to clairify the first point. Gentgeen 22:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't very clear with respect to this but I would think my attempt #1 would be the first sentence and Gentgeen's #1 other sentences would follow. liblamb 21:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added my points 2 and 3, and Dysprosia's point about primary research. Point one will have to wait until the exact wording is ironed out. Gentgeen 22:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

fiction
there should be a place for fiction on wikimedia; fiction books seem as though they should be here. I would like to strike #4 from the record. +sj+
 * Wikimedia - possibly. Wikibooks - no. Wikibooks has and always should be an organization oriented to education. Dysprosia 09:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's not in line with how wikibooks as a project was founded... at least as far as mav is concerned. And that's not how I have understood the purpose of Wikibooks.  I appreciate your enthusiasm for textbooks, but if you want to change the original intent of this project, you should at least recognize that it has not always been the way you perceive it.  Sj 22:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I always intended for Wikibooks to be a place to develop educationally-oriented materials. Just about any finite-sized non-fiction reference/textbook, manual or study guide should be welcome here. Wikifiction / Wikinovels would make for an interesting project, but I'm not sure if that fits with the goals of the foundation and thus may need to be hosted elsewhere. --mav 04:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

copyrighted content
this is obvious; we can get rid of #2 as it is more fundamental than a "what this is not" item. +sj+
 * Nothing is so obvious that it can't be clearly stated. Gentgeen 05:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

speculative, subjective, and non-verifiable information
One of the important ways in which the wiki process works is by peer-review correcting information that is "wrong." As a result, I think that wikibooks should not contain texts that are purely speculative and non-verifiable in nature. We are not trying to gather information that someone has simply acquired through their own experience and speculation, especially if that information cannot be proven wrong because it is essentially subjective in nature. I think there should be a clause forbidding purely speculative and non-verifiable information as the basis for a text. If the information cannot be refined through research and verification, it does us no good to construct it through a wiki. Here is my proposed clause: Jun-Dai 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * A place for texts based on speculative, subjective, and otherwise non-verifiable information. If it is impossible for the information in the text to be "wrong," then it is also impossible for it to be refined or corrected.  It is, however, usually possible to reframe the text or its information so that it is verifiable: by establishing it as a perspective, and explaining whose perspective it is.

Real-life course materials
I found and removed the following:


 * Wikibooks is also not a place to publish administrative materials relating to real-world courses, including course outlines, scoring rubrics, or assignment material. Wikibooks is not affiliated with any institution of learning, and does not endorse any institution.

I wonder: why not? Aren't we specifically trying to create materials that can actually be used in schools? If useful course outlines, assignments, etc., can be made available here without copyright problems, then why not?

If people think I'm mistaken, then obviously the quote should be moved back into the article.Dovi 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The idea is that Wikibooks should not be used as a course website, despite our intentions of being an instructional resource. In the past, teachers have made their students take up Wikibooks accounts for the sole purpose of collaborative work on one of their school projects, as well as posting their course timetables, grades, and stuff like that. We can claim that it is against our policy to do so as it is original research, and using Wikibooks as a web hosting service. KelvSYC 04:51, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Aha, I see what you mean. On the other hand, a general sample/example of a course outline could make the wikibook more useful. And assignments - these include study questions, which we explicitly want. So it sounds like the criterion should be: Might the outlines/assignments be useful to anyone studying/teaching the topic, or only to a specific school (which is taking advantage of Wikibooks' hosting).


 * Another thought: Perhaps even school-specific uses should be OK on a user page, as long as the volume remains within reason? Dovi 19:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe that needed reworking - as an educational resource, we need sample outlines and sample questions just for the fact that it is, but we need a clearly-defined line to determine what is acceptable and what is abusing WB as a free hosting service. KelvSYC 05:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That is what the Wikiversity will be used for, not wikibooks. We don't want competing communities.--Dragontamer 10:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a repository of links
Wikibooks is not a repository of links is not official policy, as it is on Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikipedia, according to this page. It probably should be. Please discuss. Uncle G 15:18:46, 2005-08-20 (UTC)


 * I want to wade in on this topic. This is a solution in search of a problem from my viewpoint right now in terms of Wikibooks.  Most massive lists of links that I've seen added were blatant spam and vandalism, where the links were simply off topic and legitimate for removal simply for that reason alone.  On the other hand, massive lists of links to be used for bibliographic references of a subject in a Wikibook can and should be encouraged, particularly when content from those other websites were used directly in the creation of the Wikibook and the list of links is large simply because the Wikibook has a correspondingly large amount of content that needs to be referenced to original sources.


 * Most other abuses of this sort can be dealt with through other policies here on Wikibooks anyway. A Wikibook that is just a list of links would have to be removed because it is "developing a new Wikimedia project", like a Wiki competitor to the Open Directory Project.  Other clauses in this official policy may also be cited as legitimate reasons to remove content like this.


 * Basically, I fail to see a reason why this even needs to be official policy unless there are some clear examples of how somebody was abusing Wikibooks in this manner that couldn't be taken care of through other means. There is no reason for preemptive measures or policies that will never need to be invoked.  --Rob Horning 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not censored for the protection of minors
Wikibooks is not censored for the protection of minors is not official policy, as it is on Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikipedia, according to this page, despite our content disclaimer. It probably should be. Please discuss. Uncle G 15:18:46, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
 * I agree. As part of our policy changes moving forward we should sync up with practices of the other wiki's. MShonle 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If somebody creates a Wikibook about sex issues (sexual impotancy, theraputic research concepts, frank discussion about sexual habits in a clinical setting), it may not be appropriate for minors but I don't think it should be banned from Wikibooks. Outright pornography should be banned, as should books like the Manual of Crime that encourage people to break the law.  Things like erotic literature and a neo-NAZI promo book would be dealt with through other parts of the deletion policy (no fictional content and no original research, respectively).  I don't know of any current Wikibook that really tries to push the line here, but I do think eventually there will be some that try to get right to the line on this idea but not cross it. Wikijunior and the related wikibooks clearly should have censoring in regards to appropriate content for minors as that is the target for those books.  A Wikijunior book about sexuality, for example, is just going over the top and inviting criticism (although a resource to discuss sexuality to minors would be IMHO something very welcome).  I'm not sure where the line should be here on topics like this.  I've had people critical of the image of Venus (Roman goddess) because it shows a woman's bare breast.  I consider that to be art, but that is my own opinion of the subject. --Rob Horning 17:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, non-censorship should be an official position (with a possible exception of the wikijunior area). Its not a good idea to start the slide down the censorship road begin.  You wouldn't believe how extreme some parents get over what other people's children shouldn't be exposed to.--Gabe Sechan 18:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But we should include a statement that says "Pages marked with the prefix Wikijunior: will be censored for minors. Other pages will not be." After all, why have a wikijunior at all if it isn't appropriate for children? --Whiteknight T C E 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Except Wikijunior pages are not marked with the prefix "Wikijunior:", they just have Wikijunior as the first word, it is not its own namespace. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction, but that doesnt change the fact that wikijunior books are designed for children, and therefore they should be censored for children. --Whiteknight T C E 21:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as anyone can edit a Wikijunior page, there is no way to censor such pages for children. --Kernigh 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That point not withstanding, when a wikijunior book is seen to be unappropriate for children, the wikibooks community should make a special effort to fix that. otherwise, why have wikijunior at all? --Whiteknight T C E 18:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a dictionary
This section is IMHO not clear enough and encouages people to add things like Body parts slang to Wikibooks. To avoid abiguity on this issue, we need to emphasis that it would be easier and more appropriate to put even dictionary subsets, like the "Hacker's Dictionary" or "Medical Dictionary" on Wiktionary directly as well. Wikitionary is set up better to deal with content of this nature, and IMHO material of this nature needs to stay there. This comes up in repsonse to Body parts slang where an argument in the VfD discussion was to this current description that seems to encourage dictionary-like books even though the title reads Wikibooks is not a dictionary. Where do we draw the line? A glossary that is an appendix to a book I feel is just fine, as is a technical reference manual that has a huge number of terms. A book that has as its primary focus to be a dictionary or encyclopedia IMHO should not be on Wikibooks but rather portals on Wiktionary and Wikipedia respectively. Any other thoughts? --Rob Horning 00:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest adding that Wikibooks is not a thesaurus. The reason for this is wiktionary:Wiktionary:WikiSaurus. Here is a proposed text: "#Wikibooks is not a thesaurus. Thesaurus entries belong at WikiSaurus." Now that I know that Wiktionary has a thesaurus, I will not support thesaurus entries on Wikibooks. --Kernigh 01:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I put a proposed policy text at User:Kernigh/thesaurus --Kernigh 05:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I love the text as you have ammended it. I move to turn this into a formal vote to accept or reject this wording change as below.  Feel free to rule this vote out of line and abort the vote if you want to make more substantial changes to the wording. --Rob Horning 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Lord Voldemort made a minor edit to User:Kernigh/thesaurus, changing a "become" to "be". It matters not to me which of these two words is used. --Kernigh 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the change to Wikibooks is not a dictionary to read as found on this page?

Voting will take place between now and December 1st, 2005 before becoming official policy.

Support

 * 1) Rob Horning 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Better late than never, eh? -- LV  (Dark Mark) 19:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Gabe Sechan 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) (either "become" or "be" version) Kernigh 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Is a cookbook a text book?
"This is for textbooks" was recently added in the "What Wikibooks is" section. Is the Cookbook a textbook? liblamb 19:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we are still waiting to hear back from Jimbo on the direction of Wikibooks. There should be an answer later. Hopefully not too much later. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Recipes are lists of instructions for making things, so that our Cookbook and Bartending wikibooks are instructional should be self-evident. However, if controversy arises, I suggest posing the following questions:
 * What sort of textbook does one expect someone learning to be a chef, at catering school, to use? (Hint: ISBN 0609609718, ISBN 0471417750)
 * What sort of textbook does one expect someone learning to be a cocktail bartender to use? (Hint: ISBN 0312252862, ISBN 1571459545, ISBN 0471227218)
 * Why would Wikibooks not be in the business of providing free textbooks in such fields?
 * Uncle G 21:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jimbo said cookbook is ok, but he gave quite strange explanation: we can be classes teaching cooking so this book is textbook. --Derbeth talk 21:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not really that strange. It's the very point that I made above. Uncle G 11:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have then, is what couldn't there be a class about? What if there was a class on Mass Media and Propaganda, and one of the textbooks was that White-Power module? It is just a sketchy line. I guess we need to look at things on a case-by-case basis. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The edits of concern here are two edits by Derberth. Preceding it is an edit by Jimbo Wales.


 * Before edit of Jimbo Wales, policy incorrectly claimed that most non-fiction books were acceptable. (This is incorrect because the same policy has a long list of "What Wikibooks is not".) After Jimbo Wales, but before Derbeth, it claimed, "This is for textbooks". After first edit of Derbeth, it claimed, "This is for textbooks - understood by book that could possibly be used by a college for teaching a subject." Then Derbeth rewrote it to say "A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." This includes essentially all instructional material. (Somewhere, there is a class on how to play video games.) --Kernigh 03:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * By "class" I meant "a group of similar objects"... --Kernigh 04:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In case someone might think I made this edit without justification: http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Help:How_to_start_a_book&diff=prev&oldid=281044 - I just copied the words of Jimbo. My first edit was an attempt to write it in other words, but I reverted it because I realised it changed meaning of the paragraph. I'm not native American, so I'm not familiar with US educational system - I think this can justify my mistake. --Derbeth talk 09:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am changing my position. I am disagreeing with wording "not joke books" because I voted Keep on Jokebook over at WB:WIW. This particular wording was written by User:Jimbo Wales at Help:How to start a book, and copied to enforced policy by User:Derbeth.


 * I have marked the section as disputed, given the previous version (though not any in-between versions like I might want), and replaced the duplicate wording at Help:How to start a book with a link to this policy. --Kernigh 02:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales removed my marking of the section as disputed. I had already changed my vote of WB:WIW on Jokebook to be delete. However, I still disagree with the text "not joke books", as inserted by Derbeth (copied from an edit by Jimbo Wales to a non-policy page).


 * I would support a "joke book" that explains how to joke and instructs the reader in joking. I would not support Jokebook, which contains a large list of "jokes", some of which are original research. --Kernigh 02:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No original research
IMO, "No original research" is appropriate for wikipedia, but not so appropriate here. One of Wikibooks' great strengths is its capacity to be more current than any printed reference texts. It would be a great shame to limit it to reproducing preexisting textbooks. An example of original research that (IMO) should be hosted by Wikibooks is documentation for newly-created software. Ironically, the "No original research" rule means that a textbook on use of the Wikimedia software shouldn't be hosted on Wikibooks! I doubt this is what was intended, and IMO the "No original research" rule should be replaced with a rule that reflects what was intended. Jun-Dai's "Wikibooks should not contain texts that are purely speculative and non-verifiable in nature" above would seem an appropriate replacement. Irrevenant 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * no original research is appropriate here. It simply needs to be somewhat weaker in certain respects.  The major purpose of the policy is to exclude things which have not been peer reviewed and incorporated into the corpus of human knowledge, and which have yet to gain any traction in the world outside of their creators or founders, such as new religions, crackpot science theories, new languages, new philosophies, radically new and idiosyncratic interpretations of history, and the like.  We want to exclude most such things from Wikibooks just as they are excluded from Wikipedia.  (Wikibooks is not the place for writing a grammar book on one's own constructed language, for example, or for propounding the theory that the universe is a plutonium atom.) However, the point that we certainly should allow textbooks to be written in newly formed areas of study is a good one.  If, for example, the field of computer science expands to include a new area, we shouldn't be creating impediments that prevent Wikibooks from being able to be the first to have a textbook covering it.  Verifiability does not cut the mustard as a criterion for that, though, and the rule that you mention is unsuitable.  Vast swathes of ISBN 0136386776 and ISBN 0201896834 &mdash; standard textbooks in their field &mdash; would not satisfy a verifiability criterion, as they describe and document systems that were invented by their authors. Uncle G 13:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think who invented the systems is relevant - so long as they're freely or widely available, the average user can confirm that the software does what the book says it does. ie. it's verifiable. (This means no books on proprietary software that hasn't been released yet, which is the sort of thing you're trying to keep out with "No original research" anyway). Irrevenant 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The few cases where this has been an issue have generally been cleaned up quickly. Yes, some Wikibooks have been deleted due to this policy.  The most glaring example was when a laboratory was literally placing their measurement results (I believe it was a chemical laboratory, but I may be mistaken) as a lab notebook on Wikibooks.  They did intend to have the results not only public but available under the GFDL, so it wasn't a problem for the lab.  The problem was the original research issue, which this clearly was.  We did find a Wikicity that was willing to take the data, so it wasn't "lost", but it is no longer a part of Wikibooks.  Your proposed change would have actually encouraged more Wikibooks of this nature, which frankly we are not prepared to deal with and can't evaluate.
 * That's the key phrase - if we can't evaluate it, then it fails the verifiability test and won't be included anyway. "Verifiable" should probably be clarified to indicate that it means by a typical wikibooks user though (as opposed to, say a multi-million dollar physics lab). Irrevenant 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is also the issue of psuedo science individuals like Richard Hogland (not that he has added anything here on Wikibooks that I'm aware of). There have, however, been several attempts to put in Wikibooks that espouse some more esoteric scientific philosophies, and in this case it is much more polite to suggest that original research is not appropriate for Wikibooks than to say they are a quack and we think their research has no merit.  Again, there is an Academic Research Wikicity that not only handles this, but has the people capable of assisting individuals who do this sort of research, including UFO researchers and paranormal investigators.  Think "Ghost Busters" in real-life, and they do exist.


 * A textbook about the use of Wikimedia software is appropriate, but a running bug report about trying to fix MediaWiki software would not. That bug list is an example of original research.  I think you are confusing the two issues here.  It has nothing to do with the "newness" of the idea.  The software architechture document about MediaWiki software is not appropriate on Wikibooks either, because that is original research.  A comparison study about different Wiki software packages is also original research.  Writing a book about Wiki software is not.
 * Would you seriously want to prevent a wikibook on using wikis from including a comparison of features? To me this is an "against" for No Original Research, not a "for". Irrevenant 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's take another view of this. If I create a cold-fusion power cell, there are several books I could write about the topic.  Original research is publishing actual research notes about how I built the power cell, and what kinds of power readings I got from various experiments I conducted on that power cell.  I could also talk about what my theories about how this works, even doing citations from other fusion research.  That would still be original research, however.  If on the other hand I wrote a "how-to" book on the best way to operate a cold-fusion power cell, that would not be original research.  Writing a literature survey about cold-fusion would also be appropriate for Wikibooks, especially if it cites original research that has been published elsewhere.  Your proposed policy change would challenge these secondary books from ever being written and you could shut down the writing of any Wikibook that follows a theory that you or a large group of Wikibook participants don't agree with.


 * You say you want to avoid "pseudo science" wikibooks, but you don't want to "shut down the writing of any Wikibook that follows a theory that you or a large group of Wikibook participants don't agree with". That's what the verifiability test is all about.  If you come up with a better rule to weed out pseudo-science, I'd be happy to hear it.Irrevenant 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll be the first to admit that the "original research" clause in the policies is very subjective, and there are cases where it is difficult to draw the line. Still, by keeping the original research exclusion policy it makes it easier to keep some books that we simply don't have people here that can evaluate the validity of the claims.  The emphasis here is that we are trying to write textbooks for educational environments.  Original research strongly distracts from this original goal, which is the primary reason this exclusion exists.  --Rob Horning 13:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for major changes: overreaction?
Some quotes follow. My (User:Kernigh) emphasis is bold.
 * Staff lounge Speedy Deletion Warning thread
 * In the next 24 to 48 hours, I will delete a variety of pages from Wikibooks which are a clear and simple violation of our charter. Jokebook, Getting a date, Naturism are all not textbooks and need to be moved to another site. There may be more. --Jimbo Wales 17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't an order. It's 100% consistent with policy. --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We have to change our guidelines for new pages. To see what is valid, check What is Wikibooks includes - this is Jimbo's opinion on our mission. I understand that this will cause major changes to Wikibooks - it is possible, that we will have to move away all computer games bookshelf (but not through speedy deletion as much of this material shows high quality). --Derbeth talk 21:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should have a concept submittal process for new books. Nobody wants to spend a lot of time writing a book for it to later be deleted. Wikibooks would get a lot more action if speedy deletion were not always hanging over author's heads. --Zephram Stark 22:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This could affect almost all of Wikibooks. So under this new enforcement of policy, what are we to do with Wikibooks:How-tos bookshelf, for example. They are not really textbooks. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest that Jimbo try to trust the Wikibooks community a little bit. We did delete the White Power Wikibook, and most other patent nonsense does need to go as well. --Rob Horning 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the problems here is that books like Jokebook have been allowed to persist on Wikibooks for some time. Going through the history of this Wikibook you can see that the first edit was November 2004. That means it has been on here for some time and until now never challenged. --Rob Horning 05:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Staff lounge GnuFU thread
 * A manual for use of productive software can be considered a "textbook or manual", as per enforced policy. Strategy guides for games, i think, are the only software manuals that need to be worried. --Whiteknight TCE 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks talk:Policy/Vote What are we using this page for? thread
 * Get rid of proposed policies. Either get formal approval to enforce or get rid of it. The place to approve the text of the proposal is here. ...I think it is time to seriously "clean house" here. --Rob Horning 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It does seem like I arrived just in time to witness a massive change in the Wikibook structure. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Overreaction? Is there a massive change? Speedy deletions for WB:WIW exclusions are already deletion policy. Someone moved Jokebook to WB:VFD, and I moved Getting a date, and there is nothing strange about that. Maybe proposed policies will become enforced or rejected, but I already expect that to happen. The recent changes to Votes for deletion were only minor.

The one major change might be game guides. I have created Game manual guidelines and Wikibooks talk:Game manual guidelines; this needs discussion. --Kernigh 00:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm... there is not much of an overreation. Do you realise how much here on Wikibooks is not a text book? There is not even such a thing as a "Deletion policy". That page isn't even an enforced policy. People at Wikipedia send stuff here because they don't understand what WB is. There is a major change going on. If things like Jokebook are to be deleted, which have been here basically forever, how can there not be a major change. Actually enforcing policy is a major change. Like I said, I contacted Jimbo at WP and am waiting to hear back about what Wikibooks actually is. -- LV  (Dark Mark) 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is Jimbo stirring up the pot. He is in a position to "clean house" that the rest of us can't be, simply by being the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation (aka Benevolant Dictator and God of Wikimedia).  I disagree with him on some points, but if he wants to refocus Wikibooks to become more textbook oriented, I am not only willing to aquiese into this point, but I'm also willing to enforce a revised Wikibooks philosophy that follows that line of reasoning.  The big problem is that it is going to mean the deletion of a large portion of Wikibooks, including the alienation of many users here who have made very reasonable and meaningful contributions to Wikibooks.  I also want consistant policies rather than having to rely on whatever Jimbo feels isn't appropriate at the moment, which is not a good way to run a project like this.  That is why we need to have a policy overhaul, so these books that Jimbo doesn't want can be accomodated through policy rather than one person's opinions, even if it is the Wikimedia project's founder and initial financer (the true measure of why he has the political power on these projects that he has). --Rob Horning 16:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, except he owns Wikibooks, and can therefore tell us what he wants it to be. If people want to start their own wiki to house all of the newly deleteable material, there is nothing stopping them. But Jimbo set up Wikibooks to be a place for textbooks and I am inclined to follow his desires on this issue and enforce his decrees, even if that means going against what the community-at-large feels is right. This is his website, he gets to make the rules. If he says, "only textbooks", then we should have only textbooks. It is his perogative. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I take exception to this point. Jimbo does not own wikibooks or wikimedia-  the wikimedia foundation owns it.  THe wikimedia foundation isn't a codename for Jimbo, its everyone who works on a project it runs.  Jimbo deserves respect for starting and financing the project, and his opinion definitely holds more weight than a normal contributor.  But that does not mean his wishes override the voice of the community.  That is NOT his perogative.  And people believing it is the founders perogative has killed many good projects in the past when the founder has been wrong.  If Jimbo thinks we need major content deletion, this is something that needs to be discussed among the community and most likely the board.


 * That said, people are probably overreacting. He called for the deletion of 3 specific books, not entire shelves like the game books section.  If he wants more deleted, I'm sure he'll tell us and we can discuss it then.  --Gabe Sechan 17:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, then I would urge Jimmy Wales, not Jimbo Wales to pull all funding from the Wikibooks project and we'll see if it is his perogative or not. He established the Wikimedia Foundation, and I imagine he could cause its dissolvement if he chooses. He didn't just point to three books and say they need to go. He pointed out the fact that things which are not textbooks have no place on Wikibooks. "The Wikimedia Foundation is everyone who works on a project it runs"? So WoW, Wikipedia is Communism, Mr. Treason, and every other vandal or troll is a member? -- LV  (Dark Mark) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * He can't legally do that- wikimedia foundation is a non-profit corporation, it isn't his money anymore.  In addition, I'm not sure that he provides the majority of current funding-  remember that fundraising drive a few months back?  You did contribute, right?  I know I sure did.


 * Communism? No a democracy.  Or a republic if you prefer-  we vote for a board.  Elections were in July or August I think.  Every registered account got a vote.  If we wanted, we could have voted even Jimbo out.  We didn't, and it was probably a good thing- he's run wikimedia well.  But that does not mean every decision he makes is right, or that he gets to arbitrarily set any and all policies.  The board (of which he is a member) can of course do that by vote-  but the end result of going that route is a fractured contributor base, loss of contributors, forks, and eventually stagnation for the project.  Been there, done that, not a good option.  Major policy changes/decisions need to be discussed to avoid such situations.  --Gabe Sechan 17:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, not Communism but a Facist dictatorship instead. Jimbo doesn't even hide from that fact.  The charter of the Wikimedia Foundation is set up that he can't be voted out from his position.  All the elections are about is to elect two members of a five seat board.  Jimbo has indicated that eventually he wants to see all of the board members be up for election, but that is for some distant future event.  The ultimate issue here is that we are all volunteers here and if Jimbo gets too arbitrary and harsh that we can all simply leave.  This has been a problem for other internet communities when arbitrary decisions get handed out, and that is a problem.  Worse, that the Wikibooks community could split and fork the content in a major way, with a new group running the whole thing from somewhere else.  Jimbo is smart enough that he doesn't want to force that to happen again, as it already did happen with the Spanish Wikipedia some time ago.  I would like to stay within the Wikimedia community if I can, but if arbitrary decisions start to get handed out more often, a split will happen.  So far Jimbo has proved to be a generally hands-off manager except in extreme circumstances, and most other decisions about the governance are through participatory democratic discussion.  Not even republican representative governance but pure democracy where you govern through your level of participation.  --Rob Horning 19:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do apologize to Jimbo over the fact that I called him a dictator after the mold of some truly evil regimes in the past. I can't take back what I said.  Well, with admin status I suppose I could delete the words and everything in the history that has this text, but I won't right now mainly through practicallity and that the damage has been done.  Jimbo does have some sort of dictitorial authority if he chooses it, but has generally shown considerable restraint in the past and the present.  Indeed, Jimbo has been hammered on many fronts lately, and I'm sorry that this whole issue came up at all.  My main beef with Jimbo was over how he handled this, not what he did.  He also apologized formally, and I want to recipricate that apology as well.  There is some sort of internet law that talks about discussions that invoke Nazism..... --Rob Horning 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I never said it was communism. And guess what, until another member of the board shows up to dispute what Jimmy has said, I am going to assume that he speaks for the entire Board. Normally he notes if an opinion he has is as a regular, everyday contributor. He did no such thing in this instance, so I assume he speaks on behalf of the entire Board. -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The hardest part of this whole movement is trying to separate out the "textbooks" from the books that have information and instructive value, but can't be used in a structured class environment. When i was younger, i loved to read about the games I was playing, and try to become a better player. I once bought a SimCity 2000 strategy guide that was bigger then the mathbook i was using in school at the time. I read that book cover to cover, and it included alot of interesting information, not only on how to play the game, but also how some of the algorithms worked, and it included interesting commentary from the game designers about how the game was made. Yes, no educational institution with any worth will teach a class about how to play a videogame. There are, however, prospective students out there who want to learn these subjects. I don't think we should make wikibooks cater only to subjects where teachers are available, but instead we should include subjects where there are willing and eager students. I personally think it is much more important to cater to available students then it is to cater to available teachers. --Whiteknight T C E 17:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks was established as a resource and repository of educational textbooks, not jokebooks, not game guides, etc. Somewhere along the line someone corrupted the integrity of WB by leaving all this in here. Jimbo says that is not what WB is for, therefore I am inclined to let him have his website have what it was designed to have. Let someone else start a wiki for game-guides etc. -- LV (Dark Mark) 17:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm all for dumping some trash like the jokebook (where half the "jokes" aren't funny anyway), but i think that the wikibooks charter and WB:WIW should be expanded to include all textbooks, instructional guides, and manuals. We can't focus only on subjects that educational institutions are willing to teach, but instead we should focus on subjects where students are willing to learn. Everybody benefits from that system. --Whiteknight T C E 17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Whiteknight is right. I think no things like "Jokebook" should exist on Wikibooks, but we cannot ignore computer manuals. I don't know if Jimbo would qualify Blender 3D as a wikibook, but in my opinion, we should have such books, because people need them. --Derbeth talk 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is more than just textbooks
To suggest that Wikibooks is only for textbooks, I would strongly suggest that you look at the archives of the original discussion that created this Wikimedia project in the first place.

Now I will not disagree that one of the motivations behind the creation of Wikibooks is to write textbooks, and that should be the primary focus. There seems to be a whole lot of misunderstanding here however that it was just for textbooks in the beginning. Keep in mind the history of this project, where it was really an outgrowth of both Project Sourceburg (now Wikisource) and Wikipedia. Sourceberg was in part an attempt to add source materials, and the name was to remember Project Gutenberg and the original sources there. The name was discontinued, but the iceberg anaology from the name remains even today with the current icon for that project, with more subtle meaning that there is more to the project than just raw text sources.

Originally there was a general intent to try and encompass all human knowledge with Wikimedia projects. That feeling and intent is really what is at stake here and more. Issues like the NPOV and "Original Research" tenants were mainly a method adapted to try and keep the most extreme issues under control, where there is now more contention on Wikipedia about the abbreviation of computer memory usage (MiB vs. MB) than for the biography entry on George W. Bush. Especially if the topic wasn't offensive to most Wikimedia users, the subject was to remain on some Wikimedia project. Of course offensive has a POV issue, but even controvercial issues have their place and several potentially graphic issues like the Nazi Death Camps have well written articles about the subject that maintains a NPOV approach.

Generally speaking, whenever there was a recurring topic that didn't seem to fit within the project, it was moved onto another domain with a whole new Wikimedia sister project that was started. This was particularly the case with things like Wikiquote, Wiktionary, and Wikinews, all of which are spin-offs from Wikipedia. Even here on Wikibooks we have Wikiversity that is likely going to be a brand-new Wikimedia project. Interesting ideas like Wikidata and Wikiscores (working with music) are still being developed but may still become future Wikimedia projects.

We are now at a cross roads here. Do we start to really narrow the definition of Wikibooks or do we try to expand that definition to include more non-fiction content? Keep in mind that even the non-fiction distinction was a very recent change, and that there was fictional content on Wikibooks as well until recently, and some people still try to add some every once in awhile. Are we prepared as a community to throw away all non-textbook book-length content and declare that other non-fiction content should not be permitted on any Wikimedia project at all? There is no other real home within the Wikimedia sister projects for this content.

I have been carrying on with some threads on Foundation-l about the future of Wikibooks, mainly with a proposal that Wikibooks somehow turn into a sort of incubator website for future Wikimedia projects. We already have mini-project situations here for each seperate Wikibook, and except for some heartburn in trying to get it going on its own domain we have been successful with things like Wikiversity. I still think Wikibooks is a good place for new Wikimedia project ideas and for some experimentation, but the general concensus on that mailing list and among Foundation board members is to create a whole new incubator project seperate from all other Wikimedia projects.

Wikicities is really quite a different beast all together, but it does muddle up the waters some. Wikicities has nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation other than it is governed by two members of the Wikimedia Foundation board. Some content has been recently moved to Wikicities (especially fictional content), but the current attempts at policy change are to move a massive portion of Wikibooks over to several projects there, and IMHO really muddle the distinction between Wikimedia projects and Wikicities. I still don't know if this is intentional on the part of Jimbo or not, as he is to get some extra money indirectly into his own pocket due to this move.

Jimbo has not been participating on the discussions too much with Wikibooks. I don't blame him, because Wikimedia users keep distracting him with so many other issues that I would be overwhelmed with some of the stuff he does. He is also the P.R. point man for all of the Wikimedia projects, going to several conferences and meeting with members of the international press. Still, even for a very active user on Wikibooks (or worse on Wikipedia), you can't keep up with all of the discussions on every topic. Wikibooks has been evolving, and some of that has to do with trans-wiki efforts from other Wikimedia projects as well. Books like Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter are not strictly textbooks, but I think have a very useful place here and are even beneficial to an educational environment. I think Jimbo has missed this transformation of Wikibooks from a simple place for textbooks to become a fairly large library of non-fiction material. His changes of Wikibooks policy, especially on this page, were very much out of line and otherwise against published policy and the formal disclaimer at the top of the page. To quote "Except for minor edits, please make use of the discussion page to propose changes to this policy." Jimbo did not make a minor edit, but a major policy change here, and completely without anything on this discussion page. He only informed the community that he made the change after the fact, and until now nobody has challenged him on that point directly. I guess I am doing that now. Why was this change made and is this something that we as a community really want to have happen? --Rob Horning 04:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter can be used in existing school classes on literature; it is a textbook. (The Harry Potter books themselves are textbooks, but they would go on Wikisource if not copyrighted.) The How-tos bookshelf consist of textbooks; for example Sword construction can be used in school classes on metalworking. The Computing bookshelf consists of textbooks; for example Using KDE can be used in school classes on desktop computing. None of these seem to be problems.


 * But perhaps there is a problem here. Computer and video games bookshelf is large, and there are classes (groups) of video game players, but there are no school classes for video game players. There might be other parts of Wikibooks like this. Still, if class can mean group, category, instead of school class, there is no problem with WB:WIW, or is there? Freeware is a useful project, but I proposed deleting it because it is a macropedia. Are there many Wikibooks like Freeware?


 * The reason why I have little trouble with Jimbo's edit is because Wikibooks already excludes most non-fiction books: previously published works (Wikisource), encyclopedias, macropedias, dictionaries, original research, and especially soapboxes. --Kernigh 17:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as computer game classes, there is a whole PhD program that was mentioned on Foundation-l, and I've even seen B.S. programs in computer game design. While I will admit that these "textbooks" are more about how to play the game than trying to understand the theory underneath the game, I've also seen that done, and something a "hardcore" game player should try to figure out as well.  I have also advocated that a good CS program should involve at least for beginning undergrads some game design theory as well, as it teaches some good programming habits that can be very useful in later work.


 * As you've pointed out, there are some significnat restrictions on what we allow here anyway, and as I've pointed out things like White Heritage Society and Kabbalah violate several previous policies, most prominent in these cases was a blatant copyright violation from content published elsewhere. The White nationalism article, however, shows some balance and NPOV treatment.  I mention this especially, because Jimbo suggested this Wikibook was vandalism and the user that created this Wikibook should have been banned.  Just where do we draw the line here?  Could this Wikipedia article be expanded to become a Wikibook?  Why or why not?  Existing policy suggests that it perhaps could be expanded.


 * The big problem I have with Jimbo's edit was a complete disregard with the community in general, and the opinion that we as admins are somehow getting lax with our duties, without trying to see what we are trying to accomplish here. After bringing this issue up on Foundation-l, there is yet to be even a single supporter of Jimbo, which IMHO is particularly surprising given the make up of the regular participants there.  More to the point, if I had made similar changes to this page I would hope that it would have created a similar firestorm of protest, as I've done when User:Lord Voldemort changed the copyright violation policy.  I've made mistakes here, and I've admitted them when I've done so.  I have, however, been very careful with high-profile pages and have tried to get community concensus first if I make a big change.  That was not done here at all, and in some ways Jimbo's silence on this issue after the firestorm is just making things worse.  --Rob Horning 19:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very concerned about the definition of Wikibooks. I have a starter project going here that is not strictly speaking a textbook, but is of interest to educators, is based on verifiable fact, lends itself to widespread participation, and lends itself to NPOV.  It appropriately includes reference to me, but as it grows from a stub to a real book, my name is just one among many appropriately listed.  I think it is an asset to Wikibooks that will eventually draw considerable positive attention to the Wikibooks site and to Wiki in general. I guess someone could argue that it is a macropedia. I'm not calling attention to the particular wikibook, as I don't want to make it a center of controversy.  I would like to be able to go forward without risking deletion. I just want to know a real set of rules.  I will obey them.  Can we get this resolved???? Soon???? Frog One 16:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah... Wikibooks is in a very dilapidated state at the moment. There is so much missing right now and until this is all settled, working on questionable modules may be all for naught. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Archives at foundation-l and textbook -l. --Kernigh 02:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a sorry state of affairs, and we certainly do need to sort this all out so people can get back to regular contributions without fear of deletion. I recommend perhaps that we should go back to the drawing board, get all the important people that we need to get involved, and redraft WB:WIW, to say exactly what it should say, with no omissions and no ambiguities. Barring a complete rewrite, it does need some kind of overhaul. Until we can get it sorted out, we should suspend all VFD discussions (except for the most heinous and unreasonable violations), to prevent unnecessary casualties. We should ask jimbo to come back and help with our discussions, but if he stays absent, we need to write up a complete policy ourselves. We should also try to get input from as many stewards, beauracrats (sp?) and admins as possible, because these are the people that will need to enforce whatever policy we finally adopt. I will be more then happy to start a new discussion page to discuss the different changes that need to be made in WB:WIW --Whiteknight T C E 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur with suspending the VfDs. We need to have established, firm policies before we can really move forward. How it got to this sorry state I do not know, but we do need to have more input from Jimmy and the rest of the Board. I truly feel that for a lot of the modules, this is a VERY important discussion. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Headless chickenism
A lot of running around like headless chickens, crying that we need to make up entirely new policies, has been sparked by this edit. This policy now sports a dispute notice, and people have decried Jimbo's change in the direction of Wikibooks.

Jimbo has made no such change.

Jimbo clearly stated himself that his objections to the three books that he intended to delete were 100% consistent with existing policy. He isn't changing policy, and isn't changing the focus of Wikibooks. What he's doing, and what that edit means, is easily understood once one understands one very pertinent fact:

Jimbo's idea of what a "bookshop" is isn't the same as other editors' ideas of what a "bookshop" is.

Once one realizes this, what Jimbo is saying when he says that "most books that you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of [... a] bookshop are not acceptable" turns out to be exactly the same as what Aya is saying when he wrote that "any book you might expect to find in the non-fiction section of [... a] bookshop is acceptable". There are (at least) two different sorts of bookshops that have non-fiction sections:


 * In the non-fiction section of a mass-market bookshop, where the target market is the populace at large, one predominantly finds things such as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, atlases, almanacs, maps, biographies, autobiographies, philosophical/religious/political tracts, tourist and travel guides, entertainment reviews and guides, coffee table books, and only a small fraction of the whole that targets the education market. Most of the books in the non-fiction section of such a bookshop are not appropriate for Wikibooks, as per Jimbo.
 * In the non-fiction section of a university bookshop, where the target market is students, one predominantly finds things such as CliffsNotes for set texts, textbooks for sciences and humanities, tutorials, manuals, study guides, and instructional and educational material in general; and the part that comprises the non-education-market material is a small fraction of the whole. Most of the books in the non-fiction section of such a bookshop are  appropriate for Wikibooks, as per Aya.

There is no actual disagreement in terms of what belongs on Wikibooks, no dispute, and no change of focus. I am confident that Jimbo, Aya, and most editors here all agree that Wikibooks is not, and never has been, the place for encyclopaedias, dictionaries, atlases, almanacs, maps, biographies, autobiographies, philosophical/religious/political tracts, tourist and travel guides, entertainment reviews and guides, coffee table books, and other non-fiction books that aren't specific to the education market. Indeed, most of these are specifically excluded by policy (such as "Wikibooks is not an encyclopaedia") that is pretty much undisputed. The disagreement lies in the preconception of what one might expect to find in the non-fiction section of a bookshop, because there are different sorts of bookshops, targetting different markets. The disagreement isn't over what is appropriate to Wikibooks. The disagreement is over what one finds in bookshops. &#9786;

Given that, the very least that we need to do is specify the type of bookshop when explaining things this way. My opinion is that we shouldn't discard the metaphor. Thinking of Wikibooks as "Wikiversity's free university bookshop" is a fairly good rule of thumb, and worth mentioning in some way, albeit with the caveat that the analogy is not an exact one, given that even university bookshops cater for the extra-curricular needs of their customers and sell some non-educational and non-instructional non-fiction material that is not appropriate for Wikibooks.

However, Wikibooks is not in a dilapidated state, and there is no need for sudden and drastic overhaul. There is no need for running around like headless chickens.

Uncle G 18:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo made some recent remarks at staff lounge where he said specifically that wikibooks needs to become more serious. Prior to jimbo's recent remarks (all of them within the last week), the general attitude here on wikibooks was a relaxed one: nonfiction books from any bookstore were acceptable, so long as they werent blatant violators of other policies. Now, keeping in mind that we all need to take this project more seriously, we either need to start interpreting currently-written policy more strictly, or we need to rewrite the ambiguous parts of policy to be very absolute on what does and does not belong here. Until we have an unambiguous, straight-forward definition of what wikibooks is, we will find ourselves running around like headless chickens, trying to interpret what different clauses mean, and trying to decide if individual modules do or do not fit into that policy. --Whiteknight T C E 14:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G above : I am confident that Jimbo, Aya, and most editors here all agree that Wikibooks is not, and never has been, the place for encyclopaedias, dictionaries, atlases, almanacs, maps, biographies, autobiographies, philosophical/religious/political tracts, tourist and travel guides, entertainment reviews and guides, coffee table books, and other non-fiction books that aren't specific to the education market. I disagree with this. Among other things, I think that Wikibooks should include travel guides, and it should also include books that are not specific to the education market, such as Guide to UNIX and the other books on the computing (with software) bookshelf. --Kernigh 05:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (I thought "instructional market" was different from "educational market", but that is obviously false... --Kernigh 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Travel guides are what Wikitravel is for, and are not in any way targetted at the education market (People don't use travel guides in order to learn.); and, contrary to your assertion, the Guide to UNIX is educational market material, being exactly the sort of instructional and educational text that one finds students buying and employing in Computing courses. (Hint: ISBN 0070254923) Uncle G 17:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. People who want to read computing guides are in the education market. I striked that part of my comment. Though Wikitravel is another travel guides wiki, I would think that one uses travel guides to learn about places that one might visit. --Kernigh 20:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have used travel guides to learn. Short of buying a plane ticket, how else are you going to learn about modern day culture in distant places?  Saying it should go on wikitravel instead is fine with me, but remember they aren't a wikimedia project and don't have our funding.  Would we be prepared to change that and take them if they were to go under? --Gabe Sechan 17:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where do you draw the line, exactly, between a text that would be suitable in a humanities class (studies in culture or religion), and a book that is deemed to be a "travel guide"? books about the socio-economic climate of a particular region should be here, so should books about the culture of a given area (art, philosophy, food), so long as they are expository books. Books about "where to find the best parties in country X" should not be here. Many travel guides could easily be hit with a cleanup tag, to be converted into the first type. All they need is a little TLC -- 19:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarify soapbox?
I'm wondering if we should clarify soapbox point. I recently has a discussion with user starting book promoting secession of New York city from the USA. I argumented this is a soapbox, he said soapbox clause only affects commercial advertising. Maybe we should clarify it or add other entry like Wikibooks is not for writing manifestos? --Derbeth talk 11:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, the term "soapbox" is far too vague. We could include an all-encompassing phrase like "Wikibooks is not a soapbox for the dissemination of political or religious propaganda. Wikibooks is also not a commercial advertising venue. Wikibooks is for factual information, not debate or argument. Wikibooks should not be used to promote a political agenda, a religious agenda, or a commercial agenda." That would get the point across, but is a litter verbose. --Whiteknight T C E 12:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's good but we should also cover cases like books "Why you should use solar power?" or "Use only Free Software!" (these are only my examples, such books haven't been created). --Derbeth talk 17:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Both of those examples seem to me to violate either the "no political propaganda" or "no commercial propaganda". Also, both of your two examples, as soon as you put forth one opinion over another, violate the NPOV clause. --Whiteknight T C E 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I would like to update the "soapbox" clause to state: "Wikibooks is not a soapbox for the dissemination of political or religious propaganda. Wikibooks is also not a commercial advertising venue". I think this statement encompasses everything that the original clause intended, but is less vague and more useful in enforcing policy. --Whiteknight T C E 19:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. --Derbeth talk 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose this change, if you meant to replace the entire soapbox section with only those two sentences.


 * I propose combining the old version and the new version, like this: "Wikibooks is not a soapbox for the dissemination of political or religious propaganda. Wikibooks is also not a venue for commercial advertising or self-promotion. We don't need books or modules on items just because a contributor is associated with them. Please note Wikibooks does not endorse any business and it does not set up affiliate programs."


 * As for "Why should you use solar power?", it could become "What are the benefits of solar power?" or "Benefits and disadvantages of solar power". "Use only Free Software!" is not appropriate here (neither is "Read only Free Textbooks!"). --Kernigh 05:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. I wasnt planning to change the entire wording, just adding in some new clarifications on the point. If anybody can think of a good way to mix all the old and the new, let us know! --Whiteknight T C E 14:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

One way is to take most of the points that are in Wikipedia's "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy that were missing here, and add them &mdash; as I just have. &#9786; Uncle G 17:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. --Whiteknight T C E 18:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think copying this paragraph from Wikipedia would be fine, we propably only have to shorten "self-promotion" clause. --Derbeth talk 18:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Copying enforced policy from Wikipedia is only acceptable if the edit is minor, or if there is consensus. Please understand that consensus at Wikipedia does not imply consensus at Wikibooks. In this case, though, the edit seems consistent with existing policy, and the only part that I might disagree with is the sentence, "See No original research," because it explicitly tells me to go see a nonexistant page. I have no problem with WB:WIW where the "no original research" red link is simply embedded in the text. --Kernigh 01:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify one thing
The nonfiction section of the bookstore contains all manner of things which are perfectly valid but which are not in any way shape or form textbooks. They are not NPOV, they are polemics. They contain original research. They are most often the unique perspective of a single author expressing a point of view or calling for some action by the general public.

I do not view any of my work here as in any way changing the charter or mission of Wikibooks, although it is of course perhaps a refocussing on what it is we are doing here. We are not a general repository for all sorts of nonfiction books, nor should we be.

I apologize especially to Robert Horning who seems to feel I have moved too quickly, but the point is: we are at a point where we can get major support for Wikibooks, or we are at a point where we can screw that up. The way to get major support, the way to make Wikibooks as successful as wikipedia, is with a clear mission that can be supported by a huge variety of people. Speedy deleting things which are clearly in violation of our mission is something that should have been done more aggressively a long time ago.

Many Wikibookians have given up and gone away after losing battles against Wikipedians who were (quite justifiably, from their perspective) just trying to make some crap go away from Wikipedia. The Wikibooks community has been too small to resist such things. Well, now I'm here to tell you that it is time for this community to come into its own and I will defend you on that.

And as with Wikipedia, the community is defined by the mission, rather than the other way around. We know what we're here to do: revolutionize education by providing freely licensed alternatives to proprietary textbooks. The vast majority of the work at Wikibooks is exactly that. But we've been lax about enforcing policies because we were a young project and so on. But we're about to get huge international exposure and attention, and we need to be ready for it. --Jimbo Wales 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The nonfiction section of the bookstore contains all manner of things which are perfectly valid but which are not in any way shape or form textbooks. I disagree with part of this.


 * Most of the nonfiction books from the store are textbooks. For example, many books with original research, or advocating some political view, can be used by students at universities or outside of school. In a strict sense, these books are made with text (A written passage consisting of multiple glyphs, characters, symbols or sentences) and qualify as textbooks.


 * However, this site Wikibooks has important policies which ban many textbooks. Even before Jimbo Wales edited this policy this month, we already had policies like Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia, Wikibooks is not a soapbox, Wikibooks uses neutral point of view, Wikibooks is not a free web host. This effectively excludes most nonfiction textbooks. Wikibooks should keep these policies, because they help the community write good textbooks. --Kernigh 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Joke books" and "random books on any subject you like"
I had labeled "What Wikibooks includes" as a disputed section, but it was removed. I dislike that my marker of dispute was removed.

Since the only wording I actually disagreed with was "not joke books", I have made another edit to that section which I think is more consistent with existing policy. (As I recall, the "not joke books" wording was introduced by Jimbo Wales to a help page, and Derbeth moved the wording from the help page to this enforced policy page.) My edit removes my reason to dispute the wording.

Instead of "not joke books", I say "a collection of jokes like Lollerpedia", which is more specific, and does not prevent Wikibooks from containing instructional material on how to joke.

As for "random books on any subject you like", that is confusing because Wikibooks does not exclude every book on a subject that someone likes. So I inserted "because of the list of exclusions in this policy", to be consistent with What is Wikibooks. --Kernigh 06:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jimbo probably does not wish for it to be advertised as something disputed. I can see why, and I would rather have the official policy to err on the safe side (the side that throws away more) than the invite everyone in side. Any active wikibookian will know that it is disputed right now, and we don't want to add more people like me who just came in not knowing about all this. --Dragontamer 10:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets focus on the important aspects of the debate
I propose that we should not be so focused on the why wikibooks was created, but instead we should be focused on what is better for wikibooks's future. Additionally, lets stop arguing what definitions of words like "textbook" are and get on to something like "What do the Games and Computer Games Bookshelves offer to wikibooks and the wikibook community" and its opposite: "What is the disadvantage to having thse bookshelves on wikibooks"

From there, lets draft policy. --Dragontamer 11:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The blurred line, yet again
To my knowledge, "cookbook" style books are accepted here, correct? By cookbook, i mean stuff like if I were to start a book akin to the style of these:
 * Lisp Cookbook
 * perl cookbook
 * Linux Cookbook
 * C Cookbook
 * And of course, our (classic) Cookbook

And so forth, it is 100% inside policy (and if not, it should be). And yet, when I look at the Jokebook incident, the Jokebook truely was like one of these kind of "cookbook" style books (A book that is not how-to nor instructional, but really just a bunch of organized random ideas on a single subject). Not to raise old blood on the issue, but I think it is something that should be clarified that is not with the current policy. Using arguments from the Jokebook thing, a cookbook-style book is neither instructional (it doesn't tell you how to cook) nor does it tell you how to create your own recipies.

And some other ideas of some cookbook style books (to show how blurry the line really is):
 * RPG Damage Algorithm cookbook (includes algorithms from a multitude of games; from Maple Story, Pokemon and Dragon Warrior algorithms, to D&D and other paper/pencil RPGs)
 * Programming Gem cookbook (perl cookbook, etc. etc)
 * Collection of Exercizes, or workout routines.
 * Book of Magic Tricks
 * Common attacks across fighting Games (most fighting games for example have down-forward 'A' as a basic combo attack)
 * Book on Graphical User Interphase Design Patterns; Menu on the top, Tabs, how to use each effectivly.
 * An OOP "Design Patterns" book for programmers... Factory Design, etc. etc.
 * Common Phrases of a language
 * Book of known Proverbs ? <--- (imagine wikiquote didn't exist for this one for a sec) Arguably allows one to create opennings in essays or themes when writing. :-p
 * Video game ideas ? <--- would fail because of "No origonal works" probably, but still something IMO worth bringing up
 * Of course, the Jokebook ??

There is obviously a "line" somewhere, as the Jokebook was taken out while the Cookbook remains (whether or not I think it was a good idea is a non-issue; I wasn't active here at that time). I just want to bring up: Where is this line drawn? I can seriously find an argument on each one of these book ideas for why they should be allowed on Wikibooks with the current policy (stemming from allowing a cookbook to stay)

PS: This is not an issue of the Jokebook itself, just a much broader issue that I feel has been brought out by it. Nor do I think that all of those ideas should be allowed on wikibooks. (I dont think "Common attacks in Fighting games" should be allowed, for example) But I can find an argument for each one if I wanted to. (A book on Common Attacks is necessary for a video game designer because it gives what most video gamers see as the "standard", and thus you can create a better game by learning the "standard" from a Common Attacks reference book) We need to find a way to not allow anyone to just tag "cookbook" to the end of the title and claim it is within the bounds of policy. (Ex. The Joke Cookbook)

PPS: Somewhere down the line, a "Cookbook" turns into a "Dictionary". Maybe we should start there ?? --Dragontamer 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Irony: Fighting_Game_Moves. NO! I DID NOT START THIS IN ANY WAY!!!
 * I figure this is quite funny though :-/ Oy... back to the drawing board :( --Dragontamer 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider
Generally speaking the User pages have been allowed considerably more lattitude than most of the rest of Wikimedia pages, but there is one point I wanted to bring up:

Wikipedia has a specific clause in w:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that specifically governs the use of user pages as part of a soapbox as well. Specifically I'd like to add this policy to Wikibooks as well:

Wikibooks is not a free host or webspace provider
You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikibooks. If you are interested in using the wiki technology for a collaborative effort on something else, even if it is just a single page, there are many sites that provide wiki hosting (free or for money). You can also install wiki software on your server. (See the Wiki Science wikibook for information on doing this.) Wikibooks pages are not:


 * 1) Personal homepages. Wikibookians have their own personal pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on free textbooks and other content on Wikibooks. If you are looking to make a personal webpage unrelated to textbook work (e.g. posting your résumé), please make use of one of the many free homepage providers on the Internet.
 * 2) File storage areas. Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in textbook modules; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikibooks or any other Wikimedia project.

Anyway, what does the Wikibooks community think of this change? (feel free to make modification of the above section as necessary) I've seen a few user pages that have been abused already on Wikibooks, and this is more to CYA any attempt by an admin to cull out things that should have been deleted but were moved to the user pages instead to avoid deletion. --Rob Horning 03:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that we already had a similar policy on the books. maybe i was wrong. I agree with the text above, although i have no idea what the acronym "CYA" means. -- 04:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * CYA - Cover Your Ass(etts). Basically, if there is a formal dispute you can say "see here, I am just following policy".  By custom there has been almost no policing of the User space area at all, but perhaps that does need to change.  --Rob Horning 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what I think about the second point there. Why shouldn't I be able to upload an image to use on people's user pages? Or an image in a user page template? I don't necessarily know what to think of this second point. The first point seems okay, though. -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He makes a point. Even Jimbo has a self-portrait in his user page. We have to come to terms with the fact that the user pages are going to be used as autobiographical pages, with information that doesn't directly pertain to the wikibooks project. The user pages will have to be examined on a case-by case basis to determine if they violate the "wikibooks is not a free web host" policy. We should also come up with a policy for action that we can take if a user is abusing their user pages. Do we ban a helpful user who is abusing their user namespace? do we simply delete bad user pages outright? do we VfD? -- 15:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While this is just an update to existing policy, I think this wording is considerably more clear and direct. Generally, the policy of giving some huge lattitude to the users here on their "home page" is generally a good one.  One particular case I saw that promted me was with Business ideas that was subject to a VfD, but was moved to a sub-page of a user page instead.  I'm not trying to redo the VfD for this particular module, but in general I see this as a huge potential area for abuse and I would strongly discourage anybody else from doing something like this.  A "wikibook in progress" that is kept in the user space IMHO would be just fine.  All I'm asking is to give some "teeth" to this policy and hopefully explain what the difference between hosting bad content (like moving Jokebook to my private user space to avoid a VfD) and some development ideas for future use as a legitimate Wikibook.  --Rob Horning 18:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Eww, that could be a problem. How about as a general rule, user-pages should not be longer than xxx bytes long? then again... well, how about simply "Wikibooks user pages should not be used as a personal homepage??" Seems like a simple definition.--Dragontamer 22:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware that Wikipedia was banning images for use only on project or user pages instead of articles. I already knew that Commons in their criteria for inclusion allows such images.

If we want to require that all images for project and user pages be at Commons, perhaps we should put such a requirement in our Image use policy first before stating it in this page. --Kernigh 05:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not Wikipedia
There seems to be some confusion for some newcommers. I think this needs to be clarified. The rules and regulations at Wikipedia may be similar here, but not exactly the same as one here... I am not to apt with the rules over at Wikipedia, so maybe a list of major rule differences could help out. --Dragontamer 12:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Currently there are probably too many major differences in policy. (Have you seen my user page?) Our time would probably be better spent updating and initiating policy rather than pointing out differences at this point. Just my thoughts. -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We do have a Comparison of other Wiki projects page, however I would like to create a WikiNode page like Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiNode to compare the projects. As for policies, I was thinking of converting Policy into a summary of policies at various projects. --Kernigh 06:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And also Wikinode, please; moved from the en:Wikipedia. Sj 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not a seed for another wikisite
Wikibooks is for books and book-like materials. Some even argue that Wikbooks is only for textbooks that can be used in educational classes (even though that would easily wipe out half of the current wikibooks...) but all that aside, lets get this point clear: You should not be aiming to create a "sub-webpage" on wikibooks. Wikibooks is for books, not websites. --Dragontamer 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We do already have What is Wikibooks, which covers this pretty good already, although some clarification could happen. The section on Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider also does a pretty good job of covering the "free wiki hosting" problem as well.  Wikibooks should be for non-fiction books that don't mirror existing Wikimedia projects.  The rest of this page is mainly refining and giving specific examples of that concept.  What is too bad is that the foundation still doesn't have a seed wiki, dispite a call for such a project for the past several months.  It would have its own rules, but there is a need for a developer to be bold and start the project.  --Rob Horning 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I attempted an edit. If you only want to clarify policy, instead of changing policy, try editing the policy. --Kernigh 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New clause?
I would like to add something to basically say:


 * Wikibooks is not a list of random facts.

An exception would be in the case for an appendix to a current module. Any thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark) 20:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Research vs. Practical Knowledge (in how-to books)
Just curious how the NOR clause is applied to how-to books. For example, if I were to write a book on how to build greenwood fencing with a chainsaw and jute rope, I wouldn't be able to provide sources, except maybe give the name of the old man who taught me to do it. Similarly most of the garden techniques I plan to write about were passed on verbally and/or learned through the doing.

There seems to be a sort of academic bias in that rule. Is it meant to apply to everything? Seems to me that one of the best ways wikibooks can be used is to have them as a reserve of this kind of practical knowledge that doesn't necessarily exist in textbooks or journals. Is this really a sticky point? Johnny 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You might still be surprised at how many references you can come up with. I would agree that most How-to books are going to be practical implementation type books, like How to build a deck (one I've thought about trying to write myself).  Still, you can reference building codes, recommended safty precautions, and manufacturer websites about materials.  The same can be said about the above proposed Wikibook about Greenwood fencing, and reference any sort of fire retardant or other materials that can be used to help make the fence safer and may even be legally required if you build it.


 * You are not going to find a scholarly reference for every statement that you make in the writing of the book, but perhaps we should say something like every How-to book should be verifiable.


 * Keep in mind that the real reason (looking both ways to make sure I don't get shot doing this) for the No Original Research clause is to make sure we can keep off UFO and Perpetual Energy people off of Wikimedia projects. On the other hand, if you write a Wikibook called How to Build a Practical Time Machine, you had better make sure that the thing can work.  I would love to see some pictures for something like this.  (Yes, Mr. Titor is welcome to try.)  Perhaps verifiability is the real key here that we need to work with.  --Rob Horning 01:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting thought comes to mind then: practical knowledge, known by the doing, would then also be verifiable by the doing. A difference of theoria vs. praxis? (Aristotle would surely be thrilled). That would certainly make sense, as the users of these books are more likely to be out doing something than sitting in a library (though they might do that too, if google fails them).


 * I don't think it should be necessary to hunt down references just for the sake of having them. That's the beauty of wiki after all. For example, in the fence zoning question: I wouldn't know anything about that, because those sorts of regulations don't apply to farms, but someone else might know about them, and add it in. Johnny 10:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't necessarily rule out fence zoning for farms either. I know that there are fencing requirements in some rural areas, particularly along major highways and near wilderness areas... to keep livestock from damaging either automobilies or native animal sanctuaries respectively.  --Rob Horning 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this rule should be relaxed on Wikibooks. (Ditto the statement about 'not being a repository for non-fiction', which is very vague and occasionally used to attack any book the attacker does not like.) Sj 04:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a rule I try to apply in terms of a "stink test" to see if content is reasonable on Wikibooks: Can I edit the content with major revisions (subject to reasonable research and common sense), merging it with other similar content?  How upset would the author be if I substantially changed the whole order of things and even removed points that were more opinion rather than factual?


 * The arguments that are used to by the author to keep me from doing these sort of edits will also determine where outside of Wikibooks the content really belongs. If it is a historical text in public domain, it belongs on Wikisource.  If instead it is a lecture or a presentation of scholarly research, and they ask you to only do minor edits for proofreading but leave the structure and ideas alone, it would be considered original research, or perhaps an editorial.  The whole issue of editorials on Wikinews is something that still comes up from time to time, as it is a major feature for most media outlets, even though there are plenty of places to do that with blogs.  If instead the content is a narritive and offers completely made up characters (see Hud and Hel as an example), this is clearly fiction.  I have seen all of these types of content added to Wikibooks, with occasionally a surprising response from a contributor who wrote the text with an offer to substantially rework the content and make it into a real textbook instead.  If it is a bunch of text that is going to be reworked, putting NPOV or cleanup tags is a more reasonable thing to do.  Wikibooks editors are not really equiped to evaluate original research and needs a specialized group of individuals to see if it is a reasonable sort of research that should be presented.  And you open the Pandora's Box to paranormal and psuedoscience research as well.  Even opening up original research a crack is going to have to define what the next line is that should not be crossed.


 * BTW, the "not being a repository for non-fiction" was an invention of Jimbo, and I don't really understand or know what point he was trying to make here. Originally the statement was that Wikibooks was "for any kind of content that you would find in the non-fiction section of a bookstore".  Jimbo didn't like that statement thinking it was overly broad, notwithstanding the other exlusions like original research, NPOV, and not duplicating other Wikimedia projects.  Jimbo is trying to make this more oriented toward actual textbooks, and based on his pronouncements that seems to be the direction that Wikibooks is going toward.  Unfortunately that does kill some non-fiction content that otherwise would be fine to keep in Wikibooks.  Note the Jokebook and the current VfD to remove the last vestiage of that content from Wikibooks.  --Rob Horning 15:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well (waxing philosophical, political, and pragmatic again), while I really admire the ambition to use wikimedia to grow books to be used in actual classrooms, I have a skeaking suspicion that in most places where a computer is available in the classroom, there will also be politics and politicians working against their adoption. Things could change on that note, but I think it's more likely that someone would download a wikibook on how to insulate a house or grow a garden than to teach their children basic chemistry. Wikibooks as textbooks seems to me more an ideal we should try to approach than an immediate goal. I assume that wikibooks is not on a deadline?


 * The how-to books -- if well written and well supported (with as many writers editors as possible) -- could go a long way towards establishing the reliability of other projects here. Johnny 20:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of K-12 instructors accepting content from Wikibooks, it really helps if you can say the content meets formal standards, and if you can quote chapter and verse from the standards guidelines for a particular state, that would give you a huge leg up over other content from major commercial textbook publishers. Especially if you quote curriculum standards for small states like South Dakota, Arkansas, or Utah where major commercial publishers generally don't target specific guidelines and most teachers only make due as best as they can.  Writing a textbook for these markets would be a dream come true for many instructors.  Major markets like Florida and California are more likely to have a textbook written specifically for their state guidelines.  If you could get a Wikibook into even a handful of actual instructors in this manner, I think you would have a synergy effect with Wikibooks that would be incredible and you might see some real academic publishing of textbooks here.
 * On the other hand, I think you are perhaps right that at least in the short term you will find How-to books as the primary market that would be useful for Wikibooks, simply because most of these books require only practical knowledge to write and would have an audience that would be interested in reading them. Books like Blender 3D: Noob to Pro is a clear example of this, where the content is not only mirrored but has also been forked.  BTW it also deserves the Book of the Month status, and is IMHO one of the best books of its kind bar none, especially for using Blender.  There are several other Wikibooks that target MMORPG environments, and that is a natural experience where many of the potential consumers of that content would not only look at Wikibooks as a natural home, but it might even give credibility to the quality of the content.  There was a drive to remove content of this nature from Wikibooks, but I fail to see what policies it really is violating, and the motivation for creating new policies that would specifically exclude it.  As an example of content like this, see RuneScape --Rob Horning 09:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)